Though Cade discovered it 70 years ago, lithium is still considered the gold standard treatment for preventing manic and depressive phases of bipolar disorder (BD). In addition to its primary indication as a mood stabilizer, lithium has demonstrated efficacy as an augmenting medication for unipolar major depressive disorder.¹ While lithium is a first-line agent for BD, it does not improve symptoms in every patient. In a 2004 meta-analysis of 5 randomized controlled trials of patients with BD, Geddes et al² found lithium was more effective than placebo in preventing the recurrence of mania, with 60% in the lithium group remaining stable compared to 40% in the placebo group. Being able to predict which patients will respond to lithium is crucial to prevent unnecessary exposure to lithium, which can produce significant adverse effects, including somnolence, nausea, diarrhea, and hypothyroidism.²

Several studies have investigated various clinical factors that might predict which patients with BD will respond to lithium. In a review, Kleindienst et al³ highlighted 3 factors that predicted a positive response to lithium:

• fewer hospitalizations prior to treatment
• an episodic course characterized sequentially by mania, depression, and then euthymia
• a later age (>50) at onset of BD.

Recent studies and reviews have isolated additional positive predictors, including having a family history of BD and a shorter duration of illness before receiving lithium, as well as negative predictors, such as rapid cycling, a large number of previous hospitalizations, a depression/mania/euthymia pattern, mood-incongruent psychotic features, and the presence of residual symptoms between mood episodes.^3,4

The Table provides a list of probable and possible positive and negative predictors for therapeutic response to lithium in patients with BD.^3-6 While relevant, the factors listed as possible predictors may not carry as much influence on lithium responsivity as those categorized as probable predictors.

Because of heterogeneity among studies, clinicians should consider their patient’s presentation as a whole, rather than basing medication choice on independent factors. Ultimately, more studies are required to fully determine the most relevant clinical parameters for lithium response. Overall, however, it appears these clinical factors could be extremely useful to guide psychiatrists in the optimal use of lithium while caring for patients with BD.

Though Cade discovered it 70 years ago, lithium is still considered the gold standard treatment for preventing manic and depressive phases of bipolar disorder (BD). In addition to its primary indication as a mood stabilizer, lithium has demonstrated efficacy as an augmenting medication for unipolar major depressive disorder.¹ While lithium is a first-line agent for BD, it does not improve symptoms in every patient. In a 2004 meta-analysis of 5 randomized controlled trials of patients with BD, Geddes et al² found lithium was more effective than placebo in preventing the recurrence of mania, with 60% in the lithium group remaining stable compared to 40% in the placebo group. Being able to predict which patients will respond to lithium is crucial to prevent unnecessary exposure to lithium, which can produce significant adverse effects, including somnolence, nausea, diarrhea, and hypothyroidism.²

Several studies have investigated various clinical factors that might predict which patients with BD will respond to lithium. In a review, Kleindienst et al³ highlighted 3 factors that predicted a positive response to lithium:

• fewer hospitalizations prior to treatment
• an episodic course characterized sequentially by mania, depression, and then euthymia
• a later age (>50) at onset of BD.

Recent studies and reviews have isolated additional positive predictors, including having a family history of BD and a shorter duration of illness before receiving lithium, as well as negative predictors, such as rapid cycling, a large number of previous hospitalizations, a depression/mania/euthymia pattern, mood-incongruent psychotic features, and the presence of residual symptoms between mood episodes.^3,4

The Table provides a list of probable and possible positive and negative predictors for therapeutic response to lithium in patients with BD.^3-6 While relevant, the factors listed as possible predictors may not carry as much influence on lithium responsivity as those categorized as probable predictors.

Because of heterogeneity among studies, clinicians should consider their patient’s presentation as a whole, rather than basing medication choice on independent factors. Ultimately, more studies are required to fully determine the most relevant clinical parameters for lithium response. Overall, however, it appears these clinical factors could be extremely useful to guide psychiatrists in the optimal use of lithium while caring for patients with BD.

