Scientists at Stanford University and the University of Pennsylvania have discovered a new antibiotic candidate in a surprising place: the human gut. 

In mice, the antibiotic — a peptide known as prevotellin-2 — showed antimicrobial potency on par with polymyxin B, an antibiotic medication used to treat multidrug-resistant infections. Meanwhile, the peptide mainly left commensal, or beneficial, bacteria alone. The study, published in Cell, also identified several other potent antibiotic peptides with the potential to combat antimicrobial-resistant infections.

The research is part of a larger quest to find new antibiotics that can fight drug-resistant infections, a critical public health threat with more than 2.8 million cases and 35,000 deaths annually in the United States. That quest is urgent, said study author César de la Fuente, PhD, professor of bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 

“The main pillars that have enabled us to almost double our lifespan in the last 100 years or so have been antibiotics, vaccines, and clean water,” said Dr. de la Fuente. “Imagine taking out one of those. I think it would be pretty dramatic.” (Dr. De la Fuente’s lab has become known for finding antibiotic candidates in unusual places, like ancient genetic information of Neanderthals and woolly mammoths.)  

The first widely used antibiotic, penicillin, was discovered in 1928, when a physician studying Staphylococcus bacteria returned to his lab after summer break to find mold growing in one of his petri dishes. But many other antibiotics — like streptomycin, tetracycline, and erythromycin — were discovered from soil bacteria, which produce variations of these substances to compete with other microorganisms. 

By looking in the gut microbiome, the researchers hoped to identify peptides that the trillions of microbes use against each other in the fight for limited resources — ideally, peptides that wouldn’t broadly kill off the entire microbiome. 
 

Kill the Bad, Spare the Good

Many traditional antibiotics are small molecules. This means they can wipe out the good bacteria in your body, and because each targets a specific bacterial function, bad bacteria can become resistant to them.

Peptide antibiotics, on the other hand, don’t diffuse into the whole body. If taken orally, they stay in the gut; if taken intravenously, they generally stay in the blood. And because of how they kill bacteria, targeting the membrane, they’re also less prone to bacterial resistance.

The microbiome is like a big reservoir of pathogens, said Ami Bhatt, MD, PhD, hematologist at Stanford University in California and one of the study’s authors. Because many antibiotics kill healthy gut bacteria, “what you have left over,” Dr. Bhatt said, “is this big open niche that gets filled up with multidrug-resistant organisms like E coli [Escherichia coli] or vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus.”

Dr. Bhatt has seen cancer patients undergo successful treatment only to die of a multidrug-resistant infection, because current antibiotics fail against those pathogens. “That’s like winning the battle to lose the war.”

By investigating the microbiome, “we wanted to see if we could identify antimicrobial peptides that might spare key members of our regular microbiome, so that we wouldn’t totally disrupt the microbiome the way we do when we use broad-spectrum, small molecule–based antibiotics,” Dr. Bhatt said.

The researchers used artificial intelligence to sift through 400,000 proteins to predict, based on known antibiotics, which peptide sequences might have antimicrobial properties. From the results, they chose 78 peptides to synthesize and test.

“The application of computational approaches combined with experimental validation is very powerful and exciting,” said Jennifer Geddes-McAlister, PhD, professor of cell biology at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, who was not involved in the study. “The study is robust in its approach to microbiome sampling.” 
 

The Long Journey from Lab to Clinic

More than half of the peptides the team tested effectively inhibited the growth of harmful bacteria, and prevotellin-2 (derived from the bacteria Prevotella copri)stood out as the most powerful.

“The study validates experimental data from the lab using animal models, which moves discoveries closer to the clinic,” said Dr. Geddes-McAlister. “Further testing with clinical trials is needed, but the potential for clinical application is promising.” 

Unfortunately, that’s not likely to happen anytime soon, said Dr. de la Fuente. “There is not enough economic incentive” for companies to develop new antibiotics. Ten years is his most hopeful guess for when we might see prevotellin-2, or a similar antibiotic, complete clinical trials.

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

Scientists at Stanford University and the University of Pennsylvania have discovered a new antibiotic candidate in a surprising place: the human gut. 

In mice, the antibiotic — a peptide known as prevotellin-2 — showed antimicrobial potency on par with polymyxin B, an antibiotic medication used to treat multidrug-resistant infections. Meanwhile, the peptide mainly left commensal, or beneficial, bacteria alone. The study, published in Cell, also identified several other potent antibiotic peptides with the potential to combat antimicrobial-resistant infections.

The research is part of a larger quest to find new antibiotics that can fight drug-resistant infections, a critical public health threat with more than 2.8 million cases and 35,000 deaths annually in the United States. That quest is urgent, said study author César de la Fuente, PhD, professor of bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 

“The main pillars that have enabled us to almost double our lifespan in the last 100 years or so have been antibiotics, vaccines, and clean water,” said Dr. de la Fuente. “Imagine taking out one of those. I think it would be pretty dramatic.” (Dr. De la Fuente’s lab has become known for finding antibiotic candidates in unusual places, like ancient genetic information of Neanderthals and woolly mammoths.)  

The first widely used antibiotic, penicillin, was discovered in 1928, when a physician studying Staphylococcus bacteria returned to his lab after summer break to find mold growing in one of his petri dishes. But many other antibiotics — like streptomycin, tetracycline, and erythromycin — were discovered from soil bacteria, which produce variations of these substances to compete with other microorganisms. 

By looking in the gut microbiome, the researchers hoped to identify peptides that the trillions of microbes use against each other in the fight for limited resources — ideally, peptides that wouldn’t broadly kill off the entire microbiome. 
 

Kill the Bad, Spare the Good

Many traditional antibiotics are small molecules. This means they can wipe out the good bacteria in your body, and because each targets a specific bacterial function, bad bacteria can become resistant to them.

Peptide antibiotics, on the other hand, don’t diffuse into the whole body. If taken orally, they stay in the gut; if taken intravenously, they generally stay in the blood. And because of how they kill bacteria, targeting the membrane, they’re also less prone to bacterial resistance.

The microbiome is like a big reservoir of pathogens, said Ami Bhatt, MD, PhD, hematologist at Stanford University in California and one of the study’s authors. Because many antibiotics kill healthy gut bacteria, “what you have left over,” Dr. Bhatt said, “is this big open niche that gets filled up with multidrug-resistant organisms like E coli [Escherichia coli] or vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus.”

Dr. Bhatt has seen cancer patients undergo successful treatment only to die of a multidrug-resistant infection, because current antibiotics fail against those pathogens. “That’s like winning the battle to lose the war.”

By investigating the microbiome, “we wanted to see if we could identify antimicrobial peptides that might spare key members of our regular microbiome, so that we wouldn’t totally disrupt the microbiome the way we do when we use broad-spectrum, small molecule–based antibiotics,” Dr. Bhatt said.

The researchers used artificial intelligence to sift through 400,000 proteins to predict, based on known antibiotics, which peptide sequences might have antimicrobial properties. From the results, they chose 78 peptides to synthesize and test.

“The application of computational approaches combined with experimental validation is very powerful and exciting,” said Jennifer Geddes-McAlister, PhD, professor of cell biology at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, who was not involved in the study. “The study is robust in its approach to microbiome sampling.” 
 

The Long Journey from Lab to Clinic

More than half of the peptides the team tested effectively inhibited the growth of harmful bacteria, and prevotellin-2 (derived from the bacteria Prevotella copri)stood out as the most powerful.

“The study validates experimental data from the lab using animal models, which moves discoveries closer to the clinic,” said Dr. Geddes-McAlister. “Further testing with clinical trials is needed, but the potential for clinical application is promising.” 

Unfortunately, that’s not likely to happen anytime soon, said Dr. de la Fuente. “There is not enough economic incentive” for companies to develop new antibiotics. Ten years is his most hopeful guess for when we might see prevotellin-2, or a similar antibiotic, complete clinical trials.

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

Scientists at Stanford University and the University of Pennsylvania have discovered a new antibiotic candidate in a surprising place: the human gut. 

In mice, the antibiotic — a peptide known as prevotellin-2 — showed antimicrobial potency on par with polymyxin B, an antibiotic medication used to treat multidrug-resistant infections. Meanwhile, the peptide mainly left commensal, or beneficial, bacteria alone. The study, published in Cell, also identified several other potent antibiotic peptides with the potential to combat antimicrobial-resistant infections.

The research is part of a larger quest to find new antibiotics that can fight drug-resistant infections, a critical public health threat with more than 2.8 million cases and 35,000 deaths annually in the United States. That quest is urgent, said study author César de la Fuente, PhD, professor of bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 

“The main pillars that have enabled us to almost double our lifespan in the last 100 years or so have been antibiotics, vaccines, and clean water,” said Dr. de la Fuente. “Imagine taking out one of those. I think it would be pretty dramatic.” (Dr. De la Fuente’s lab has become known for finding antibiotic candidates in unusual places, like ancient genetic information of Neanderthals and woolly mammoths.)  

The first widely used antibiotic, penicillin, was discovered in 1928, when a physician studying Staphylococcus bacteria returned to his lab after summer break to find mold growing in one of his petri dishes. But many other antibiotics — like streptomycin, tetracycline, and erythromycin — were discovered from soil bacteria, which produce variations of these substances to compete with other microorganisms. 

By looking in the gut microbiome, the researchers hoped to identify peptides that the trillions of microbes use against each other in the fight for limited resources — ideally, peptides that wouldn’t broadly kill off the entire microbiome. 
 

Kill the Bad, Spare the Good

Many traditional antibiotics are small molecules. This means they can wipe out the good bacteria in your body, and because each targets a specific bacterial function, bad bacteria can become resistant to them.

Peptide antibiotics, on the other hand, don’t diffuse into the whole body. If taken orally, they stay in the gut; if taken intravenously, they generally stay in the blood. And because of how they kill bacteria, targeting the membrane, they’re also less prone to bacterial resistance.

The microbiome is like a big reservoir of pathogens, said Ami Bhatt, MD, PhD, hematologist at Stanford University in California and one of the study’s authors. Because many antibiotics kill healthy gut bacteria, “what you have left over,” Dr. Bhatt said, “is this big open niche that gets filled up with multidrug-resistant organisms like E coli [Escherichia coli] or vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus.”

Dr. Bhatt has seen cancer patients undergo successful treatment only to die of a multidrug-resistant infection, because current antibiotics fail against those pathogens. “That’s like winning the battle to lose the war.”

By investigating the microbiome, “we wanted to see if we could identify antimicrobial peptides that might spare key members of our regular microbiome, so that we wouldn’t totally disrupt the microbiome the way we do when we use broad-spectrum, small molecule–based antibiotics,” Dr. Bhatt said.

The researchers used artificial intelligence to sift through 400,000 proteins to predict, based on known antibiotics, which peptide sequences might have antimicrobial properties. From the results, they chose 78 peptides to synthesize and test.

“The application of computational approaches combined with experimental validation is very powerful and exciting,” said Jennifer Geddes-McAlister, PhD, professor of cell biology at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, who was not involved in the study. “The study is robust in its approach to microbiome sampling.” 
 

The Long Journey from Lab to Clinic

More than half of the peptides the team tested effectively inhibited the growth of harmful bacteria, and prevotellin-2 (derived from the bacteria Prevotella copri)stood out as the most powerful.

“The study validates experimental data from the lab using animal models, which moves discoveries closer to the clinic,” said Dr. Geddes-McAlister. “Further testing with clinical trials is needed, but the potential for clinical application is promising.” 

Unfortunately, that’s not likely to happen anytime soon, said Dr. de la Fuente. “There is not enough economic incentive” for companies to develop new antibiotics. Ten years is his most hopeful guess for when we might see prevotellin-2, or a similar antibiotic, complete clinical trials.

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

Each year in the United States, approximately 1.7 million Americans are diagnosed with a potentially lethal malignancy. Typical therapies of choice include surgery, radiation, and occasionally, toxic chemotherapy (chemo) — approaches that eliminate the cancer in about 1,000,000 of these cases. The remaining 700,000 or so often proceed to chemotherapy either immediately or upon cancer recurrence, spread, or newly recognized metastases. “Cures” after that point are rare.

I’m speaking in generalities, understanding that each cancer and each patient is unique.
 

Chemotherapy

Chemotherapy alone can cure a small number of cancer types. When added to radiation or surgery, chemotherapy can help to cure a wider range of cancer types. As an add-on, chemotherapy can extend the length and quality of life for many patients with cancer. Since chemotherapy is by definition “toxic,” it can also shorten the duration or harm the quality of life and provide false hope. The Table summarizes what chemotherapy can and cannot achieve in selected cancer types.

• Lack of response (the tumor failed to shrink).
• Progression (the cancer may have grown or spread further).
• Adverse side effects were too severe to continue.

The drugs used in second-line chemo will typically be different from those used in first line, sometimes because cancer cells can develop resistance to chemotherapy drugs over time. Moreover, the goal of second-line chemo may differ from that of first-line therapy. Rather than chiefly aiming for a cure, second-line treatment might focus on slowing cancer growth, managing symptoms, or improving quality of life. Unfortunately, not every type of cancer has a readily available second-line option.

Third-line treatment. Third-line options come into play when both the initial course of chemo (first line) and the subsequent treatment (second line) have failed to achieve remission or control the cancer’s spread. Owing to the progressive nature of advanced cancers, patients might not be eligible or healthy enough for third-line therapy. Depending on cancer type, the patient’s general health, and response to previous treatments, third-line options could include:

• New or different chemotherapy drugs compared with prior lines.
• Surgery to debulk the tumor.
• Radiation for symptom control.
• Targeted therapy: drugs designed to target specific vulnerabilities in cancer cells.
• Immunotherapy: agents that help the body’s immune system fight cancer cells.
• Clinical trials testing new or investigational treatments, which may be applicable at any time, depending on the questions being addressed.

The goals of third-line therapy may shift from aiming for a cure to managing symptoms, improving quality of life, and potentially slowing cancer growth. The decision to pursue third-line therapy involves careful consideration by the doctor and patient, weighing the potential benefits and risks of treatment considering the individual’s overall health and specific situation.

It’s important to have realistic expectations about the potential outcomes of third-line therapy. Although remission may be unlikely, third-line therapy can still play a role in managing the disease.

Navigating advanced cancer treatment is very complex. The patient and physician must together consider detailed explanations and clarifications to set expectations and make informed decisions about care.
 

Interventions to Consider Earlier

In traditional clinical oncology practice, other interventions are possible, but these may not be offered until treatment has reached the third line:

• Molecular testing.
• Palliation.
• Clinical trials.
• Innovative testing to guide targeted therapy by ascertaining which agents are most likely (or not likely at all) to be effective.

I would argue that the patient’s interests are better served by considering and offering these other interventions much earlier, even before starting first-line chemotherapy.

Molecular testing. The best time for molecular testing of a new malignant tumor is typically at the time of diagnosis. Here’s why:

• Molecular testing helps identify specific genetic mutations in the cancer cells. This information can be crucial for selecting targeted therapies that are most effective against those specific mutations. Early detection allows for the most treatment options. For example, for non–small cell lung cancer, early is best because treatment and outcomes may well be changed by test results.
• Knowing the tumor’s molecular makeup can help determine whether a patient qualifies for clinical trials of new drugs designed for specific mutations.
• Some molecular markers can offer information about the tumor’s aggressiveness and potential for metastasis so that prognosis can be informed.

Molecular testing can be a valuable tool throughout a cancer patient’s journey. With genetically diverse tumors, the initial biopsy might not capture the full picture. Molecular testing of circulating tumor DNA can be used to monitor a patient’s response to treatment and detect potential mutations that might arise during treatment resistance. Retesting after metastasis can provide additional information that can aid in treatment decisions.