Though Cade discovered it 70 years ago, lithium is still considered the gold standard treatment for preventing manic and depressive phases of bipolar disorder (BD). In addition to its primary indication as a mood stabilizer, lithium has demonstrated efficacy as an augmenting medication for unipolar major depressive disorder.¹ While lithium is a first-line agent for BD, it does not improve symptoms in every patient. In a 2004 meta-analysis of 5 randomized controlled trials of patients with BD, Geddes et al² found lithium was more effective than placebo in preventing the recurrence of mania, with 60% in the lithium group remaining stable compared to 40% in the placebo group. Being able to predict which patients will respond to lithium is crucial to prevent unnecessary exposure to lithium, which can produce significant adverse effects, including somnolence, nausea, diarrhea, and hypothyroidism.²

Several studies have investigated various clinical factors that might predict which patients with BD will respond to lithium. In a review, Kleindienst et al³ highlighted 3 factors that predicted a positive response to lithium:

• fewer hospitalizations prior to treatment
• an episodic course characterized sequentially by mania, depression, and then euthymia
• a later age (>50) at onset of BD.

Recent studies and reviews have isolated additional positive predictors, including having a family history of BD and a shorter duration of illness before receiving lithium, as well as negative predictors, such as rapid cycling, a large number of previous hospitalizations, a depression/mania/euthymia pattern, mood-incongruent psychotic features, and the presence of residual symptoms between mood episodes.^3,4

The Table provides a list of probable and possible positive and negative predictors for therapeutic response to lithium in patients with BD.^3-6 While relevant, the factors listed as possible predictors may not carry as much influence on lithium responsivity as those categorized as probable predictors.

Because of heterogeneity among studies, clinicians should consider their patient’s presentation as a whole, rather than basing medication choice on independent factors. Ultimately, more studies are required to fully determine the most relevant clinical parameters for lithium response. Overall, however, it appears these clinical factors could be extremely useful to guide psychiatrists in the optimal use of lithium while caring for patients with BD.

Difficulty achieving regular restorative sleep is a common symptom of many psychiatric illnesses and can pose a pharmaceutical challenge, particularly for patients who have contra­indications to benzodiazepines or sedative-hypnotics. Melatonin is commonly used to treat insomnia and circadian rhythm disorders in hospitalized patients because it is largely considered safe, nonhabit forming, unlikely to interact with other medications, and possibly protective against delirium.¹ We support its short-term use in patients with sleep disruption, even if they do not meet the diagnostic criteria for insomnia or a circadian rhythm sleep-wake disorder. However, this use should be guided by consideration of the known physiological actions of melatonin, and not by an assumption that it acts as a simple sedative-hypnotic.

How melatonin works

Melatonin is an endogenous neurohormone involved in circadian rhythm regulation (sleep/wake regulation), a fundamental process in the functioning of the CNS and in the development of psychiatric disorders.² Melatonin is commonly described as a sleep-promoting neurotransmitter, but it is more accurately described as a “darkness hormone.”³ With an onset at dusk and offset at sunrise, melatonin is the signal for biological night, not the signal for sleep. Melanopsin-containing retina neurons sensitive to blue light sense the diminishing light of the evening and communicate this cue to the brain’s master clock in the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) of the hypothalamus (via the retinohypothalamic pathway). The SCN then releases its inhibition on the pineal gland, allowing it to release melatonin into the bloodstream and CSF. The timing of this release is known as the dim-light melatonin onset (DLMO).

Selecting the optimal timing and dose

Studies in laboratory and home settings have consistently shown that the DLMO precedes the onset of sleep by approximately 2 to 4 hours.⁴ Thus, we recommend scheduling melatonin administration for 2 to 4 hours before the intended bedtime.

Lower doses better replicate physiological levels of melatonin. A lower dose is also less likely to lead to a compromise of the entrainment process and the induction of a delayed sleep phase due to the lingering presence of melatonin, or the phase-delaying effects of a strong melatonin signal much later than the ideal DLMO. Giving higher doses at bedtime will induce sleep but may cause a circadian phase delay, effectively “jet lagging” the patient. We recommend prescribing low-dose melatonin (LDM; 0.5 to 1 mg) 2 to 4 hours before the intended bedtime rather than higher doses (≥5 mg) given at bedtime as is common practice and recommended by many melatonin manufacturers. LDM better simulates the natural release and function of melatonin and avoids potential adverse circadian phase delays. The successful use of melatonin in hospitalized patients suggests there is a unique opportunity to use this safe and effective medication with a relatively well-understood mechanism of action for nonhospitalized patients who are having difficulty sleeping. Considering the known physiological actions of melatonin can help guide the optimal timing and dosage of melatonin for this purpose.

Difficulty achieving regular restorative sleep is a common symptom of many psychiatric illnesses and can pose a pharmaceutical challenge, particularly for patients who have contra­indications to benzodiazepines or sedative-hypnotics. Melatonin is commonly used to treat insomnia and circadian rhythm disorders in hospitalized patients because it is largely considered safe, nonhabit forming, unlikely to interact with other medications, and possibly protective against delirium.¹ We support its short-term use in patients with sleep disruption, even if they do not meet the diagnostic criteria for insomnia or a circadian rhythm sleep-wake disorder. However, this use should be guided by consideration of the known physiological actions of melatonin, and not by an assumption that it acts as a simple sedative-hypnotic.

How melatonin works

Melatonin is an endogenous neurohormone involved in circadian rhythm regulation (sleep/wake regulation), a fundamental process in the functioning of the CNS and in the development of psychiatric disorders.² Melatonin is commonly described as a sleep-promoting neurotransmitter, but it is more accurately described as a “darkness hormone.”³ With an onset at dusk and offset at sunrise, melatonin is the signal for biological night, not the signal for sleep. Melanopsin-containing retina neurons sensitive to blue light sense the diminishing light of the evening and communicate this cue to the brain’s master clock in the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) of the hypothalamus (via the retinohypothalamic pathway). The SCN then releases its inhibition on the pineal gland, allowing it to release melatonin into the bloodstream and CSF. The timing of this release is known as the dim-light melatonin onset (DLMO).

Selecting the optimal timing and dose

Studies in laboratory and home settings have consistently shown that the DLMO precedes the onset of sleep by approximately 2 to 4 hours.⁴ Thus, we recommend scheduling melatonin administration for 2 to 4 hours before the intended bedtime.

Lower doses better replicate physiological levels of melatonin. A lower dose is also less likely to lead to a compromise of the entrainment process and the induction of a delayed sleep phase due to the lingering presence of melatonin, or the phase-delaying effects of a strong melatonin signal much later than the ideal DLMO. Giving higher doses at bedtime will induce sleep but may cause a circadian phase delay, effectively “jet lagging” the patient. We recommend prescribing low-dose melatonin (LDM; 0.5 to 1 mg) 2 to 4 hours before the intended bedtime rather than higher doses (≥5 mg) given at bedtime as is common practice and recommended by many melatonin manufacturers. LDM better simulates the natural release and function of melatonin and avoids potential adverse circadian phase delays. The successful use of melatonin in hospitalized patients suggests there is a unique opportunity to use this safe and effective medication with a relatively well-understood mechanism of action for nonhospitalized patients who are having difficulty sleeping. Considering the known physiological actions of melatonin can help guide the optimal timing and dosage of melatonin for this purpose.

Difficulty achieving regular restorative sleep is a common symptom of many psychiatric illnesses and can pose a pharmaceutical challenge, particularly for patients who have contra­indications to benzodiazepines or sedative-hypnotics. Melatonin is commonly used to treat insomnia and circadian rhythm disorders in hospitalized patients because it is largely considered safe, nonhabit forming, unlikely to interact with other medications, and possibly protective against delirium.¹ We support its short-term use in patients with sleep disruption, even if they do not meet the diagnostic criteria for insomnia or a circadian rhythm sleep-wake disorder. However, this use should be guided by consideration of the known physiological actions of melatonin, and not by an assumption that it acts as a simple sedative-hypnotic.