Palliative care. The ideal time to discuss palliative care with a patient with cancer is early in the diagnosis and treatment process. Palliative care is not the same as hospice care; it isn’t just about end-of-life. Palliative care focuses on improving a patient’s quality of life throughout cancer treatment. Palliative care specialists can address a wide range of symptoms a patient might experience from cancer or its treatment, including pain, fatigue, nausea, and anxiety.

Early discussions allow for a more comprehensive care plan. Open communication about all treatment options, including palliative care, empowers patients to make informed decisions about their care goals and preferences.

Specific situations where discussing palliative care might be appropriate are:

• Soon after a cancer diagnosis.
• If the patient experiences significant side effects from cancer treatment.
• When considering different treatment options, palliative care can complement those treatments.
• In advanced stages of cancer, to focus on comfort and quality of life.

Clinical trials. Participation in a clinical trial to explore new or investigational treatments should always be considered.

In theory, clinical trials should be an option at any time in the patient’s course. But the organized clinical trial experience may not be available or appropriate. Then, the individual becomes a de facto “clinical trial with an n of 1.” Read this brief open-access blog post at Cancer Commons to learn more about that circumstance.

Innovative testing. The best choice of chemotherapeutic or targeted therapies is often unclear. The clinician is likely to follow published guidelines, often from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

These are evidence based and driven by consensus of experts. But guideline-recommended therapy is not always effective, and weeks or months can pass before this ineffectiveness becomes apparent. Thus, many researchers and companies are seeking methods of testing each patient’s specific cancer to determine in advance, or very quickly, whether a particular drug is likely to be effective.

Read more about these leading innovations:

SAGE Oncotest: Entering the Next Generation of Tailored Cancer Treatment

Alibrex: A New Blood Test to Reveal Whether a Cancer Treatment is Working

PARIS Test Uses Lab-Grown Mini-Tumors to Find a Patient’s Best Treatment

Using Live Cells from Patients to Find the Right Cancer Drug

Other innovative therapies under investigation could even be agnostic to cancer type:

Treating Pancreatic Cancer: Could Metabolism — Not Genomics — Be the Key?

High-Energy Blue Light Powers a Promising New Treatment to Destroy Cancer Cells

All-Clear Follow-Up: Hydrogen Peroxide Appears to Treat Oral and Skin Lesions

Cancer is a tough nut to crack. Many people and organizations are trying very hard. So much is being learned. Some approaches will be effective. We can all hope.

Dr. Lundberg, editor in chief, Cancer Commons, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Each year in the United States, approximately 1.7 million Americans are diagnosed with a potentially lethal malignancy. Typical therapies of choice include surgery, radiation, and occasionally, toxic chemotherapy (chemo) — approaches that eliminate the cancer in about 1,000,000 of these cases. The remaining 700,000 or so often proceed to chemotherapy either immediately or upon cancer recurrence, spread, or newly recognized metastases. “Cures” after that point are rare.

I’m speaking in generalities, understanding that each cancer and each patient is unique.
 

Chemotherapy

Chemotherapy alone can cure a small number of cancer types. When added to radiation or surgery, chemotherapy can help to cure a wider range of cancer types. As an add-on, chemotherapy can extend the length and quality of life for many patients with cancer. Since chemotherapy is by definition “toxic,” it can also shorten the duration or harm the quality of life and provide false hope. The Table summarizes what chemotherapy can and cannot achieve in selected cancer types.

• Lack of response (the tumor failed to shrink).
• Progression (the cancer may have grown or spread further).
• Adverse side effects were too severe to continue.

The drugs used in second-line chemo will typically be different from those used in first line, sometimes because cancer cells can develop resistance to chemotherapy drugs over time. Moreover, the goal of second-line chemo may differ from that of first-line therapy. Rather than chiefly aiming for a cure, second-line treatment might focus on slowing cancer growth, managing symptoms, or improving quality of life. Unfortunately, not every type of cancer has a readily available second-line option.

Third-line treatment. Third-line options come into play when both the initial course of chemo (first line) and the subsequent treatment (second line) have failed to achieve remission or control the cancer’s spread. Owing to the progressive nature of advanced cancers, patients might not be eligible or healthy enough for third-line therapy. Depending on cancer type, the patient’s general health, and response to previous treatments, third-line options could include:

• New or different chemotherapy drugs compared with prior lines.
• Surgery to debulk the tumor.
• Radiation for symptom control.
• Targeted therapy: drugs designed to target specific vulnerabilities in cancer cells.
• Immunotherapy: agents that help the body’s immune system fight cancer cells.
• Clinical trials testing new or investigational treatments, which may be applicable at any time, depending on the questions being addressed.

The goals of third-line therapy may shift from aiming for a cure to managing symptoms, improving quality of life, and potentially slowing cancer growth. The decision to pursue third-line therapy involves careful consideration by the doctor and patient, weighing the potential benefits and risks of treatment considering the individual’s overall health and specific situation.

It’s important to have realistic expectations about the potential outcomes of third-line therapy. Although remission may be unlikely, third-line therapy can still play a role in managing the disease.

Navigating advanced cancer treatment is very complex. The patient and physician must together consider detailed explanations and clarifications to set expectations and make informed decisions about care.
 

Interventions to Consider Earlier

In traditional clinical oncology practice, other interventions are possible, but these may not be offered until treatment has reached the third line:

• Molecular testing.
• Palliation.
• Clinical trials.
• Innovative testing to guide targeted therapy by ascertaining which agents are most likely (or not likely at all) to be effective.

I would argue that the patient’s interests are better served by considering and offering these other interventions much earlier, even before starting first-line chemotherapy.

Molecular testing. The best time for molecular testing of a new malignant tumor is typically at the time of diagnosis. Here’s why:

• Molecular testing helps identify specific genetic mutations in the cancer cells. This information can be crucial for selecting targeted therapies that are most effective against those specific mutations. Early detection allows for the most treatment options. For example, for non–small cell lung cancer, early is best because treatment and outcomes may well be changed by test results.
• Knowing the tumor’s molecular makeup can help determine whether a patient qualifies for clinical trials of new drugs designed for specific mutations.
• Some molecular markers can offer information about the tumor’s aggressiveness and potential for metastasis so that prognosis can be informed.

Molecular testing can be a valuable tool throughout a cancer patient’s journey. With genetically diverse tumors, the initial biopsy might not capture the full picture. Molecular testing of circulating tumor DNA can be used to monitor a patient’s response to treatment and detect potential mutations that might arise during treatment resistance. Retesting after metastasis can provide additional information that can aid in treatment decisions.

Palliative care. The ideal time to discuss palliative care with a patient with cancer is early in the diagnosis and treatment process. Palliative care is not the same as hospice care; it isn’t just about end-of-life. Palliative care focuses on improving a patient’s quality of life throughout cancer treatment. Palliative care specialists can address a wide range of symptoms a patient might experience from cancer or its treatment, including pain, fatigue, nausea, and anxiety.

Early discussions allow for a more comprehensive care plan. Open communication about all treatment options, including palliative care, empowers patients to make informed decisions about their care goals and preferences.

Specific situations where discussing palliative care might be appropriate are:

• Soon after a cancer diagnosis.
• If the patient experiences significant side effects from cancer treatment.
• When considering different treatment options, palliative care can complement those treatments.
• In advanced stages of cancer, to focus on comfort and quality of life.

Clinical trials. Participation in a clinical trial to explore new or investigational treatments should always be considered.

In theory, clinical trials should be an option at any time in the patient’s course. But the organized clinical trial experience may not be available or appropriate. Then, the individual becomes a de facto “clinical trial with an n of 1.” Read this brief open-access blog post at Cancer Commons to learn more about that circumstance.

Innovative testing. The best choice of chemotherapeutic or targeted therapies is often unclear. The clinician is likely to follow published guidelines, often from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

These are evidence based and driven by consensus of experts. But guideline-recommended therapy is not always effective, and weeks or months can pass before this ineffectiveness becomes apparent. Thus, many researchers and companies are seeking methods of testing each patient’s specific cancer to determine in advance, or very quickly, whether a particular drug is likely to be effective.

Read more about these leading innovations:

SAGE Oncotest: Entering the Next Generation of Tailored Cancer Treatment

Alibrex: A New Blood Test to Reveal Whether a Cancer Treatment is Working

PARIS Test Uses Lab-Grown Mini-Tumors to Find a Patient’s Best Treatment

Using Live Cells from Patients to Find the Right Cancer Drug

Other innovative therapies under investigation could even be agnostic to cancer type:

Treating Pancreatic Cancer: Could Metabolism — Not Genomics — Be the Key?

High-Energy Blue Light Powers a Promising New Treatment to Destroy Cancer Cells

All-Clear Follow-Up: Hydrogen Peroxide Appears to Treat Oral and Skin Lesions

Cancer is a tough nut to crack. Many people and organizations are trying very hard. So much is being learned. Some approaches will be effective. We can all hope.

Dr. Lundberg, editor in chief, Cancer Commons, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Each year in the United States, approximately 1.7 million Americans are diagnosed with a potentially lethal malignancy. Typical therapies of choice include surgery, radiation, and occasionally, toxic chemotherapy (chemo) — approaches that eliminate the cancer in about 1,000,000 of these cases. The remaining 700,000 or so often proceed to chemotherapy either immediately or upon cancer recurrence, spread, or newly recognized metastases. “Cures” after that point are rare.

I’m speaking in generalities, understanding that each cancer and each patient is unique.
 

Chemotherapy

Chemotherapy alone can cure a small number of cancer types. When added to radiation or surgery, chemotherapy can help to cure a wider range of cancer types. As an add-on, chemotherapy can extend the length and quality of life for many patients with cancer. Since chemotherapy is by definition “toxic,” it can also shorten the duration or harm the quality of life and provide false hope. The Table summarizes what chemotherapy can and cannot achieve in selected cancer types.

• Lack of response (the tumor failed to shrink).
• Progression (the cancer may have grown or spread further).
• Adverse side effects were too severe to continue.

The drugs used in second-line chemo will typically be different from those used in first line, sometimes because cancer cells can develop resistance to chemotherapy drugs over time. Moreover, the goal of second-line chemo may differ from that of first-line therapy. Rather than chiefly aiming for a cure, second-line treatment might focus on slowing cancer growth, managing symptoms, or improving quality of life. Unfortunately, not every type of cancer has a readily available second-line option.

Third-line treatment. Third-line options come into play when both the initial course of chemo (first line) and the subsequent treatment (second line) have failed to achieve remission or control the cancer’s spread. Owing to the progressive nature of advanced cancers, patients might not be eligible or healthy enough for third-line therapy. Depending on cancer type, the patient’s general health, and response to previous treatments, third-line options could include:

• New or different chemotherapy drugs compared with prior lines.
• Surgery to debulk the tumor.
• Radiation for symptom control.
• Targeted therapy: drugs designed to target specific vulnerabilities in cancer cells.
• Immunotherapy: agents that help the body’s immune system fight cancer cells.
• Clinical trials testing new or investigational treatments, which may be applicable at any time, depending on the questions being addressed.

The goals of third-line therapy may shift from aiming for a cure to managing symptoms, improving quality of life, and potentially slowing cancer growth. The decision to pursue third-line therapy involves careful consideration by the doctor and patient, weighing the potential benefits and risks of treatment considering the individual’s overall health and specific situation.

It’s important to have realistic expectations about the potential outcomes of third-line therapy. Although remission may be unlikely, third-line therapy can still play a role in managing the disease.

Navigating advanced cancer treatment is very complex. The patient and physician must together consider detailed explanations and clarifications to set expectations and make informed decisions about care.
 

Interventions to Consider Earlier

In traditional clinical oncology practice, other interventions are possible, but these may not be offered until treatment has reached the third line:

• Molecular testing.
• Palliation.
• Clinical trials.
• Innovative testing to guide targeted therapy by ascertaining which agents are most likely (or not likely at all) to be effective.

I would argue that the patient’s interests are better served by considering and offering these other interventions much earlier, even before starting first-line chemotherapy.

Molecular testing. The best time for molecular testing of a new malignant tumor is typically at the time of diagnosis. Here’s why:

• Molecular testing helps identify specific genetic mutations in the cancer cells. This information can be crucial for selecting targeted therapies that are most effective against those specific mutations. Early detection allows for the most treatment options. For example, for non–small cell lung cancer, early is best because treatment and outcomes may well be changed by test results.
• Knowing the tumor’s molecular makeup can help determine whether a patient qualifies for clinical trials of new drugs designed for specific mutations.
• Some molecular markers can offer information about the tumor’s aggressiveness and potential for metastasis so that prognosis can be informed.

Molecular testing can be a valuable tool throughout a cancer patient’s journey. With genetically diverse tumors, the initial biopsy might not capture the full picture. Molecular testing of circulating tumor DNA can be used to monitor a patient’s response to treatment and detect potential mutations that might arise during treatment resistance. Retesting after metastasis can provide additional information that can aid in treatment decisions.

Palliative care. The ideal time to discuss palliative care with a patient with cancer is early in the diagnosis and treatment process. Palliative care is not the same as hospice care; it isn’t just about end-of-life. Palliative care focuses on improving a patient’s quality of life throughout cancer treatment. Palliative care specialists can address a wide range of symptoms a patient might experience from cancer or its treatment, including pain, fatigue, nausea, and anxiety.

Early discussions allow for a more comprehensive care plan. Open communication about all treatment options, including palliative care, empowers patients to make informed decisions about their care goals and preferences.

Specific situations where discussing palliative care might be appropriate are:

• Soon after a cancer diagnosis.
• If the patient experiences significant side effects from cancer treatment.
• When considering different treatment options, palliative care can complement those treatments.
• In advanced stages of cancer, to focus on comfort and quality of life.

Clinical trials. Participation in a clinical trial to explore new or investigational treatments should always be considered.

In theory, clinical trials should be an option at any time in the patient’s course. But the organized clinical trial experience may not be available or appropriate. Then, the individual becomes a de facto “clinical trial with an n of 1.” Read this brief open-access blog post at Cancer Commons to learn more about that circumstance.

Innovative testing. The best choice of chemotherapeutic or targeted therapies is often unclear. The clinician is likely to follow published guidelines, often from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

These are evidence based and driven by consensus of experts. But guideline-recommended therapy is not always effective, and weeks or months can pass before this ineffectiveness becomes apparent. Thus, many researchers and companies are seeking methods of testing each patient’s specific cancer to determine in advance, or very quickly, whether a particular drug is likely to be effective.

Read more about these leading innovations:

SAGE Oncotest: Entering the Next Generation of Tailored Cancer Treatment

Alibrex: A New Blood Test to Reveal Whether a Cancer Treatment is Working

PARIS Test Uses Lab-Grown Mini-Tumors to Find a Patient’s Best Treatment

Using Live Cells from Patients to Find the Right Cancer Drug

Other innovative therapies under investigation could even be agnostic to cancer type:

Treating Pancreatic Cancer: Could Metabolism — Not Genomics — Be the Key?

High-Energy Blue Light Powers a Promising New Treatment to Destroy Cancer Cells

All-Clear Follow-Up: Hydrogen Peroxide Appears to Treat Oral and Skin Lesions

Cancer is a tough nut to crack. Many people and organizations are trying very hard. So much is being learned. Some approaches will be effective. We can all hope.

Dr. Lundberg, editor in chief, Cancer Commons, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New research adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting that COVID-19 infection can be hard on mental health. 