How melatonin works

Melatonin is an endogenous neurohormone involved in circadian rhythm regulation (sleep/wake regulation), a fundamental process in the functioning of the CNS and in the development of psychiatric disorders.² Melatonin is commonly described as a sleep-promoting neurotransmitter, but it is more accurately described as a “darkness hormone.”³ With an onset at dusk and offset at sunrise, melatonin is the signal for biological night, not the signal for sleep. Melanopsin-containing retina neurons sensitive to blue light sense the diminishing light of the evening and communicate this cue to the brain’s master clock in the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) of the hypothalamus (via the retinohypothalamic pathway). The SCN then releases its inhibition on the pineal gland, allowing it to release melatonin into the bloodstream and CSF. The timing of this release is known as the dim-light melatonin onset (DLMO).

Selecting the optimal timing and dose

Studies in laboratory and home settings have consistently shown that the DLMO precedes the onset of sleep by approximately 2 to 4 hours.⁴ Thus, we recommend scheduling melatonin administration for 2 to 4 hours before the intended bedtime.

Lower doses better replicate physiological levels of melatonin. A lower dose is also less likely to lead to a compromise of the entrainment process and the induction of a delayed sleep phase due to the lingering presence of melatonin, or the phase-delaying effects of a strong melatonin signal much later than the ideal DLMO. Giving higher doses at bedtime will induce sleep but may cause a circadian phase delay, effectively “jet lagging” the patient. We recommend prescribing low-dose melatonin (LDM; 0.5 to 1 mg) 2 to 4 hours before the intended bedtime rather than higher doses (≥5 mg) given at bedtime as is common practice and recommended by many melatonin manufacturers. LDM better simulates the natural release and function of melatonin and avoids potential adverse circadian phase delays. The successful use of melatonin in hospitalized patients suggests there is a unique opportunity to use this safe and effective medication with a relatively well-understood mechanism of action for nonhospitalized patients who are having difficulty sleeping. Considering the known physiological actions of melatonin can help guide the optimal timing and dosage of melatonin for this purpose.

Editor’s note: Readers’ Forum is a department for correspondence from readers that is not in response to articles published in Current Psychiatry. All submissions to Readers’ Forum undergo peer review and are subject to editing for length and style. For more information, contact let[email protected].

Mr. F, age 42, says he has always been a very anxious person and has chronically found his worrying to negatively affect his life. He says that over the last month his anxiety has been “off the charts” and he is worrying “24/7” due to taking on new responsibilities at his job and his son being diagnosed with lupus. He says his constant worrying is significantly impairing his ability to focus at his job, and he is considering taking a mental health leave from work. His wife reports that she is extremely frustrated because Mr. F has been isolating himself from family and friends; he admits this is true and attributes it to being preoccupied by his worries.

Mr. F endorses chronic insomnia, muscle tension, and irritability associated with anxiety; these have all substantially worsened over the last month. He admits that recently he has occasionally thought it would be easier if he weren’t alive. Mr. F denies having problems with his energy or motivation levels and insists that he generally feels very anxious, but not depressed. He says he drinks 1 alcoholic drink per week and denies any other substance use. Mr. F is overweight and has slightly elevated cholesterol but denies any other health conditions. He takes melatonin to help him sleep but does not take any prescribed medications.

Although this vignette provides limited details, on the surface it appears that Mr. F is experiencing an exacerbation of chronic generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). However, in this article, I propose establishing a new diagnosis: “acute anxiety disorder,” which would encapsulate severe exacerbations of a pre-existing anxiety disorder. Among the patients I have encountered for whom this diagnosis would fit, most have pre-existing GAD or panic disorder.

A look at the differential diagnosis

It is important to determine whether Mr. F is using any substances or has a medical condition that could be contributing to his anxiety. Other psychiatric diagnoses that could be considered include:

Adjustment disorder. This diagnosis would make sense if Mr. F didn’t have an apparent chronic history of symptoms that meet criteria for GAD.

Major depressive disorder with anxious distress. Many patients experiencing a major depressive episode meet the criteria for the specifier “with anxious distress,” even those who do not have a comorbid anxiety disorder.¹ However, it is not evident from this vignette that Mr. F is experiencing a major depressive episode.

Continue to: Panic disorder and GAD...

Panic disorder and GAD. It is possible for a patient with GAD to develop panic disorder, which, at times, occurs after experiencing significant life stressors. Panic disorder requires the presence of recurrent panic attacks. Mr. F describes experiencing chronic, intense symptoms of anxiety rather than the discreet episodes of acute symptoms that characterize panic attacks.

Acute stress disorder. This diagnosis involves psychological symptoms that occur in response to exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violation. Mr. F was not exposed to any of these stressors.

Why this new diagnosis would be helpful

A new diagnosis, acute anxiety disorder, would indicate that a patient is currently experiencing an acute exacerbation of a chronic anxiety disorder that is leading to a significant decrease in their baseline functioning. My proposed criteria for acute anxiety disorder appear in the Table. Here are some reasons this diagnosis would be helpful:

Signifier of severity. Anxiety disorders such as GAD are generally not considered severe conditions and not considered to fall under the rubric of SPMI (severe and persistent mental illness).² Posttraumatic stress disorder is the anxiety disorder–like condition most often found in the SPMI category. A diagnosis of acute anxiety disorder would indicate a patient is experiencing an episode of anxiety that is distinct from their chronic anxiety condition due to its severe impact on functional capabilities. Acute anxiety disorder would certainly not qualify as a “SPMI diagnosis” that would facilitate someone being considered eligible for supplemental security income, but it might be a legitimate justification for someone to receive short-term disability.

Treatment approach. The pharmacologic treatment of anxiety disorders usually involves a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI). However, these medications can sometimes briefly increase anxiety when they are started. Individuals with acute anxiety are the most vulnerable to the possibility of experiencing increased anxiety when starting an SSRI or SNRI and may benefit from a slower titration of these medications. In light of this and the length of time required for SSRIs or SNRIs to exert a positive effect (typically a few weeks), patients with acute anxiety are best served by treatment with a medication with an immediate onset of action, such as a benzodiazepine or a sleep medication (eg, zolpidem). Benzodiazepines and hypnotics such as zolpidem are best prescribed for as-needed use because they carry a risk of dependence. One might consider prescribing mirtazapine or pregabalin (both of which are used off-label to treat anxiety) because these medications also have a relatively rapid onset of action and can treat both anxiety and insomnia (particularly mirtazapine).

Research considerations. It would be helpful to study which treatments are most effective for the subset of patients who experience acute anxiety disorder as I define it. Perhaps psychotherapy treatment protocols could be adapted or created. Treatment with esketamine or IV ketamine might be further studied as a treatment for acute anxiety because some evidence suggests ketamine is efficacious for this indication.³

Editor’s note: Readers’ Forum is a department for correspondence from readers that is not in response to articles published in Current Psychiatry. All submissions to Readers’ Forum undergo peer review and are subject to editing for length and style. For more information, contact let[email protected].

Mr. F, age 42, says he has always been a very anxious person and has chronically found his worrying to negatively affect his life. He says that over the last month his anxiety has been “off the charts” and he is worrying “24/7” due to taking on new responsibilities at his job and his son being diagnosed with lupus. He says his constant worrying is significantly impairing his ability to focus at his job, and he is considering taking a mental health leave from work. His wife reports that she is extremely frustrated because Mr. F has been isolating himself from family and friends; he admits this is true and attributes it to being preoccupied by his worries.