The UK study of more than 18 million adults showed an elevated rate of mental illness, including depression and serious mental illness, for up to a year following a bout of COVID-19, particularly in those with severe COVID who had not been vaccinated. 

Importantly, vaccination appeared to mitigate the adverse effects of COVID-19 on mental health, the investigators found. 

“Our results highlight the importance COVID-19 vaccination in the general population and particularly among those with mental illnesses, who may be at higher risk of both SARS-CoV-2 infection and adverse outcomes following COVID-19,” first author Venexia Walker, PhD, with University of Bristol, United Kingdom, said in a news release. 

The study was published online on August 21 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Novel Data

“Before this study, a number of papers had looked at associations of COVID diagnosis with mental ill health, and broadly speaking, they had reported associations of different magnitudes,” study author Jonathan A. C. Sterne, PhD, with University of Bristol, noted in a journal podcast. 

“Some studies were restricted to patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19 and some not and the duration of follow-up varied. And importantly, the nature of COVID-19 changed profoundly as vaccination became available and there was little data on the impact of vaccination on associations of COVID-19 with subsequent mental ill health,” Dr. Sterne said. 

The UK study was conducted in three cohorts — a cohort of about 18.6 million people who were diagnosed with COVID-19 before a vaccine was available, a cohort of about 14 million adults who were vaccinated, and a cohort of about 3.2 million people who were unvaccinated.

The researchers compared rates of various mental illnesses after COVID-19 with rates before or without COVID-19 and by vaccination status.

Across all cohorts, rates of most mental illnesses examined were “markedly elevated” during the first month following a COVID-19 diagnosis compared with rates before or without COVID-19.

For example, the adjusted hazard ratios for depression (the most common illness) and serious mental illness in the month after COVID-19 were 1.93 and 1.49, respectively, in the prevaccination cohort and 1.79 and 1.45, respectively, in the unvaccinated cohort compared with 1.16 and 0.91 in the vaccinated cohort.

This elevation in the rate of mental illnesses was mainly seen after severe COVID-19 that led to hospitalization and remained higher for up to a year following severe COVID-19 in unvaccinated adults.

For severe COVID-19 with hospitalization, the adjusted hazard ratio for depression in the month following admission was 16.3 in the prevaccine cohort, 15.6 in the unvaccinated cohort, and 12.9 in the vaccinated cohort.

The adjusted hazard ratios for serious mental illness in the month after COVID hospitalization was 9.71 in the prevaccine cohort, 8.75 with no vaccination, and 6.52 with vaccination. 

“Incidences of other mental illnesses were broadly similar to those of depression and serious mental illness, both overall and for COVID-19 with and without hospitalization,” the authors report in their paper.

Consistent with prior research, subgroup analyzes found the association of COVID-19 and mental illness was stronger among older adults and men, with no marked differences by ethnic group.

“We should be concerned about continuing consequences in people who experienced severe COVID-19 early in the pandemic, and they may include a continuing higher incidence of mental ill health, such as depression and serious mental illness,” Dr. Sterne said in the podcast. 

In terms of ongoing booster vaccinations, “people who are advised that they are under vaccinated or recommended for further COVID-19 vaccination, should take those invitations seriously, because by preventing severe COVID-19, which is what vaccination does, you can prevent consequences such as mental illness,” Dr. Sterne added. 

The study was supported by the COVID-19 Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing National Core Study, which is funded by the Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health and Care Research. The authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

New research adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting that COVID-19 infection can be hard on mental health. 

The UK study of more than 18 million adults showed an elevated rate of mental illness, including depression and serious mental illness, for up to a year following a bout of COVID-19, particularly in those with severe COVID who had not been vaccinated. 

Importantly, vaccination appeared to mitigate the adverse effects of COVID-19 on mental health, the investigators found. 

“Our results highlight the importance COVID-19 vaccination in the general population and particularly among those with mental illnesses, who may be at higher risk of both SARS-CoV-2 infection and adverse outcomes following COVID-19,” first author Venexia Walker, PhD, with University of Bristol, United Kingdom, said in a news release. 

The study was published online on August 21 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Novel Data

“Before this study, a number of papers had looked at associations of COVID diagnosis with mental ill health, and broadly speaking, they had reported associations of different magnitudes,” study author Jonathan A. C. Sterne, PhD, with University of Bristol, noted in a journal podcast. 

“Some studies were restricted to patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19 and some not and the duration of follow-up varied. And importantly, the nature of COVID-19 changed profoundly as vaccination became available and there was little data on the impact of vaccination on associations of COVID-19 with subsequent mental ill health,” Dr. Sterne said. 

The UK study was conducted in three cohorts — a cohort of about 18.6 million people who were diagnosed with COVID-19 before a vaccine was available, a cohort of about 14 million adults who were vaccinated, and a cohort of about 3.2 million people who were unvaccinated.

The researchers compared rates of various mental illnesses after COVID-19 with rates before or without COVID-19 and by vaccination status.

Across all cohorts, rates of most mental illnesses examined were “markedly elevated” during the first month following a COVID-19 diagnosis compared with rates before or without COVID-19.

For example, the adjusted hazard ratios for depression (the most common illness) and serious mental illness in the month after COVID-19 were 1.93 and 1.49, respectively, in the prevaccination cohort and 1.79 and 1.45, respectively, in the unvaccinated cohort compared with 1.16 and 0.91 in the vaccinated cohort.

This elevation in the rate of mental illnesses was mainly seen after severe COVID-19 that led to hospitalization and remained higher for up to a year following severe COVID-19 in unvaccinated adults.

For severe COVID-19 with hospitalization, the adjusted hazard ratio for depression in the month following admission was 16.3 in the prevaccine cohort, 15.6 in the unvaccinated cohort, and 12.9 in the vaccinated cohort.

The adjusted hazard ratios for serious mental illness in the month after COVID hospitalization was 9.71 in the prevaccine cohort, 8.75 with no vaccination, and 6.52 with vaccination. 

“Incidences of other mental illnesses were broadly similar to those of depression and serious mental illness, both overall and for COVID-19 with and without hospitalization,” the authors report in their paper.

Consistent with prior research, subgroup analyzes found the association of COVID-19 and mental illness was stronger among older adults and men, with no marked differences by ethnic group.

“We should be concerned about continuing consequences in people who experienced severe COVID-19 early in the pandemic, and they may include a continuing higher incidence of mental ill health, such as depression and serious mental illness,” Dr. Sterne said in the podcast. 

In terms of ongoing booster vaccinations, “people who are advised that they are under vaccinated or recommended for further COVID-19 vaccination, should take those invitations seriously, because by preventing severe COVID-19, which is what vaccination does, you can prevent consequences such as mental illness,” Dr. Sterne added. 

The study was supported by the COVID-19 Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing National Core Study, which is funded by the Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health and Care Research. The authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

New research adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting that COVID-19 infection can be hard on mental health. 

The UK study of more than 18 million adults showed an elevated rate of mental illness, including depression and serious mental illness, for up to a year following a bout of COVID-19, particularly in those with severe COVID who had not been vaccinated. 

Importantly, vaccination appeared to mitigate the adverse effects of COVID-19 on mental health, the investigators found. 

“Our results highlight the importance COVID-19 vaccination in the general population and particularly among those with mental illnesses, who may be at higher risk of both SARS-CoV-2 infection and adverse outcomes following COVID-19,” first author Venexia Walker, PhD, with University of Bristol, United Kingdom, said in a news release. 

The study was published online on August 21 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Novel Data

“Before this study, a number of papers had looked at associations of COVID diagnosis with mental ill health, and broadly speaking, they had reported associations of different magnitudes,” study author Jonathan A. C. Sterne, PhD, with University of Bristol, noted in a journal podcast. 

“Some studies were restricted to patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19 and some not and the duration of follow-up varied. And importantly, the nature of COVID-19 changed profoundly as vaccination became available and there was little data on the impact of vaccination on associations of COVID-19 with subsequent mental ill health,” Dr. Sterne said. 

The UK study was conducted in three cohorts — a cohort of about 18.6 million people who were diagnosed with COVID-19 before a vaccine was available, a cohort of about 14 million adults who were vaccinated, and a cohort of about 3.2 million people who were unvaccinated.

The researchers compared rates of various mental illnesses after COVID-19 with rates before or without COVID-19 and by vaccination status.

Across all cohorts, rates of most mental illnesses examined were “markedly elevated” during the first month following a COVID-19 diagnosis compared with rates before or without COVID-19.

For example, the adjusted hazard ratios for depression (the most common illness) and serious mental illness in the month after COVID-19 were 1.93 and 1.49, respectively, in the prevaccination cohort and 1.79 and 1.45, respectively, in the unvaccinated cohort compared with 1.16 and 0.91 in the vaccinated cohort.

This elevation in the rate of mental illnesses was mainly seen after severe COVID-19 that led to hospitalization and remained higher for up to a year following severe COVID-19 in unvaccinated adults.

For severe COVID-19 with hospitalization, the adjusted hazard ratio for depression in the month following admission was 16.3 in the prevaccine cohort, 15.6 in the unvaccinated cohort, and 12.9 in the vaccinated cohort.

The adjusted hazard ratios for serious mental illness in the month after COVID hospitalization was 9.71 in the prevaccine cohort, 8.75 with no vaccination, and 6.52 with vaccination. 

“Incidences of other mental illnesses were broadly similar to those of depression and serious mental illness, both overall and for COVID-19 with and without hospitalization,” the authors report in their paper.

Consistent with prior research, subgroup analyzes found the association of COVID-19 and mental illness was stronger among older adults and men, with no marked differences by ethnic group.

“We should be concerned about continuing consequences in people who experienced severe COVID-19 early in the pandemic, and they may include a continuing higher incidence of mental ill health, such as depression and serious mental illness,” Dr. Sterne said in the podcast. 

In terms of ongoing booster vaccinations, “people who are advised that they are under vaccinated or recommended for further COVID-19 vaccination, should take those invitations seriously, because by preventing severe COVID-19, which is what vaccination does, you can prevent consequences such as mental illness,” Dr. Sterne added. 

The study was supported by the COVID-19 Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing National Core Study, which is funded by the Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health and Care Research. The authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

“Moon face” is a term that’s become popular on social media, used to describe people with unusually round faces who are purported to have high levels of cortisol. But the term “moon face” isn’t new. It was actually coined in the 1930s by neurosurgeon Harvey Cushing, MD, who identified patients with a constellation of clinical characteristics — a condition that came to bear his name — which included rapidly developing facial adiposity. And indeed, elevated cortisol is a hallmark feature of Cushing syndrome (CS), but there are other reasons for elevated cortisol and other manifestations of CS.

Today, the term “moon face” has been replaced with “round face,” which is considered more encompassing and culturally sensitive, said Maria Fleseriu, MD, professor of medicine and neurological surgery and director of the Pituitary Center at Oregon Health and Science University in Portland, Oregon.

Facial roundness can lead clinicians to be suspicious that their patient is experiencing CS. But because a round face is associated with several other conditions, it’s important to be familiar with its particular presentation in CS, as well as how to diagnose and treat CS.
 

Pathophysiology of CS

Dr. Fleseriu defined CS as “prolonged nonphysiologic increase in cortisol, due either to exogenous use of steroids (oral, topical, or inhaled) or to excess endogenous cortisol production.” She added that it’s important “to always exclude exogenous causes before conducting a further workup to determine the type and cause of cortisol excess.”

Cushing disease is an endogenous form of CS caused by a corticotroph adenoma of the pituitary gland. Cushing disease is rare, with only two to three cases per million annually, Dr. Fleseriu said. Other causes of CS are ectopic (caused by neuroendocrine tumors) or adrenal. CS affects primarily females and typically has an onset between ages 20 and 50 years, depending on the CS type.

Diagnosis of CS is “substantially delayed for most patients, due to metabolic syndrome phenotypic overlap and lack of a single pathognomonic symptom,” according to Dr. Fleseriu.

An accurate diagnosis should be on the basis of signs and symptoms, biochemical screening, other laboratory testing, and diagnostic imaging.
 

Look for Clinical Signs and Symptoms of CS

“CS mostly presents as a combination of two or more features,” Dr. Fleseriu stated. These include increased fat pads (in the face, neck, and trunk), skin changes, signs of protein catabolism, growth retardation and body weight increase in children, and metabolic dysregulations (Table).

• Late-night salivary cortisol (LNSC) to assess an abnormal circadian rhythm

According to the 2021 guideline, this is “based on the assumption that patients with CS lose the normal circadian nadir of cortisol secretion.”

• Overnight 1-mg dexamethasone suppression test (DST) to assess impaired glucocorticoid feedback

The authors noted that in healthy individuals, a supraphysiologic dexamethasone dose inhibits vasopressin and adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) secretion, leading to decreased cortisol concentration. Cortisol concentrations of < 1-8 μg/dL in the morning (after administration of the dexamethasone between 11 p.m. and midnight) are considered “normal,” and a negative result “strongly predicts” the absence of CS. But false-positive and false-negative results can occur. Thus, “it is imperative that first-line testing is elected on the basis of physiologic conditions and drug intake — for example, use of CYP2A4/5 inhibitors or stimulators and oral estrogen — as well as laboratory quality control measure, and special attention to night shift workers,” Dr. Fleseriu emphasized.

• A 24-hour urinary free cortisol (UFC) test to assess increased bioavailable cortisol

The guideline encourages conducting several 24-hour urine collections to account for intra-patient variability.

Dr. Fleseriu recommended utilizing at least two of the three screening tests, all of which have reasonable sensitivity and specificity.

“Two normal test results usually exclude the presence of CS, except in rare cyclic CS,” she added.
 

Conduct Additional Laboratory Testing

Additional laboratory abnormalities suggestive of CS include:

• Increased leukocytes with decreased lymphocytes, eosinophils, monocytes, and basophils
• Elevated glucose and insulin levels
• Hypokalemia
• Increased triglycerides and total cholesterol levels
• Elevated liver enzymes
• Changes in activated thromboplastin time and plasma concentrations of pro- and anticoagulant factors
• Hypercalciuria, hypocalcemia (rare), hypophosphatemia, decreased phosphate maximum resorption, and increased alkaline phosphatase activity

Dr. Fleseriu noted that, in most cases, a final CS diagnosis can be reached after confirmation of biochemical hypercortisolism, which is done after an initial positive screening test.

She added that plasma ACTH levels are “instrumental” in distinguishing ACTH-depending forms of CS — such as Cushing disease and ectopic CS — from adrenal cases. Bilateral inferior petrosal sinus sampling is necessary in ACTH-dependent CS.
 

Utilize Diagnostic Imaging

There are several diagnostic imaging techniques that localize the origin of the hypercortisolism, thus informing the course of treatment.

• Pituitary MRI to detect corticotropin-secreting corticotroph adenomas, which are typically small lesions (< 6 mm in diameter)
• CT evaluation of the neck, thoracic cavity, and abdomen to diagnose ectopic CS, including lung neuroendocrine tumors and bronchial neuroendocrine tumors
• Cervical and thyroid ultrasonography to identify primary or metastatic medullary thyroid carcinoma, and PET scans, which have greater sensitivity in detecting tumors, compared with CT scans
• Contrast-enhanced CT scans to detect adrenal adenomas and adrenocortical carcinomas

Management of CS

“The primary aim of treatment is eucortisolemia, and in those with endogenous CS, complete surgical resection of the underlying tumor is the primary method,” Dr. Fleseriu said.

It’s critical to monitor for biochemical remission following surgery, utilizing 24-hour UFC, LNSC, and DST “because clinical manifestations may lag behind biochemical evidence.”