Mr. F endorses chronic insomnia, muscle tension, and irritability associated with anxiety; these have all substantially worsened over the last month. He admits that recently he has occasionally thought it would be easier if he weren’t alive. Mr. F denies having problems with his energy or motivation levels and insists that he generally feels very anxious, but not depressed. He says he drinks 1 alcoholic drink per week and denies any other substance use. Mr. F is overweight and has slightly elevated cholesterol but denies any other health conditions. He takes melatonin to help him sleep but does not take any prescribed medications.

Although this vignette provides limited details, on the surface it appears that Mr. F is experiencing an exacerbation of chronic generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). However, in this article, I propose establishing a new diagnosis: “acute anxiety disorder,” which would encapsulate severe exacerbations of a pre-existing anxiety disorder. Among the patients I have encountered for whom this diagnosis would fit, most have pre-existing GAD or panic disorder.

A look at the differential diagnosis

It is important to determine whether Mr. F is using any substances or has a medical condition that could be contributing to his anxiety. Other psychiatric diagnoses that could be considered include:

Adjustment disorder. This diagnosis would make sense if Mr. F didn’t have an apparent chronic history of symptoms that meet criteria for GAD.

Major depressive disorder with anxious distress. Many patients experiencing a major depressive episode meet the criteria for the specifier “with anxious distress,” even those who do not have a comorbid anxiety disorder.¹ However, it is not evident from this vignette that Mr. F is experiencing a major depressive episode.

Continue to: Panic disorder and GAD...

Panic disorder and GAD. It is possible for a patient with GAD to develop panic disorder, which, at times, occurs after experiencing significant life stressors. Panic disorder requires the presence of recurrent panic attacks. Mr. F describes experiencing chronic, intense symptoms of anxiety rather than the discreet episodes of acute symptoms that characterize panic attacks.

Acute stress disorder. This diagnosis involves psychological symptoms that occur in response to exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violation. Mr. F was not exposed to any of these stressors.

Why this new diagnosis would be helpful

A new diagnosis, acute anxiety disorder, would indicate that a patient is currently experiencing an acute exacerbation of a chronic anxiety disorder that is leading to a significant decrease in their baseline functioning. My proposed criteria for acute anxiety disorder appear in the Table. Here are some reasons this diagnosis would be helpful:

Signifier of severity. Anxiety disorders such as GAD are generally not considered severe conditions and not considered to fall under the rubric of SPMI (severe and persistent mental illness).² Posttraumatic stress disorder is the anxiety disorder–like condition most often found in the SPMI category. A diagnosis of acute anxiety disorder would indicate a patient is experiencing an episode of anxiety that is distinct from their chronic anxiety condition due to its severe impact on functional capabilities. Acute anxiety disorder would certainly not qualify as a “SPMI diagnosis” that would facilitate someone being considered eligible for supplemental security income, but it might be a legitimate justification for someone to receive short-term disability.

Treatment approach. The pharmacologic treatment of anxiety disorders usually involves a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI). However, these medications can sometimes briefly increase anxiety when they are started. Individuals with acute anxiety are the most vulnerable to the possibility of experiencing increased anxiety when starting an SSRI or SNRI and may benefit from a slower titration of these medications. In light of this and the length of time required for SSRIs or SNRIs to exert a positive effect (typically a few weeks), patients with acute anxiety are best served by treatment with a medication with an immediate onset of action, such as a benzodiazepine or a sleep medication (eg, zolpidem). Benzodiazepines and hypnotics such as zolpidem are best prescribed for as-needed use because they carry a risk of dependence. One might consider prescribing mirtazapine or pregabalin (both of which are used off-label to treat anxiety) because these medications also have a relatively rapid onset of action and can treat both anxiety and insomnia (particularly mirtazapine).