In Cushing disease, almost half of patients will have either persistent or recurrent hypercortisolemia after surgery. In those cases, individualized adjuvant treatments are recommended. These include repeat surgery, bilateral adrenalectomy, radiation, or medical treatments, including pituitary-directed drugs, adrenal steroidogenesis inhibitors, or glucocorticoid receptor-blocking agents. The last two groups are used for other types of CS.

Dr. Fleseriu pointed out that CS is “associated with increased metabolic, cardiovascular, psychiatric, infectious, and musculoskeletal morbidity, which are only partially reversible with successful [CS] treatment.” These comorbidities need to be addressed via individualized therapies. Moreover, long-term mortality is increased in all forms of CS. Thus, patients require lifelong follow-up to detect recurrence at an early stage and to treat comorbidities.

“It is likely that delayed diagnosis might explain the long-term consequences of CS, including increased morbidity and mortality despite remission,” she said.

Familiarity with the presenting signs and symptoms of CS and ordering recommended screening and confirmatory tests will enable appropriate management of the condition, leading to better outcomes.

Dr. Fleseriu reported receiving research grants from Sparrow Pharmaceuticals to Oregon Health and Science University as principal investigator and receiving occasional fees for scientific consulting/advisory boards from Sparrow Pharmaceuticals, Recordati Rare Diseases Inc., and Xeris Biopharma Holdings Inc.
 

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

“Moon face” is a term that’s become popular on social media, used to describe people with unusually round faces who are purported to have high levels of cortisol. But the term “moon face” isn’t new. It was actually coined in the 1930s by neurosurgeon Harvey Cushing, MD, who identified patients with a constellation of clinical characteristics — a condition that came to bear his name — which included rapidly developing facial adiposity. And indeed, elevated cortisol is a hallmark feature of Cushing syndrome (CS), but there are other reasons for elevated cortisol and other manifestations of CS.

Today, the term “moon face” has been replaced with “round face,” which is considered more encompassing and culturally sensitive, said Maria Fleseriu, MD, professor of medicine and neurological surgery and director of the Pituitary Center at Oregon Health and Science University in Portland, Oregon.

Facial roundness can lead clinicians to be suspicious that their patient is experiencing CS. But because a round face is associated with several other conditions, it’s important to be familiar with its particular presentation in CS, as well as how to diagnose and treat CS.
 

Pathophysiology of CS

Dr. Fleseriu defined CS as “prolonged nonphysiologic increase in cortisol, due either to exogenous use of steroids (oral, topical, or inhaled) or to excess endogenous cortisol production.” She added that it’s important “to always exclude exogenous causes before conducting a further workup to determine the type and cause of cortisol excess.”

Cushing disease is an endogenous form of CS caused by a corticotroph adenoma of the pituitary gland. Cushing disease is rare, with only two to three cases per million annually, Dr. Fleseriu said. Other causes of CS are ectopic (caused by neuroendocrine tumors) or adrenal. CS affects primarily females and typically has an onset between ages 20 and 50 years, depending on the CS type.

Diagnosis of CS is “substantially delayed for most patients, due to metabolic syndrome phenotypic overlap and lack of a single pathognomonic symptom,” according to Dr. Fleseriu.

An accurate diagnosis should be on the basis of signs and symptoms, biochemical screening, other laboratory testing, and diagnostic imaging.
 

Look for Clinical Signs and Symptoms of CS

“CS mostly presents as a combination of two or more features,” Dr. Fleseriu stated. These include increased fat pads (in the face, neck, and trunk), skin changes, signs of protein catabolism, growth retardation and body weight increase in children, and metabolic dysregulations (Table).

• Late-night salivary cortisol (LNSC) to assess an abnormal circadian rhythm

According to the 2021 guideline, this is “based on the assumption that patients with CS lose the normal circadian nadir of cortisol secretion.”

• Overnight 1-mg dexamethasone suppression test (DST) to assess impaired glucocorticoid feedback

The authors noted that in healthy individuals, a supraphysiologic dexamethasone dose inhibits vasopressin and adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) secretion, leading to decreased cortisol concentration. Cortisol concentrations of < 1-8 μg/dL in the morning (after administration of the dexamethasone between 11 p.m. and midnight) are considered “normal,” and a negative result “strongly predicts” the absence of CS. But false-positive and false-negative results can occur. Thus, “it is imperative that first-line testing is elected on the basis of physiologic conditions and drug intake — for example, use of CYP2A4/5 inhibitors or stimulators and oral estrogen — as well as laboratory quality control measure, and special attention to night shift workers,” Dr. Fleseriu emphasized.

• A 24-hour urinary free cortisol (UFC) test to assess increased bioavailable cortisol

The guideline encourages conducting several 24-hour urine collections to account for intra-patient variability.

Dr. Fleseriu recommended utilizing at least two of the three screening tests, all of which have reasonable sensitivity and specificity.

“Two normal test results usually exclude the presence of CS, except in rare cyclic CS,” she added.
 

Conduct Additional Laboratory Testing

Additional laboratory abnormalities suggestive of CS include:

• Increased leukocytes with decreased lymphocytes, eosinophils, monocytes, and basophils
• Elevated glucose and insulin levels
• Hypokalemia
• Increased triglycerides and total cholesterol levels
• Elevated liver enzymes
• Changes in activated thromboplastin time and plasma concentrations of pro- and anticoagulant factors
• Hypercalciuria, hypocalcemia (rare), hypophosphatemia, decreased phosphate maximum resorption, and increased alkaline phosphatase activity

Dr. Fleseriu noted that, in most cases, a final CS diagnosis can be reached after confirmation of biochemical hypercortisolism, which is done after an initial positive screening test.

She added that plasma ACTH levels are “instrumental” in distinguishing ACTH-depending forms of CS — such as Cushing disease and ectopic CS — from adrenal cases. Bilateral inferior petrosal sinus sampling is necessary in ACTH-dependent CS.
 

Utilize Diagnostic Imaging

There are several diagnostic imaging techniques that localize the origin of the hypercortisolism, thus informing the course of treatment.

• Pituitary MRI to detect corticotropin-secreting corticotroph adenomas, which are typically small lesions (< 6 mm in diameter)
• CT evaluation of the neck, thoracic cavity, and abdomen to diagnose ectopic CS, including lung neuroendocrine tumors and bronchial neuroendocrine tumors
• Cervical and thyroid ultrasonography to identify primary or metastatic medullary thyroid carcinoma, and PET scans, which have greater sensitivity in detecting tumors, compared with CT scans
• Contrast-enhanced CT scans to detect adrenal adenomas and adrenocortical carcinomas

Management of CS

“The primary aim of treatment is eucortisolemia, and in those with endogenous CS, complete surgical resection of the underlying tumor is the primary method,” Dr. Fleseriu said.

It’s critical to monitor for biochemical remission following surgery, utilizing 24-hour UFC, LNSC, and DST “because clinical manifestations may lag behind biochemical evidence.”

In Cushing disease, almost half of patients will have either persistent or recurrent hypercortisolemia after surgery. In those cases, individualized adjuvant treatments are recommended. These include repeat surgery, bilateral adrenalectomy, radiation, or medical treatments, including pituitary-directed drugs, adrenal steroidogenesis inhibitors, or glucocorticoid receptor-blocking agents. The last two groups are used for other types of CS.

Dr. Fleseriu pointed out that CS is “associated with increased metabolic, cardiovascular, psychiatric, infectious, and musculoskeletal morbidity, which are only partially reversible with successful [CS] treatment.” These comorbidities need to be addressed via individualized therapies. Moreover, long-term mortality is increased in all forms of CS. Thus, patients require lifelong follow-up to detect recurrence at an early stage and to treat comorbidities.

“It is likely that delayed diagnosis might explain the long-term consequences of CS, including increased morbidity and mortality despite remission,” she said.

Familiarity with the presenting signs and symptoms of CS and ordering recommended screening and confirmatory tests will enable appropriate management of the condition, leading to better outcomes.

Dr. Fleseriu reported receiving research grants from Sparrow Pharmaceuticals to Oregon Health and Science University as principal investigator and receiving occasional fees for scientific consulting/advisory boards from Sparrow Pharmaceuticals, Recordati Rare Diseases Inc., and Xeris Biopharma Holdings Inc.
 

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

“Moon face” is a term that’s become popular on social media, used to describe people with unusually round faces who are purported to have high levels of cortisol. But the term “moon face” isn’t new. It was actually coined in the 1930s by neurosurgeon Harvey Cushing, MD, who identified patients with a constellation of clinical characteristics — a condition that came to bear his name — which included rapidly developing facial adiposity. And indeed, elevated cortisol is a hallmark feature of Cushing syndrome (CS), but there are other reasons for elevated cortisol and other manifestations of CS.

Today, the term “moon face” has been replaced with “round face,” which is considered more encompassing and culturally sensitive, said Maria Fleseriu, MD, professor of medicine and neurological surgery and director of the Pituitary Center at Oregon Health and Science University in Portland, Oregon.

Facial roundness can lead clinicians to be suspicious that their patient is experiencing CS. But because a round face is associated with several other conditions, it’s important to be familiar with its particular presentation in CS, as well as how to diagnose and treat CS.
 

Pathophysiology of CS

Dr. Fleseriu defined CS as “prolonged nonphysiologic increase in cortisol, due either to exogenous use of steroids (oral, topical, or inhaled) or to excess endogenous cortisol production.” She added that it’s important “to always exclude exogenous causes before conducting a further workup to determine the type and cause of cortisol excess.”

Cushing disease is an endogenous form of CS caused by a corticotroph adenoma of the pituitary gland. Cushing disease is rare, with only two to three cases per million annually, Dr. Fleseriu said. Other causes of CS are ectopic (caused by neuroendocrine tumors) or adrenal. CS affects primarily females and typically has an onset between ages 20 and 50 years, depending on the CS type.

Diagnosis of CS is “substantially delayed for most patients, due to metabolic syndrome phenotypic overlap and lack of a single pathognomonic symptom,” according to Dr. Fleseriu.

An accurate diagnosis should be on the basis of signs and symptoms, biochemical screening, other laboratory testing, and diagnostic imaging.
 

Look for Clinical Signs and Symptoms of CS

“CS mostly presents as a combination of two or more features,” Dr. Fleseriu stated. These include increased fat pads (in the face, neck, and trunk), skin changes, signs of protein catabolism, growth retardation and body weight increase in children, and metabolic dysregulations (Table).

• Late-night salivary cortisol (LNSC) to assess an abnormal circadian rhythm

According to the 2021 guideline, this is “based on the assumption that patients with CS lose the normal circadian nadir of cortisol secretion.”

• Overnight 1-mg dexamethasone suppression test (DST) to assess impaired glucocorticoid feedback

The authors noted that in healthy individuals, a supraphysiologic dexamethasone dose inhibits vasopressin and adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) secretion, leading to decreased cortisol concentration. Cortisol concentrations of < 1-8 μg/dL in the morning (after administration of the dexamethasone between 11 p.m. and midnight) are considered “normal,” and a negative result “strongly predicts” the absence of CS. But false-positive and false-negative results can occur. Thus, “it is imperative that first-line testing is elected on the basis of physiologic conditions and drug intake — for example, use of CYP2A4/5 inhibitors or stimulators and oral estrogen — as well as laboratory quality control measure, and special attention to night shift workers,” Dr. Fleseriu emphasized.

• A 24-hour urinary free cortisol (UFC) test to assess increased bioavailable cortisol

The guideline encourages conducting several 24-hour urine collections to account for intra-patient variability.

Dr. Fleseriu recommended utilizing at least two of the three screening tests, all of which have reasonable sensitivity and specificity.

“Two normal test results usually exclude the presence of CS, except in rare cyclic CS,” she added.
 

Conduct Additional Laboratory Testing

Additional laboratory abnormalities suggestive of CS include:

• Increased leukocytes with decreased lymphocytes, eosinophils, monocytes, and basophils
• Elevated glucose and insulin levels
• Hypokalemia
• Increased triglycerides and total cholesterol levels
• Elevated liver enzymes
• Changes in activated thromboplastin time and plasma concentrations of pro- and anticoagulant factors
• Hypercalciuria, hypocalcemia (rare), hypophosphatemia, decreased phosphate maximum resorption, and increased alkaline phosphatase activity

Dr. Fleseriu noted that, in most cases, a final CS diagnosis can be reached after confirmation of biochemical hypercortisolism, which is done after an initial positive screening test.

She added that plasma ACTH levels are “instrumental” in distinguishing ACTH-depending forms of CS — such as Cushing disease and ectopic CS — from adrenal cases. Bilateral inferior petrosal sinus sampling is necessary in ACTH-dependent CS.
 

Utilize Diagnostic Imaging

There are several diagnostic imaging techniques that localize the origin of the hypercortisolism, thus informing the course of treatment.

• Pituitary MRI to detect corticotropin-secreting corticotroph adenomas, which are typically small lesions (< 6 mm in diameter)
• CT evaluation of the neck, thoracic cavity, and abdomen to diagnose ectopic CS, including lung neuroendocrine tumors and bronchial neuroendocrine tumors
• Cervical and thyroid ultrasonography to identify primary or metastatic medullary thyroid carcinoma, and PET scans, which have greater sensitivity in detecting tumors, compared with CT scans
• Contrast-enhanced CT scans to detect adrenal adenomas and adrenocortical carcinomas

Management of CS

“The primary aim of treatment is eucortisolemia, and in those with endogenous CS, complete surgical resection of the underlying tumor is the primary method,” Dr. Fleseriu said.

It’s critical to monitor for biochemical remission following surgery, utilizing 24-hour UFC, LNSC, and DST “because clinical manifestations may lag behind biochemical evidence.”

In Cushing disease, almost half of patients will have either persistent or recurrent hypercortisolemia after surgery. In those cases, individualized adjuvant treatments are recommended. These include repeat surgery, bilateral adrenalectomy, radiation, or medical treatments, including pituitary-directed drugs, adrenal steroidogenesis inhibitors, or glucocorticoid receptor-blocking agents. The last two groups are used for other types of CS.

Dr. Fleseriu pointed out that CS is “associated with increased metabolic, cardiovascular, psychiatric, infectious, and musculoskeletal morbidity, which are only partially reversible with successful [CS] treatment.” These comorbidities need to be addressed via individualized therapies. Moreover, long-term mortality is increased in all forms of CS. Thus, patients require lifelong follow-up to detect recurrence at an early stage and to treat comorbidities.

“It is likely that delayed diagnosis might explain the long-term consequences of CS, including increased morbidity and mortality despite remission,” she said.

Familiarity with the presenting signs and symptoms of CS and ordering recommended screening and confirmatory tests will enable appropriate management of the condition, leading to better outcomes.

Dr. Fleseriu reported receiving research grants from Sparrow Pharmaceuticals to Oregon Health and Science University as principal investigator and receiving occasional fees for scientific consulting/advisory boards from Sparrow Pharmaceuticals, Recordati Rare Diseases Inc., and Xeris Biopharma Holdings Inc.
 

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

Most physicians oppose the way standardized relative value units (RVUs) are used to determine performance and compensation, according to Medscape’s 2024 Physicians and RVUs Report. About 6 in 10 survey respondents were unhappy with how RVUs affected them financially, while 7 in 10 said RVUs were poor measures of productivity.

The report analyzed 2024 survey data from 1005 practicing physicians who earn RVUs.

“I’m already mad that the medical field is controlled by health insurers and what they pay and authorize,” said an anesthesiologist in New York. “Then [that approach] is transferred to medical offices and hospitals, where physicians are paid by RVUs.”

Most physicians surveyed produced between 4000 and 8000 RVUs per year. Roughly one in six were high RVU generators, generating more than 10,000 annually.

In most cases, the metric influences earning potential — 42% of doctors surveyed said RVUs affect their salaries to some degree. One quarter said their salary was based entirely on RVUs. More than three fourths of physicians who received performance bonuses said they must meet RVU targets to do so.

“The current RVU system encourages unnecessary procedures, hurting patients,” said an orthopedic surgeon in Maine.

Nearly three fourths of practitioners surveyed said they occasionally to frequently felt pressure to take on more patients as a result of this system.

“I know numerous primary care doctors and specialists who have been forced to increase patient volume to meet RVU goals, and none is happy about it,” said Alok Patel, MD, a pediatric hospitalist with Stanford Hospital in Palo Alto, California. “Plus, patients are definitely not happy about being rushed.”

More than half of respondents said they occasionally or frequently felt compelled by their employer to use higher-level coding, which interferes with a physician’s ethical responsibility to the patient, said Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, a bioethicist at NYU Langone Medical Center in New York City.

“Rather than rewarding excellence or good outcomes, you’re kind of rewarding procedures and volume,” said Dr. Caplan. “It’s more than pressure; it’s expected.”

Nearly 6 in 10 physicians said that the method for calculating reimbursements was unfair. Almost half said that they weren’t happy with how their workplace uses RVUs.

A few respondents said that their RVU model, which is often based on what Dr. Patel called an “overly complicated algorithm,” did not account for the time spent on tasks or the fact that some patients miss appointments. RVUs also rely on factors outside the control of a physician, such as location and patient volume, said one doctor.

The model can also lower the level of care patients receive, Dr. Patel said.

“I know primary care doctors who work in RVU-based systems and simply cannot take the necessary time — even if it’s 30-45 minutes — to thoroughly assess a patient, when the model forces them to take on 15-minute encounters.”

Finally, over half of clinicians said alternatives to the RVU system would be more effective, and 77% suggested including qualitative data. One respondent recommended incorporating time spent doing paperwork and communicating with patients, complexity of conditions, and medication management.

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

Most physicians oppose the way standardized relative value units (RVUs) are used to determine performance and compensation, according to Medscape’s 2024 Physicians and RVUs Report. About 6 in 10 survey respondents were unhappy with how RVUs affected them financially, while 7 in 10 said RVUs were poor measures of productivity.

The report analyzed 2024 survey data from 1005 practicing physicians who earn RVUs.

“I’m already mad that the medical field is controlled by health insurers and what they pay and authorize,” said an anesthesiologist in New York. “Then [that approach] is transferred to medical offices and hospitals, where physicians are paid by RVUs.”

Most physicians surveyed produced between 4000 and 8000 RVUs per year. Roughly one in six were high RVU generators, generating more than 10,000 annually.

In most cases, the metric influences earning potential — 42% of doctors surveyed said RVUs affect their salaries to some degree. One quarter said their salary was based entirely on RVUs. More than three fourths of physicians who received performance bonuses said they must meet RVU targets to do so.

“The current RVU system encourages unnecessary procedures, hurting patients,” said an orthopedic surgeon in Maine.

Nearly three fourths of practitioners surveyed said they occasionally to frequently felt pressure to take on more patients as a result of this system.

“I know numerous primary care doctors and specialists who have been forced to increase patient volume to meet RVU goals, and none is happy about it,” said Alok Patel, MD, a pediatric hospitalist with Stanford Hospital in Palo Alto, California. “Plus, patients are definitely not happy about being rushed.”

More than half of respondents said they occasionally or frequently felt compelled by their employer to use higher-level coding, which interferes with a physician’s ethical responsibility to the patient, said Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, a bioethicist at NYU Langone Medical Center in New York City.

“Rather than rewarding excellence or good outcomes, you’re kind of rewarding procedures and volume,” said Dr. Caplan. “It’s more than pressure; it’s expected.”

Nearly 6 in 10 physicians said that the method for calculating reimbursements was unfair. Almost half said that they weren’t happy with how their workplace uses RVUs.

A few respondents said that their RVU model, which is often based on what Dr. Patel called an “overly complicated algorithm,” did not account for the time spent on tasks or the fact that some patients miss appointments. RVUs also rely on factors outside the control of a physician, such as location and patient volume, said one doctor.

The model can also lower the level of care patients receive, Dr. Patel said.

“I know primary care doctors who work in RVU-based systems and simply cannot take the necessary time — even if it’s 30-45 minutes — to thoroughly assess a patient, when the model forces them to take on 15-minute encounters.”

Finally, over half of clinicians said alternatives to the RVU system would be more effective, and 77% suggested including qualitative data. One respondent recommended incorporating time spent doing paperwork and communicating with patients, complexity of conditions, and medication management.

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

Most physicians oppose the way standardized relative value units (RVUs) are used to determine performance and compensation, according to Medscape’s 2024 Physicians and RVUs Report. About 6 in 10 survey respondents were unhappy with how RVUs affected them financially, while 7 in 10 said RVUs were poor measures of productivity.

The report analyzed 2024 survey data from 1005 practicing physicians who earn RVUs.

“I’m already mad that the medical field is controlled by health insurers and what they pay and authorize,” said an anesthesiologist in New York. “Then [that approach] is transferred to medical offices and hospitals, where physicians are paid by RVUs.”

Most physicians surveyed produced between 4000 and 8000 RVUs per year. Roughly one in six were high RVU generators, generating more than 10,000 annually.

In most cases, the metric influences earning potential — 42% of doctors surveyed said RVUs affect their salaries to some degree. One quarter said their salary was based entirely on RVUs. More than three fourths of physicians who received performance bonuses said they must meet RVU targets to do so.

“The current RVU system encourages unnecessary procedures, hurting patients,” said an orthopedic surgeon in Maine.

Nearly three fourths of practitioners surveyed said they occasionally to frequently felt pressure to take on more patients as a result of this system.

“I know numerous primary care doctors and specialists who have been forced to increase patient volume to meet RVU goals, and none is happy about it,” said Alok Patel, MD, a pediatric hospitalist with Stanford Hospital in Palo Alto, California. “Plus, patients are definitely not happy about being rushed.”

More than half of respondents said they occasionally or frequently felt compelled by their employer to use higher-level coding, which interferes with a physician’s ethical responsibility to the patient, said Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, a bioethicist at NYU Langone Medical Center in New York City.

“Rather than rewarding excellence or good outcomes, you’re kind of rewarding procedures and volume,” said Dr. Caplan. “It’s more than pressure; it’s expected.”

Nearly 6 in 10 physicians said that the method for calculating reimbursements was unfair. Almost half said that they weren’t happy with how their workplace uses RVUs.

A few respondents said that their RVU model, which is often based on what Dr. Patel called an “overly complicated algorithm,” did not account for the time spent on tasks or the fact that some patients miss appointments. RVUs also rely on factors outside the control of a physician, such as location and patient volume, said one doctor.

The model can also lower the level of care patients receive, Dr. Patel said.

“I know primary care doctors who work in RVU-based systems and simply cannot take the necessary time — even if it’s 30-45 minutes — to thoroughly assess a patient, when the model forces them to take on 15-minute encounters.”

Finally, over half of clinicians said alternatives to the RVU system would be more effective, and 77% suggested including qualitative data. One respondent recommended incorporating time spent doing paperwork and communicating with patients, complexity of conditions, and medication management.

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

TOPLINE:

Treatment with etanercept led to faster disease control initially in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had an insufficient early response to methotrexate and bridging glucocorticoids therapy, but more patients achieved disease control with leflunomide at 104 weeks.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted CareRA2020, a randomized controlled trial including 276 patients with early RA who were initially treated with oral methotrexate 15 mg/wk and a step-down prednisone scheme, with early insufficient responders (n = 110) randomized to add etanercept 50 mg/wk or leflunomide 10 mg/d for 24 weeks.
• Patients were classified as early insufficient responders if they did not achieve a 28-joint Disease Activity Score with C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) < 3.2 between weeks 8 and 32 or < 2.6 at week 32, despite an increase in methotrexate dose to 20 mg/wk.
• The primary outcome was the longitudinal disease activity measured by DAS28-CRP over 104 weeks.
• The secondary outcomes included disease control at 28 weeks post randomization and the use of biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs at week 104.

TAKEAWAY:

• Early introduction of etanercept in patients with RA did not show long-term superiority over leflunomide in disease control over 2 years (P = .157).
• At 28 weeks post randomization, the percentage of patients who achieved a DAS28-CRP < 2.6 was higher in the etanercept group than in the leflunomide group (59% vs 44%).
• After stopping etanercept, disease activity scores worsened, and a lower proportion of patients achieved DAS28-CRP < 2.6 in the etanercept group than in the leflunomide group (55% vs 69%) at week 104.
• Even after treatment with etanercept or leflunomide, the 110 early insufficient responders never reached the same level of disease control as the 142 patients who responded to methotrexate and bridging glucocorticoids within weeks 8-32.

IN PRACTICE:

“The CareRA2020 trial did not completely solve the unmet need of patients responding insufficiently to conventional initial therapy for early RA, but it provides opportunities to further optimize the treatment approach in this population, for instance, by focusing on the identification of potential subgroups with different disease activity trajectories within the early insufficient responder group,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Delphine Bertrand of the Skeletal Biology and Engineering Research Center in the Department of Development and Regeneration at KU Leuven in Belgium, and was published online on August 7, 2024, in RMD Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The open-label design of the study may have introduced bias, as patients and investigators were aware of the treatment. The temporary administration of etanercept may not have reflected its long-term effects. The study was conducted in Belgium, which limited the generalizability of the findings to other populations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre. Some authors reported serving as speakers or receiving grants, consulting fees, honoraria, or meeting or travel support from financial ties with Novartis, Pfizer, Amgen, and other pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Treatment with etanercept led to faster disease control initially in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had an insufficient early response to methotrexate and bridging glucocorticoids therapy, but more patients achieved disease control with leflunomide at 104 weeks.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted CareRA2020, a randomized controlled trial including 276 patients with early RA who were initially treated with oral methotrexate 15 mg/wk and a step-down prednisone scheme, with early insufficient responders (n = 110) randomized to add etanercept 50 mg/wk or leflunomide 10 mg/d for 24 weeks.
• Patients were classified as early insufficient responders if they did not achieve a 28-joint Disease Activity Score with C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) < 3.2 between weeks 8 and 32 or < 2.6 at week 32, despite an increase in methotrexate dose to 20 mg/wk.
• The primary outcome was the longitudinal disease activity measured by DAS28-CRP over 104 weeks.
• The secondary outcomes included disease control at 28 weeks post randomization and the use of biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs at week 104.

TAKEAWAY:

• Early introduction of etanercept in patients with RA did not show long-term superiority over leflunomide in disease control over 2 years (P = .157).
• At 28 weeks post randomization, the percentage of patients who achieved a DAS28-CRP < 2.6 was higher in the etanercept group than in the leflunomide group (59% vs 44%).
• After stopping etanercept, disease activity scores worsened, and a lower proportion of patients achieved DAS28-CRP < 2.6 in the etanercept group than in the leflunomide group (55% vs 69%) at week 104.
• Even after treatment with etanercept or leflunomide, the 110 early insufficient responders never reached the same level of disease control as the 142 patients who responded to methotrexate and bridging glucocorticoids within weeks 8-32.

IN PRACTICE:

“The CareRA2020 trial did not completely solve the unmet need of patients responding insufficiently to conventional initial therapy for early RA, but it provides opportunities to further optimize the treatment approach in this population, for instance, by focusing on the identification of potential subgroups with different disease activity trajectories within the early insufficient responder group,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Delphine Bertrand of the Skeletal Biology and Engineering Research Center in the Department of Development and Regeneration at KU Leuven in Belgium, and was published online on August 7, 2024, in RMD Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The open-label design of the study may have introduced bias, as patients and investigators were aware of the treatment. The temporary administration of etanercept may not have reflected its long-term effects. The study was conducted in Belgium, which limited the generalizability of the findings to other populations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre. Some authors reported serving as speakers or receiving grants, consulting fees, honoraria, or meeting or travel support from financial ties with Novartis, Pfizer, Amgen, and other pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Treatment with etanercept led to faster disease control initially in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had an insufficient early response to methotrexate and bridging glucocorticoids therapy, but more patients achieved disease control with leflunomide at 104 weeks.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted CareRA2020, a randomized controlled trial including 276 patients with early RA who were initially treated with oral methotrexate 15 mg/wk and a step-down prednisone scheme, with early insufficient responders (n = 110) randomized to add etanercept 50 mg/wk or leflunomide 10 mg/d for 24 weeks.
• Patients were classified as early insufficient responders if they did not achieve a 28-joint Disease Activity Score with C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) < 3.2 between weeks 8 and 32 or < 2.6 at week 32, despite an increase in methotrexate dose to 20 mg/wk.
• The primary outcome was the longitudinal disease activity measured by DAS28-CRP over 104 weeks.
• The secondary outcomes included disease control at 28 weeks post randomization and the use of biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs at week 104.

TAKEAWAY:

• Early introduction of etanercept in patients with RA did not show long-term superiority over leflunomide in disease control over 2 years (P = .157).
• At 28 weeks post randomization, the percentage of patients who achieved a DAS28-CRP < 2.6 was higher in the etanercept group than in the leflunomide group (59% vs 44%).
• After stopping etanercept, disease activity scores worsened, and a lower proportion of patients achieved DAS28-CRP < 2.6 in the etanercept group than in the leflunomide group (55% vs 69%) at week 104.
• Even after treatment with etanercept or leflunomide, the 110 early insufficient responders never reached the same level of disease control as the 142 patients who responded to methotrexate and bridging glucocorticoids within weeks 8-32.

IN PRACTICE:

“The CareRA2020 trial did not completely solve the unmet need of patients responding insufficiently to conventional initial therapy for early RA, but it provides opportunities to further optimize the treatment approach in this population, for instance, by focusing on the identification of potential subgroups with different disease activity trajectories within the early insufficient responder group,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Delphine Bertrand of the Skeletal Biology and Engineering Research Center in the Department of Development and Regeneration at KU Leuven in Belgium, and was published online on August 7, 2024, in RMD Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The open-label design of the study may have introduced bias, as patients and investigators were aware of the treatment. The temporary administration of etanercept may not have reflected its long-term effects. The study was conducted in Belgium, which limited the generalizability of the findings to other populations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre. Some authors reported serving as speakers or receiving grants, consulting fees, honoraria, or meeting or travel support from financial ties with Novartis, Pfizer, Amgen, and other pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

Ah, blood. That sweet nectar of life that quiets angina, abolishes dyspnea, prevents orthostatic syncope, and quells sinus tachycardia. As a cardiologist, I am an unabashed hemophile. 

But we liberal transfusionists are challenged on every request for consideration of transfusion. Whereas the polite may resort to whispered skepticism, vehement critics respond with scorn as if we’d asked them to burn aromatic herbs or fetch a bucket of leeches. And to what do we owe this pathological angst? The broad and persistent misinterpretation of the pesky TRICC trial (N Engl J Med. 1999;340:409-417). You know; the one that should have been published with a boxed warning stating: “Misinterpretation of this trial could result in significant harm.” 
 

Point 1: Our Actively Bleeding Patient is Not a TRICC Patient. 

Published in 1999, the TRICC trial enrolled critical anemic patients older than 16 years who were stable after fluid resuscitation and were not actively bleeding. They had a hemoglobin level < 9 g/dL and were expected to stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) for more than 24 hours. They were randomly assigned to either a conservative trigger for transfusion of < 7 g/dL or a liberal threshold of < 10 g/dL. Mortality at 30 days was lower with the conservative approach — 18.7% vs 23.3% — but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .11). The findings were similar for the secondary endpoints of inpatient mortality (22.2% vs 28.1%; P = .05) and ICU mortality (13.9% vs 16.2%; P = .29). 

One must admit that these P values are not impressive, and the authors’ conclusion should have warranted caution: “A restrictive strategy ... is at least as effective as and possibly superior to a liberal transfusion strategy in critically ill patients, with the possible exception of patients with acute myocardial infarction and unstable angina.” 
 

Point 2: Our Critically Ill Cardiac Patient is Unlikely to be a “TRICC” Patient.

Another criticism of TRICC is that only 13% of those assessed and 26% of those eligible were enrolled, mostly owing to physician refusal. Only 26% of enrolled patients had cardiac disease. This makes the TRICC population highly selected and not representative of typical ICU patients. 

To prove my point that the edict against higher transfusion thresholds can be dangerous, I’ll describe my most recent interface with TRICC trial misinterpretation 
 

A Case in Point

The patient, Mrs. Kemp,* is 79 years old and has been on aspirin for years following coronary stent placement. One evening, she began spurting bright red blood from her rectum, interrupted only briefly by large clots the consistency of jellied cranberries. When she arrived at the hospital, she was hemodynamically stable, with a hemoglobin level of 10 g/dL, down from her usual 12 g/dL. That level bolstered the confidence of her provider, who insisted that she be managed conservatively. 

Mrs. Kemp was transferred to the ward, where she continued to bleed briskly. Over the next 2 hours, her hemoglobin level dropped to 9 g/dL, then 8 g/dL. Her daughter, a healthcare worker, requested a transfusion. The answer was, wait for it — the well-scripted, somewhat patronizing oft-quoted line, “The medical literature states that we need to wait for a hemoglobin level of 7 g/dL before we transfuse.” 

Later that evening, Mrs. Kemp’s systolic blood pressure dropped to the upper 80s, despite her usual hypertension. The provider was again comforted by the fact that she was not tachycardic (she had a pacemaker and was on bisoprolol). The next morning, Mrs. Kemp felt the need to defecate and was placed on the bedside commode and left to her privacy. Predictably, she became dizzy and experienced frank syncope. Thankfully, she avoided a hip fracture or worse. A stat hemoglobin returned at 6 g/dL. 

Her daughter said she literally heard the hallelujah chorus because her mother’s hemoglobin was finally below that much revered and often misleading threshold of 7 g/dL. Finally, there was an order for platelets and packed red cells. Five units later, Mr. Kemp achieved a hemoglobin of 8 g/dL and survived. Two more units and she was soaring at 9 g/dL! 
 

Lessons for Transfusion Conservatives

There are many lessons here. 

The TRICC study found that hemodynamically stable, asymptomatic patients who are not actively bleeding may well tolerate a hemoglobin level of 7 g/dL. But a patient with bright red blood actively pouring from an orifice and a rapidly declining hemoglobin level isn’t one of those people. Additionally, a patient who faints from hypovolemia is not one of those people. 

Patients with a history of bleeding presenting with new resting sinus tachycardia (in those who have chronotropic competence) should be presumed to be actively bleeding, and the findings of TRICC do not apply to them. Patients who have bled buckets on anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapies and have dropped their hemoglobin will probably continue to ooze and should be subject to a low threshold for transfusion. 

Additionally, anemic people who are hemodynamically stable but can’t walk without new significant shortness of air or new rest angina need blood, and sometimes at hemoglobin levels higher than generally accepted by conservative strategists. Finally, failing to treat or at least monitor patients who are spontaneously bleeding as aggressively as some trauma patients is a failure to provide proper medical care. 

The vast majority of my healthcare clinician colleagues are competent, compassionate individuals who can reasonably discuss the nuances of any medical scenario. One important distinction of a good medical team is the willingness to change course based on a change in patient status or the presentation of what may be new information for the provider. 

But those proud transfusion conservatives who will not budge until their threshold is met need to make certain their patient is truly subject to their supposed edicts. Our blood banks should not be more difficult to access than Fort Knox, and transfusion should be used appropriately and liberally in the hemodynamically unstable, the symptomatic, and active brisk bleeders. 

I beg staunch transfusion conservatives to consider how they might feel if someone stuck a magic spigot in their brachial artery and acutely drained their hemoglobin to that magic threshold of 7 g/dL. When syncope, shortness of air, fatigue, and angina find them, they may generate empathy for those who need transfusion. Might that do the TRICC? 

*Some details have been changed to conceal the identity of the patient, but the essence of the case has been preserved.

Dr. Walton-Shirley, a native Kentuckian who retired from full-time invasive cardiology and now does locums work in Montana, is a champion of physician rights and patient safety. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Ah, blood. That sweet nectar of life that quiets angina, abolishes dyspnea, prevents orthostatic syncope, and quells sinus tachycardia. As a cardiologist, I am an unabashed hemophile. 

But we liberal transfusionists are challenged on every request for consideration of transfusion. Whereas the polite may resort to whispered skepticism, vehement critics respond with scorn as if we’d asked them to burn aromatic herbs or fetch a bucket of leeches. And to what do we owe this pathological angst? The broad and persistent misinterpretation of the pesky TRICC trial (N Engl J Med. 1999;340:409-417). You know; the one that should have been published with a boxed warning stating: “Misinterpretation of this trial could result in significant harm.” 
 

Point 1: Our Actively Bleeding Patient is Not a TRICC Patient. 

Published in 1999, the TRICC trial enrolled critical anemic patients older than 16 years who were stable after fluid resuscitation and were not actively bleeding. They had a hemoglobin level < 9 g/dL and were expected to stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) for more than 24 hours. They were randomly assigned to either a conservative trigger for transfusion of < 7 g/dL or a liberal threshold of < 10 g/dL. Mortality at 30 days was lower with the conservative approach — 18.7% vs 23.3% — but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .11). The findings were similar for the secondary endpoints of inpatient mortality (22.2% vs 28.1%; P = .05) and ICU mortality (13.9% vs 16.2%; P = .29). 

One must admit that these P values are not impressive, and the authors’ conclusion should have warranted caution: “A restrictive strategy ... is at least as effective as and possibly superior to a liberal transfusion strategy in critically ill patients, with the possible exception of patients with acute myocardial infarction and unstable angina.” 
 

Point 2: Our Critically Ill Cardiac Patient is Unlikely to be a “TRICC” Patient.

Another criticism of TRICC is that only 13% of those assessed and 26% of those eligible were enrolled, mostly owing to physician refusal. Only 26% of enrolled patients had cardiac disease. This makes the TRICC population highly selected and not representative of typical ICU patients. 

To prove my point that the edict against higher transfusion thresholds can be dangerous, I’ll describe my most recent interface with TRICC trial misinterpretation 
 

A Case in Point

The patient, Mrs. Kemp,* is 79 years old and has been on aspirin for years following coronary stent placement. One evening, she began spurting bright red blood from her rectum, interrupted only briefly by large clots the consistency of jellied cranberries. When she arrived at the hospital, she was hemodynamically stable, with a hemoglobin level of 10 g/dL, down from her usual 12 g/dL. That level bolstered the confidence of her provider, who insisted that she be managed conservatively. 

Mrs. Kemp was transferred to the ward, where she continued to bleed briskly. Over the next 2 hours, her hemoglobin level dropped to 9 g/dL, then 8 g/dL. Her daughter, a healthcare worker, requested a transfusion. The answer was, wait for it — the well-scripted, somewhat patronizing oft-quoted line, “The medical literature states that we need to wait for a hemoglobin level of 7 g/dL before we transfuse.” 

Later that evening, Mrs. Kemp’s systolic blood pressure dropped to the upper 80s, despite her usual hypertension. The provider was again comforted by the fact that she was not tachycardic (she had a pacemaker and was on bisoprolol). The next morning, Mrs. Kemp felt the need to defecate and was placed on the bedside commode and left to her privacy. Predictably, she became dizzy and experienced frank syncope. Thankfully, she avoided a hip fracture or worse. A stat hemoglobin returned at 6 g/dL. 

Her daughter said she literally heard the hallelujah chorus because her mother’s hemoglobin was finally below that much revered and often misleading threshold of 7 g/dL. Finally, there was an order for platelets and packed red cells. Five units later, Mr. Kemp achieved a hemoglobin of 8 g/dL and survived. Two more units and she was soaring at 9 g/dL! 
 

Lessons for Transfusion Conservatives

There are many lessons here. 

The TRICC study found that hemodynamically stable, asymptomatic patients who are not actively bleeding may well tolerate a hemoglobin level of 7 g/dL. But a patient with bright red blood actively pouring from an orifice and a rapidly declining hemoglobin level isn’t one of those people. Additionally, a patient who faints from hypovolemia is not one of those people. 

Patients with a history of bleeding presenting with new resting sinus tachycardia (in those who have chronotropic competence) should be presumed to be actively bleeding, and the findings of TRICC do not apply to them. Patients who have bled buckets on anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapies and have dropped their hemoglobin will probably continue to ooze and should be subject to a low threshold for transfusion. 

Additionally, anemic people who are hemodynamically stable but can’t walk without new significant shortness of air or new rest angina need blood, and sometimes at hemoglobin levels higher than generally accepted by conservative strategists. Finally, failing to treat or at least monitor patients who are spontaneously bleeding as aggressively as some trauma patients is a failure to provide proper medical care. 

The vast majority of my healthcare clinician colleagues are competent, compassionate individuals who can reasonably discuss the nuances of any medical scenario. One important distinction of a good medical team is the willingness to change course based on a change in patient status or the presentation of what may be new information for the provider. 

But those proud transfusion conservatives who will not budge until their threshold is met need to make certain their patient is truly subject to their supposed edicts. Our blood banks should not be more difficult to access than Fort Knox, and transfusion should be used appropriately and liberally in the hemodynamically unstable, the symptomatic, and active brisk bleeders. 

I beg staunch transfusion conservatives to consider how they might feel if someone stuck a magic spigot in their brachial artery and acutely drained their hemoglobin to that magic threshold of 7 g/dL. When syncope, shortness of air, fatigue, and angina find them, they may generate empathy for those who need transfusion. Might that do the TRICC? 

*Some details have been changed to conceal the identity of the patient, but the essence of the case has been preserved.

Dr. Walton-Shirley, a native Kentuckian who retired from full-time invasive cardiology and now does locums work in Montana, is a champion of physician rights and patient safety. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Ah, blood. That sweet nectar of life that quiets angina, abolishes dyspnea, prevents orthostatic syncope, and quells sinus tachycardia. As a cardiologist, I am an unabashed hemophile. 

But we liberal transfusionists are challenged on every request for consideration of transfusion. Whereas the polite may resort to whispered skepticism, vehement critics respond with scorn as if we’d asked them to burn aromatic herbs or fetch a bucket of leeches. And to what do we owe this pathological angst? The broad and persistent misinterpretation of the pesky TRICC trial (N Engl J Med. 1999;340:409-417). You know; the one that should have been published with a boxed warning stating: “Misinterpretation of this trial could result in significant harm.” 
 

Point 1: Our Actively Bleeding Patient is Not a TRICC Patient. 

Published in 1999, the TRICC trial enrolled critical anemic patients older than 16 years who were stable after fluid resuscitation and were not actively bleeding. They had a hemoglobin level < 9 g/dL and were expected to stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) for more than 24 hours. They were randomly assigned to either a conservative trigger for transfusion of < 7 g/dL or a liberal threshold of < 10 g/dL. Mortality at 30 days was lower with the conservative approach — 18.7% vs 23.3% — but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .11). The findings were similar for the secondary endpoints of inpatient mortality (22.2% vs 28.1%; P = .05) and ICU mortality (13.9% vs 16.2%; P = .29). 

One must admit that these P values are not impressive, and the authors’ conclusion should have warranted caution: “A restrictive strategy ... is at least as effective as and possibly superior to a liberal transfusion strategy in critically ill patients, with the possible exception of patients with acute myocardial infarction and unstable angina.” 
 

Point 2: Our Critically Ill Cardiac Patient is Unlikely to be a “TRICC” Patient.

Another criticism of TRICC is that only 13% of those assessed and 26% of those eligible were enrolled, mostly owing to physician refusal. Only 26% of enrolled patients had cardiac disease. This makes the TRICC population highly selected and not representative of typical ICU patients. 

To prove my point that the edict against higher transfusion thresholds can be dangerous, I’ll describe my most recent interface with TRICC trial misinterpretation 
 

A Case in Point

The patient, Mrs. Kemp,* is 79 years old and has been on aspirin for years following coronary stent placement. One evening, she began spurting bright red blood from her rectum, interrupted only briefly by large clots the consistency of jellied cranberries. When she arrived at the hospital, she was hemodynamically stable, with a hemoglobin level of 10 g/dL, down from her usual 12 g/dL. That level bolstered the confidence of her provider, who insisted that she be managed conservatively. 

Mrs. Kemp was transferred to the ward, where she continued to bleed briskly. Over the next 2 hours, her hemoglobin level dropped to 9 g/dL, then 8 g/dL. Her daughter, a healthcare worker, requested a transfusion. The answer was, wait for it — the well-scripted, somewhat patronizing oft-quoted line, “The medical literature states that we need to wait for a hemoglobin level of 7 g/dL before we transfuse.” 

Later that evening, Mrs. Kemp’s systolic blood pressure dropped to the upper 80s, despite her usual hypertension. The provider was again comforted by the fact that she was not tachycardic (she had a pacemaker and was on bisoprolol). The next morning, Mrs. Kemp felt the need to defecate and was placed on the bedside commode and left to her privacy. Predictably, she became dizzy and experienced frank syncope. Thankfully, she avoided a hip fracture or worse. A stat hemoglobin returned at 6 g/dL. 

Her daughter said she literally heard the hallelujah chorus because her mother’s hemoglobin was finally below that much revered and often misleading threshold of 7 g/dL. Finally, there was an order for platelets and packed red cells. Five units later, Mr. Kemp achieved a hemoglobin of 8 g/dL and survived. Two more units and she was soaring at 9 g/dL! 
 

Lessons for Transfusion Conservatives

There are many lessons here. 

The TRICC study found that hemodynamically stable, asymptomatic patients who are not actively bleeding may well tolerate a hemoglobin level of 7 g/dL. But a patient with bright red blood actively pouring from an orifice and a rapidly declining hemoglobin level isn’t one of those people. Additionally, a patient who faints from hypovolemia is not one of those people. 

Patients with a history of bleeding presenting with new resting sinus tachycardia (in those who have chronotropic competence) should be presumed to be actively bleeding, and the findings of TRICC do not apply to them. Patients who have bled buckets on anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapies and have dropped their hemoglobin will probably continue to ooze and should be subject to a low threshold for transfusion. 

Additionally, anemic people who are hemodynamically stable but can’t walk without new significant shortness of air or new rest angina need blood, and sometimes at hemoglobin levels higher than generally accepted by conservative strategists. Finally, failing to treat or at least monitor patients who are spontaneously bleeding as aggressively as some trauma patients is a failure to provide proper medical care. 

The vast majority of my healthcare clinician colleagues are competent, compassionate individuals who can reasonably discuss the nuances of any medical scenario. One important distinction of a good medical team is the willingness to change course based on a change in patient status or the presentation of what may be new information for the provider. 

But those proud transfusion conservatives who will not budge until their threshold is met need to make certain their patient is truly subject to their supposed edicts. Our blood banks should not be more difficult to access than Fort Knox, and transfusion should be used appropriately and liberally in the hemodynamically unstable, the symptomatic, and active brisk bleeders. 

I beg staunch transfusion conservatives to consider how they might feel if someone stuck a magic spigot in their brachial artery and acutely drained their hemoglobin to that magic threshold of 7 g/dL. When syncope, shortness of air, fatigue, and angina find them, they may generate empathy for those who need transfusion. Might that do the TRICC? 

*Some details have been changed to conceal the identity of the patient, but the essence of the case has been preserved.

Dr. Walton-Shirley, a native Kentuckian who retired from full-time invasive cardiology and now does locums work in Montana, is a champion of physician rights and patient safety. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Compared with dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are associated with a lower risk for all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) and type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODOLOGY:

• GLP-1 RAs reduce the risk for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and stroke in patients with diabetes. However, previous trials have excluded those with IMIDs, leaving a gap in understanding the cardioprotective effects of GLP-1 RAs in this population.
• Researchers conducted a population-based cohort study to assess if patients with an IMID derive greater benefits from GLP-1 RAs than DPP-4 inhibitors.
• They used administrative health data from British Columbia, Canada, to include 10,855 patients with IMIDs (rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic disease, ankylosing spondylitis, inflammatory bowel disease, or systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease) and T2D who initiated either GLP-1 RA (n = 3570) or DPP-4 inhibitor (n = 7285).
• The mean follow-up was 1.46 and 1.88 years in the GLP-1 RA and DPP-4 inhibitor cohorts, respectively.
• The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and the secondary outcome was MACE, including cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke.

TAKEAWAY:

• The risk for all-cause mortality was 52% lower in patients who initiated GLP-1 RAs than in those who initiated DPP-4 inhibitors (weighted hazard ratio [HR], 0.48; 95% CI, 0.31-0.75).
• Additionally, patients initiating DPP-4 inhibitors.
• In the subgroup of patients with GLP-1 RAs had a significantly lower risk for MACE (weighted HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.50-0.88), particularly myocardial infarction (weighted HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.40-0.96), than those initiating rheumatoid arthritis and T2D, those who initiated GLP-1 RAs had a 55% lower risk for all-cause mortality and 61% lower risk for MACE than those who initiated DPP-4 inhibitors.

IN PRACTICE:

“This corresponds to nine fewer deaths and 11 fewer MACE per 1000 person-years, respectively, supporting the hypothesis that these agents have a cardioprotective effect in this high-risk population,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Derin Karacabeyli, MD, Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, and was published online on August 8, 2024, in PLOS ONE.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s dependence on administrative health data might have resulted in incomplete capture of comorbidities, particularly obesity. The mean follow-up period was relatively short, which might have limited the long-term applicability of these findings. The accuracy of the case definitions for IMIDs and T2D, according to International Classification of Diseases codes, could not be fully ascertained.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Two authors declared receiving research support, consulting fees, or participating in advisory boards outside the submitted work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Compared with dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are associated with a lower risk for all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) and type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODOLOGY:

• GLP-1 RAs reduce the risk for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and stroke in patients with diabetes. However, previous trials have excluded those with IMIDs, leaving a gap in understanding the cardioprotective effects of GLP-1 RAs in this population.
• Researchers conducted a population-based cohort study to assess if patients with an IMID derive greater benefits from GLP-1 RAs than DPP-4 inhibitors.
• They used administrative health data from British Columbia, Canada, to include 10,855 patients with IMIDs (rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic disease, ankylosing spondylitis, inflammatory bowel disease, or systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease) and T2D who initiated either GLP-1 RA (n = 3570) or DPP-4 inhibitor (n = 7285).
• The mean follow-up was 1.46 and 1.88 years in the GLP-1 RA and DPP-4 inhibitor cohorts, respectively.
• The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and the secondary outcome was MACE, including cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke.

TAKEAWAY:

• The risk for all-cause mortality was 52% lower in patients who initiated GLP-1 RAs than in those who initiated DPP-4 inhibitors (weighted hazard ratio [HR], 0.48; 95% CI, 0.31-0.75).
• Additionally, patients initiating DPP-4 inhibitors.
• In the subgroup of patients with GLP-1 RAs had a significantly lower risk for MACE (weighted HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.50-0.88), particularly myocardial infarction (weighted HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.40-0.96), than those initiating rheumatoid arthritis and T2D, those who initiated GLP-1 RAs had a 55% lower risk for all-cause mortality and 61% lower risk for MACE than those who initiated DPP-4 inhibitors.

IN PRACTICE:

“This corresponds to nine fewer deaths and 11 fewer MACE per 1000 person-years, respectively, supporting the hypothesis that these agents have a cardioprotective effect in this high-risk population,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Derin Karacabeyli, MD, Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, and was published online on August 8, 2024, in PLOS ONE.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s dependence on administrative health data might have resulted in incomplete capture of comorbidities, particularly obesity. The mean follow-up period was relatively short, which might have limited the long-term applicability of these findings. The accuracy of the case definitions for IMIDs and T2D, according to International Classification of Diseases codes, could not be fully ascertained.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Two authors declared receiving research support, consulting fees, or participating in advisory boards outside the submitted work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Compared with dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are associated with a lower risk for all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) and type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODOLOGY:

• GLP-1 RAs reduce the risk for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and stroke in patients with diabetes. However, previous trials have excluded those with IMIDs, leaving a gap in understanding the cardioprotective effects of GLP-1 RAs in this population.
• Researchers conducted a population-based cohort study to assess if patients with an IMID derive greater benefits from GLP-1 RAs than DPP-4 inhibitors.
• They used administrative health data from British Columbia, Canada, to include 10,855 patients with IMIDs (rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic disease, ankylosing spondylitis, inflammatory bowel disease, or systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease) and T2D who initiated either GLP-1 RA (n = 3570) or DPP-4 inhibitor (n = 7285).
• The mean follow-up was 1.46 and 1.88 years in the GLP-1 RA and DPP-4 inhibitor cohorts, respectively.
• The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and the secondary outcome was MACE, including cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke.

TAKEAWAY:

• The risk for all-cause mortality was 52% lower in patients who initiated GLP-1 RAs than in those who initiated DPP-4 inhibitors (weighted hazard ratio [HR], 0.48; 95% CI, 0.31-0.75).
• Additionally, patients initiating DPP-4 inhibitors.
• In the subgroup of patients with GLP-1 RAs had a significantly lower risk for MACE (weighted HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.50-0.88), particularly myocardial infarction (weighted HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.40-0.96), than those initiating rheumatoid arthritis and T2D, those who initiated GLP-1 RAs had a 55% lower risk for all-cause mortality and 61% lower risk for MACE than those who initiated DPP-4 inhibitors.

IN PRACTICE:

“This corresponds to nine fewer deaths and 11 fewer MACE per 1000 person-years, respectively, supporting the hypothesis that these agents have a cardioprotective effect in this high-risk population,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Derin Karacabeyli, MD, Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, and was published online on August 8, 2024, in PLOS ONE.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s dependence on administrative health data might have resulted in incomplete capture of comorbidities, particularly obesity. The mean follow-up period was relatively short, which might have limited the long-term applicability of these findings. The accuracy of the case definitions for IMIDs and T2D, according to International Classification of Diseases codes, could not be fully ascertained.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Two authors declared receiving research support, consulting fees, or participating in advisory boards outside the submitted work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Age-related hearing loss and peripheral neuropathy in older adults reduce longevity both directly and indirectly by affecting balance and gait.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed 793 older adults recruited from primary care practices participating in the OKLAHOMA Studies in 1999.
• Participants completed a questionnaire and underwent a physical examination; timed gait assessments (50 ft); and tests for peripheral nerve function, balance, and hearing.
• Hearing thresholds were tested at 20, 25, and 40 dB, respectively, and at sound frequencies of 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz.
• Researchers tracked mortality data over 22 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 83% participants experienced hearing loss. Regular use of hearing aids was low, reported in 19% and 55% of those with moderate and severe hearing loss, respectively.
• Hearing loss was linked to impaired balance (P = .0014), slower walking (P = .0024), and reduced survival time (P = .0001). Moderate to severe hearing loss was strongly associated with reduced survival time (odds ratio, 1.36; P = .001), independent of the use of hearing aids.
• Peripheral neuropathy was present in 32% participants. The condition also increased the risk for death over the study period (hazard ratio [HR], 1.32; P = .003). Participants with both hearing loss and peripheral neuropathy showed reduced balance and survival time compared with people with either condition alone (HR, 1.55; P < .0001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Like peripheral neuropathy, advanced-age hearing loss is associated with reduced life expectancy, probably mediated in part through an adverse impact on balance,” the authors wrote. “Greater appreciation for the serious impacts of hearing loss and peripheral neuropathy could lead to further efforts to understand their causes and improve prevention and treatment strategies.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by James W. Mold, MD, MPH, of the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City. It was published online in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

LIMITATIONS:

The dataset was collected in 1999 and may not entirely represent the current cohorts of older primary care patients. The absence of soundproof rooms and the exclusion of some components of the standard audiometric evaluation may have affected low-frequency sound measurements. Furthermore, physical examination was a less accurate measure of peripheral neuropathy. Information on the duration or severity of predictors and causes of death was not available.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Presbyterian Health Foundation. The authors did not disclose any competing interests.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Age-related hearing loss and peripheral neuropathy in older adults reduce longevity both directly and indirectly by affecting balance and gait.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed 793 older adults recruited from primary care practices participating in the OKLAHOMA Studies in 1999.
• Participants completed a questionnaire and underwent a physical examination; timed gait assessments (50 ft); and tests for peripheral nerve function, balance, and hearing.
• Hearing thresholds were tested at 20, 25, and 40 dB, respectively, and at sound frequencies of 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz.
• Researchers tracked mortality data over 22 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 83% participants experienced hearing loss. Regular use of hearing aids was low, reported in 19% and 55% of those with moderate and severe hearing loss, respectively.
• Hearing loss was linked to impaired balance (P = .0014), slower walking (P = .0024), and reduced survival time (P = .0001). Moderate to severe hearing loss was strongly associated with reduced survival time (odds ratio, 1.36; P = .001), independent of the use of hearing aids.
• Peripheral neuropathy was present in 32% participants. The condition also increased the risk for death over the study period (hazard ratio [HR], 1.32; P = .003). Participants with both hearing loss and peripheral neuropathy showed reduced balance and survival time compared with people with either condition alone (HR, 1.55; P < .0001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Like peripheral neuropathy, advanced-age hearing loss is associated with reduced life expectancy, probably mediated in part through an adverse impact on balance,” the authors wrote. “Greater appreciation for the serious impacts of hearing loss and peripheral neuropathy could lead to further efforts to understand their causes and improve prevention and treatment strategies.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by James W. Mold, MD, MPH, of the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City. It was published online in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

LIMITATIONS:

The dataset was collected in 1999 and may not entirely represent the current cohorts of older primary care patients. The absence of soundproof rooms and the exclusion of some components of the standard audiometric evaluation may have affected low-frequency sound measurements. Furthermore, physical examination was a less accurate measure of peripheral neuropathy. Information on the duration or severity of predictors and causes of death was not available.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Presbyterian Health Foundation. The authors did not disclose any competing interests.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Age-related hearing loss and peripheral neuropathy in older adults reduce longevity both directly and indirectly by affecting balance and gait.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed 793 older adults recruited from primary care practices participating in the OKLAHOMA Studies in 1999.
• Participants completed a questionnaire and underwent a physical examination; timed gait assessments (50 ft); and tests for peripheral nerve function, balance, and hearing.
• Hearing thresholds were tested at 20, 25, and 40 dB, respectively, and at sound frequencies of 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz.
• Researchers tracked mortality data over 22 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 83% participants experienced hearing loss. Regular use of hearing aids was low, reported in 19% and 55% of those with moderate and severe hearing loss, respectively.
• Hearing loss was linked to impaired balance (P = .0014), slower walking (P = .0024), and reduced survival time (P = .0001). Moderate to severe hearing loss was strongly associated with reduced survival time (odds ratio, 1.36; P = .001), independent of the use of hearing aids.
• Peripheral neuropathy was present in 32% participants. The condition also increased the risk for death over the study period (hazard ratio [HR], 1.32; P = .003). Participants with both hearing loss and peripheral neuropathy showed reduced balance and survival time compared with people with either condition alone (HR, 1.55; P < .0001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Like peripheral neuropathy, advanced-age hearing loss is associated with reduced life expectancy, probably mediated in part through an adverse impact on balance,” the authors wrote. “Greater appreciation for the serious impacts of hearing loss and peripheral neuropathy could lead to further efforts to understand their causes and improve prevention and treatment strategies.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by James W. Mold, MD, MPH, of the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City. It was published online in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

LIMITATIONS:

The dataset was collected in 1999 and may not entirely represent the current cohorts of older primary care patients. The absence of soundproof rooms and the exclusion of some components of the standard audiometric evaluation may have affected low-frequency sound measurements. Furthermore, physical examination was a less accurate measure of peripheral neuropathy. Information on the duration or severity of predictors and causes of death was not available.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Presbyterian Health Foundation. The authors did not disclose any competing interests.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Diagnosis: Pityriasis Lichenoides et Varioliformis Acuta

Sectioned punch biopsies were performed on the patient’s right arm. Histopathology showed acanthosis and parakeratosis in the epidermis, with vacuolar degeneration and dyskeratosis in the basal layer. Dermal changes included extravasated red blood cells in the papillary dermis as well as perivascular lymphocytic infiltrates in both the papillary and reticular dermis (Figure). Direct immunofluorescence of a perilesional biopsy using anti–human IgG, IgM, IgA, C3, and fibrin conjugates showed no findings of immune deposition. Biopsy results were consistent with pityriasis lichenoides et varioliformis acuta (PLEVA), and the patient was treated with a 5-day course of oral azithromycin, triamcinolone ointment 0.1% twice daily, and phototherapy with narrowband UVB ³ times weekly. Rapid improvement was noted at 2-month follow-up.

Pityriasis lichenoides et varioliformis acuta is a form of pityriasis lichenoides, a group of inflammatory dermatoses that are characterized clinically by successive crops of morphologically diverse lesions. Epidemiologic studies have shown a slight male predominance. It primarily affects children and young adults, with peak ages of 8 and 32 years in pediatric and adult populations, respectively.¹

The pathogenesis of PLEVA remains unclear. An abnormal immune response to Toxoplasma, Epstein-Barr virus, HIV, and other pathogens has been suggested based on serologic evidence of concurrent disease activity with the onset of lesions as well as cutaneous improvement in some patients after treatment of the infection.¹ A T-cell lymphoproliferative etiology also has been considered based on histopathologic similarities between PLEVA and lymphomatoid papulosis (LyP) as well as findings of clonality in T-cell receptor gene rearrangement in many patients.^1,2 Some clinicians consider LyP and PLEVA as separate entities on one disease spectrum.

Eruptions of PLEVA tend to favor the trunk and proximal extremities. Lesions may begin as macules measuring 2 to 3 mm in diameter that quickly evolve into papules with fine scale that remains attached centrally. Ulcerations with hemorrhagic crusts also may be noted as the lesions progress in stage. The rash may persist for weeks to years, and overlapping crops of macules and papules at varying stages of development may be seen in the same patient.¹

Histopathologic findings of PLEVA include spongiosis, dyskeratosis, parakeratosis, and focal keratinocyte necrosis within the epidermis, as well as vacuolar degeneration of the basal layer. Lymphocyte and erythrocyte extravasation may extend into the epidermis. Dermal findings may include edema and wedge-shaped perivascular lymphocytic infiltrates extending into the reticular dermis.¹

Important differential diagnoses to consider include LyP, mycosis fungoides (MF), pemphigus foliaceus, and varicella. Lymphomatoid papulosis is a benign CD30+ lymphoproliferative disorder that is characterized by an indolent course of recurrent, often self-resolving papules that occur most frequently on the trunk, arms, and legs of older patients. There are several histologic subtypes of LyP, but the most common (type A) may manifest with wedge-shaped perivascular lymphocytic infiltrates in the dermis, similar to PLEVA. T-cell receptor gene rearrangement studies characteristically reveal clonality in LyP, and clonality has been reported in PLEVA. However, LyP demonstrates a higher cytologic grade and lacks the characteristic parakeratotic scale and superficial dermal microhemorrhage of PLEVA.³

Mycosis fungoides is a malignant lymphoproliferative disorder that is characterized by an indolent clinical course of persistent patches, plaques, or tumors of various sizes that often manifest in non–sun-exposed areas of the skin. Early stages of MF are difficult to detect histologically, but biopsies may show atypical lymphocytes with hyperchromatic, irregularly contoured nuclei arranged along the basal layer of the epidermis. Epidermal aggregates of atypical lymphocytes (also known as Pautrier microabscesses) are considered highly specific for MF. T-cell receptor and immunopathologic studies also are important adjuncts in the diagnosis of MF.⁴

Pemphigus foliaceus is an autoimmune blistering disease caused by antibodies directed against desmoglein 1, which is found in the granular layer of the epidermis. It manifests with a subtle onset of scattered crusted lesions in the seborrheic areas, such as the scalp, face, chest, and upper back. Histopathologic findings of early blisters may include acantholysis and dyskeratosis in the stratum granulosum as well as vacuolization of the granular layer. The blisters may coalesce into superficial bullae containing fibrin and neutrophils. Immunofluorescence studies that demonstrate intraepidermal C3 and IgG deposition are key to the diagnosis of pemphigus.⁵

Varicella (also known as chickenpox) manifests with crops of vesicles on an erythematous base in a centripetal distribution favoring the trunk and proximal extremities. It often is preceded by prodromal fever, malaise, and myalgia. Histopathologic evaluation of varicella is uncommon but may reveal acantholysis, multinucleation, and nuclear margination of keratinocytes. Viral culture or nucleic acid amplification testing of lesions can be used to verify the diagnosis.⁶

Most cases of PLEVA resolve without intervention.7 Treatment is directed at speeding recovery, providing symptomatic relief, and limiting permanent sequelae. Topical steroids often are used to alleviate inflammation and pruritus. Systemic antibiotics such as doxycycline, minocycline, and erythromycin have been used for their anti-inflammatory properties. Phototherapy of various wavelengths, including broadband and narrowband UVB as well as psoralen plus UVA, have led to improvements in affected patients. Refractory disease may warrant consideration of therapy with methotrexate, acitretin, dapsone, or cyclosporine.⁷

There have been rare reports of PLEVA evolving into its potentially lethal variant, febrile ulceronecrotic Mucha-Habermann disease, which is differentiated by the presence of systemic manifestations, including high fever, sore throat, diarrhea, central nervous system symptoms, abdominal pain, interstitial pneumonitis, splenomegaly, arthritis, sepsis, megaloblastic anemia, or conjunctival ulcers. The orogenital mucosa may be affected. Cutaneous lesions may rapidly progress to large, generalized, coalescent ulcers with necrotic crusts and vasculitic features on biopsy.8 Malignant transformation of PLEVA into LyP or MF rarely may occur and warrants continued follow-up of unresolved lesions.⁹

The Diagnosis: Pityriasis Lichenoides et Varioliformis Acuta

Sectioned punch biopsies were performed on the patient’s right arm. Histopathology showed acanthosis and parakeratosis in the epidermis, with vacuolar degeneration and dyskeratosis in the basal layer. Dermal changes included extravasated red blood cells in the papillary dermis as well as perivascular lymphocytic infiltrates in both the papillary and reticular dermis (Figure). Direct immunofluorescence of a perilesional biopsy using anti–human IgG, IgM, IgA, C3, and fibrin conjugates showed no findings of immune deposition. Biopsy results were consistent with pityriasis lichenoides et varioliformis acuta (PLEVA), and the patient was treated with a 5-day course of oral azithromycin, triamcinolone ointment 0.1% twice daily, and phototherapy with narrowband UVB ³ times weekly. Rapid improvement was noted at 2-month follow-up.

Pityriasis lichenoides et varioliformis acuta is a form of pityriasis lichenoides, a group of inflammatory dermatoses that are characterized clinically by successive crops of morphologically diverse lesions. Epidemiologic studies have shown a slight male predominance. It primarily affects children and young adults, with peak ages of 8 and 32 years in pediatric and adult populations, respectively.¹

The pathogenesis of PLEVA remains unclear. An abnormal immune response to Toxoplasma, Epstein-Barr virus, HIV, and other pathogens has been suggested based on serologic evidence of concurrent disease activity with the onset of lesions as well as cutaneous improvement in some patients after treatment of the infection.¹ A T-cell lymphoproliferative etiology also has been considered based on histopathologic similarities between PLEVA and lymphomatoid papulosis (LyP) as well as findings of clonality in T-cell receptor gene rearrangement in many patients.^1,2 Some clinicians consider LyP and PLEVA as separate entities on one disease spectrum.

Eruptions of PLEVA tend to favor the trunk and proximal extremities. Lesions may begin as macules measuring 2 to 3 mm in diameter that quickly evolve into papules with fine scale that remains attached centrally. Ulcerations with hemorrhagic crusts also may be noted as the lesions progress in stage. The rash may persist for weeks to years, and overlapping crops of macules and papules at varying stages of development may be seen in the same patient.¹

Histopathologic findings of PLEVA include spongiosis, dyskeratosis, parakeratosis, and focal keratinocyte necrosis within the epidermis, as well as vacuolar degeneration of the basal layer. Lymphocyte and erythrocyte extravasation may extend into the epidermis. Dermal findings may include edema and wedge-shaped perivascular lymphocytic infiltrates extending into the reticular dermis.¹

Important differential diagnoses to consider include LyP, mycosis fungoides (MF), pemphigus foliaceus, and varicella. Lymphomatoid papulosis is a benign CD30+ lymphoproliferative disorder that is characterized by an indolent course of recurrent, often self-resolving papules that occur most frequently on the trunk, arms, and legs of older patients. There are several histologic subtypes of LyP, but the most common (type A) may manifest with wedge-shaped perivascular lymphocytic infiltrates in the dermis, similar to PLEVA. T-cell receptor gene rearrangement studies characteristically reveal clonality in LyP, and clonality has been reported in PLEVA. However, LyP demonstrates a higher cytologic grade and lacks the characteristic parakeratotic scale and superficial dermal microhemorrhage of PLEVA.³

Mycosis fungoides is a malignant lymphoproliferative disorder that is characterized by an indolent clinical course of persistent patches, plaques, or tumors of various sizes that often manifest in non–sun-exposed areas of the skin. Early stages of MF are difficult to detect histologically, but biopsies may show atypical lymphocytes with hyperchromatic, irregularly contoured nuclei arranged along the basal layer of the epidermis. Epidermal aggregates of atypical lymphocytes (also known as Pautrier microabscesses) are considered highly specific for MF. T-cell receptor and immunopathologic studies also are important adjuncts in the diagnosis of MF.⁴

Pemphigus foliaceus is an autoimmune blistering disease caused by antibodies directed against desmoglein 1, which is found in the granular layer of the epidermis. It manifests with a subtle onset of scattered crusted lesions in the seborrheic areas, such as the scalp, face, chest, and upper back. Histopathologic findings of early blisters may include acantholysis and dyskeratosis in the stratum granulosum as well as vacuolization of the granular layer. The blisters may coalesce into superficial bullae containing fibrin and neutrophils. Immunofluorescence studies that demonstrate intraepidermal C3 and IgG deposition are key to the diagnosis of pemphigus.⁵

Varicella (also known as chickenpox) manifests with crops of vesicles on an erythematous base in a centripetal distribution favoring the trunk and proximal extremities. It often is preceded by prodromal fever, malaise, and myalgia. Histopathologic evaluation of varicella is uncommon but may reveal acantholysis, multinucleation, and nuclear margination of keratinocytes. Viral culture or nucleic acid amplification testing of lesions can be used to verify the diagnosis.⁶

Most cases of PLEVA resolve without intervention.7 Treatment is directed at speeding recovery, providing symptomatic relief, and limiting permanent sequelae. Topical steroids often are used to alleviate inflammation and pruritus. Systemic antibiotics such as doxycycline, minocycline, and erythromycin have been used for their anti-inflammatory properties. Phototherapy of various wavelengths, including broadband and narrowband UVB as well as psoralen plus UVA, have led to improvements in affected patients. Refractory disease may warrant consideration of therapy with methotrexate, acitretin, dapsone, or cyclosporine.⁷

There have been rare reports of PLEVA evolving into its potentially lethal variant, febrile ulceronecrotic Mucha-Habermann disease, which is differentiated by the presence of systemic manifestations, including high fever, sore throat, diarrhea, central nervous system symptoms, abdominal pain, interstitial pneumonitis, splenomegaly, arthritis, sepsis, megaloblastic anemia, or conjunctival ulcers. The orogenital mucosa may be affected. Cutaneous lesions may rapidly progress to large, generalized, coalescent ulcers with necrotic crusts and vasculitic features on biopsy.8 Malignant transformation of PLEVA into LyP or MF rarely may occur and warrants continued follow-up of unresolved lesions.⁹

The Diagnosis: Pityriasis Lichenoides et Varioliformis Acuta

Sectioned punch biopsies were performed on the patient’s right arm. Histopathology showed acanthosis and parakeratosis in the epidermis, with vacuolar degeneration and dyskeratosis in the basal layer. Dermal changes included extravasated red blood cells in the papillary dermis as well as perivascular lymphocytic infiltrates in both the papillary and reticular dermis (Figure). Direct immunofluorescence of a perilesional biopsy using anti–human IgG, IgM, IgA, C3, and fibrin conjugates showed no findings of immune deposition. Biopsy results were consistent with pityriasis lichenoides et varioliformis acuta (PLEVA), and the patient was treated with a 5-day course of oral azithromycin, triamcinolone ointment 0.1% twice daily, and phototherapy with narrowband UVB ³ times weekly. Rapid improvement was noted at 2-month follow-up.

Pityriasis lichenoides et varioliformis acuta is a form of pityriasis lichenoides, a group of inflammatory dermatoses that are characterized clinically by successive crops of morphologically diverse lesions. Epidemiologic studies have shown a slight male predominance. It primarily affects children and young adults, with peak ages of 8 and 32 years in pediatric and adult populations, respectively.¹

The pathogenesis of PLEVA remains unclear. An abnormal immune response to Toxoplasma, Epstein-Barr virus, HIV, and other pathogens has been suggested based on serologic evidence of concurrent disease activity with the onset of lesions as well as cutaneous improvement in some patients after treatment of the infection.¹ A T-cell lymphoproliferative etiology also has been considered based on histopathologic similarities between PLEVA and lymphomatoid papulosis (LyP) as well as findings of clonality in T-cell receptor gene rearrangement in many patients.^1,2 Some clinicians consider LyP and PLEVA as separate entities on one disease spectrum.

Eruptions of PLEVA tend to favor the trunk and proximal extremities. Lesions may begin as macules measuring 2 to 3 mm in diameter that quickly evolve into papules with fine scale that remains attached centrally. Ulcerations with hemorrhagic crusts also may be noted as the lesions progress in stage. The rash may persist for weeks to years, and overlapping crops of macules and papules at varying stages of development may be seen in the same patient.¹

Histopathologic findings of PLEVA include spongiosis, dyskeratosis, parakeratosis, and focal keratinocyte necrosis within the epidermis, as well as vacuolar degeneration of the basal layer. Lymphocyte and erythrocyte extravasation may extend into the epidermis. Dermal findings may include edema and wedge-shaped perivascular lymphocytic infiltrates extending into the reticular dermis.¹

Important differential diagnoses to consider include LyP, mycosis fungoides (MF), pemphigus foliaceus, and varicella. Lymphomatoid papulosis is a benign CD30+ lymphoproliferative disorder that is characterized by an indolent course of recurrent, often self-resolving papules that occur most frequently on the trunk, arms, and legs of older patients. There are several histologic subtypes of LyP, but the most common (type A) may manifest with wedge-shaped perivascular lymphocytic infiltrates in the dermis, similar to PLEVA. T-cell receptor gene rearrangement studies characteristically reveal clonality in LyP, and clonality has been reported in PLEVA. However, LyP demonstrates a higher cytologic grade and lacks the characteristic parakeratotic scale and superficial dermal microhemorrhage of PLEVA.³

Mycosis fungoides is a malignant lymphoproliferative disorder that is characterized by an indolent clinical course of persistent patches, plaques, or tumors of various sizes that often manifest in non–sun-exposed areas of the skin. Early stages of MF are difficult to detect histologically, but biopsies may show atypical lymphocytes with hyperchromatic, irregularly contoured nuclei arranged along the basal layer of the epidermis. Epidermal aggregates of atypical lymphocytes (also known as Pautrier microabscesses) are considered highly specific for MF. T-cell receptor and immunopathologic studies also are important adjuncts in the diagnosis of MF.⁴

Pemphigus foliaceus is an autoimmune blistering disease caused by antibodies directed against desmoglein 1, which is found in the granular layer of the epidermis. It manifests with a subtle onset of scattered crusted lesions in the seborrheic areas, such as the scalp, face, chest, and upper back. Histopathologic findings of early blisters may include acantholysis and dyskeratosis in the stratum granulosum as well as vacuolization of the granular layer. The blisters may coalesce into superficial bullae containing fibrin and neutrophils. Immunofluorescence studies that demonstrate intraepidermal C3 and IgG deposition are key to the diagnosis of pemphigus.⁵

Varicella (also known as chickenpox) manifests with crops of vesicles on an erythematous base in a centripetal distribution favoring the trunk and proximal extremities. It often is preceded by prodromal fever, malaise, and myalgia. Histopathologic evaluation of varicella is uncommon but may reveal acantholysis, multinucleation, and nuclear margination of keratinocytes. Viral culture or nucleic acid amplification testing of lesions can be used to verify the diagnosis.⁶

Most cases of PLEVA resolve without intervention.7 Treatment is directed at speeding recovery, providing symptomatic relief, and limiting permanent sequelae. Topical steroids often are used to alleviate inflammation and pruritus. Systemic antibiotics such as doxycycline, minocycline, and erythromycin have been used for their anti-inflammatory properties. Phototherapy of various wavelengths, including broadband and narrowband UVB as well as psoralen plus UVA, have led to improvements in affected patients. Refractory disease may warrant consideration of therapy with methotrexate, acitretin, dapsone, or cyclosporine.⁷

There have been rare reports of PLEVA evolving into its potentially lethal variant, febrile ulceronecrotic Mucha-Habermann disease, which is differentiated by the presence of systemic manifestations, including high fever, sore throat, diarrhea, central nervous system symptoms, abdominal pain, interstitial pneumonitis, splenomegaly, arthritis, sepsis, megaloblastic anemia, or conjunctival ulcers. The orogenital mucosa may be affected. Cutaneous lesions may rapidly progress to large, generalized, coalescent ulcers with necrotic crusts and vasculitic features on biopsy.8 Malignant transformation of PLEVA into LyP or MF rarely may occur and warrants continued follow-up of unresolved lesions.⁹