Research considerations. It would be helpful to study which treatments are most effective for the subset of patients who experience acute anxiety disorder as I define it. Perhaps psychotherapy treatment protocols could be adapted or created. Treatment with esketamine or IV ketamine might be further studied as a treatment for acute anxiety because some evidence suggests ketamine is efficacious for this indication.³

Editor’s note: Readers’ Forum is a department for correspondence from readers that is not in response to articles published in Current Psychiatry. All submissions to Readers’ Forum undergo peer review and are subject to editing for length and style. For more information, contact let[email protected].

Mr. F, age 42, says he has always been a very anxious person and has chronically found his worrying to negatively affect his life. He says that over the last month his anxiety has been “off the charts” and he is worrying “24/7” due to taking on new responsibilities at his job and his son being diagnosed with lupus. He says his constant worrying is significantly impairing his ability to focus at his job, and he is considering taking a mental health leave from work. His wife reports that she is extremely frustrated because Mr. F has been isolating himself from family and friends; he admits this is true and attributes it to being preoccupied by his worries.

Mr. F endorses chronic insomnia, muscle tension, and irritability associated with anxiety; these have all substantially worsened over the last month. He admits that recently he has occasionally thought it would be easier if he weren’t alive. Mr. F denies having problems with his energy or motivation levels and insists that he generally feels very anxious, but not depressed. He says he drinks 1 alcoholic drink per week and denies any other substance use. Mr. F is overweight and has slightly elevated cholesterol but denies any other health conditions. He takes melatonin to help him sleep but does not take any prescribed medications.

Although this vignette provides limited details, on the surface it appears that Mr. F is experiencing an exacerbation of chronic generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). However, in this article, I propose establishing a new diagnosis: “acute anxiety disorder,” which would encapsulate severe exacerbations of a pre-existing anxiety disorder. Among the patients I have encountered for whom this diagnosis would fit, most have pre-existing GAD or panic disorder.

A look at the differential diagnosis

It is important to determine whether Mr. F is using any substances or has a medical condition that could be contributing to his anxiety. Other psychiatric diagnoses that could be considered include:

Adjustment disorder. This diagnosis would make sense if Mr. F didn’t have an apparent chronic history of symptoms that meet criteria for GAD.

Major depressive disorder with anxious distress. Many patients experiencing a major depressive episode meet the criteria for the specifier “with anxious distress,” even those who do not have a comorbid anxiety disorder.¹ However, it is not evident from this vignette that Mr. F is experiencing a major depressive episode.

Continue to: Panic disorder and GAD...

Panic disorder and GAD. It is possible for a patient with GAD to develop panic disorder, which, at times, occurs after experiencing significant life stressors. Panic disorder requires the presence of recurrent panic attacks. Mr. F describes experiencing chronic, intense symptoms of anxiety rather than the discreet episodes of acute symptoms that characterize panic attacks.

Acute stress disorder. This diagnosis involves psychological symptoms that occur in response to exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violation. Mr. F was not exposed to any of these stressors.

Why this new diagnosis would be helpful

A new diagnosis, acute anxiety disorder, would indicate that a patient is currently experiencing an acute exacerbation of a chronic anxiety disorder that is leading to a significant decrease in their baseline functioning. My proposed criteria for acute anxiety disorder appear in the Table. Here are some reasons this diagnosis would be helpful:

Signifier of severity. Anxiety disorders such as GAD are generally not considered severe conditions and not considered to fall under the rubric of SPMI (severe and persistent mental illness).² Posttraumatic stress disorder is the anxiety disorder–like condition most often found in the SPMI category. A diagnosis of acute anxiety disorder would indicate a patient is experiencing an episode of anxiety that is distinct from their chronic anxiety condition due to its severe impact on functional capabilities. Acute anxiety disorder would certainly not qualify as a “SPMI diagnosis” that would facilitate someone being considered eligible for supplemental security income, but it might be a legitimate justification for someone to receive short-term disability.

Treatment approach. The pharmacologic treatment of anxiety disorders usually involves a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI). However, these medications can sometimes briefly increase anxiety when they are started. Individuals with acute anxiety are the most vulnerable to the possibility of experiencing increased anxiety when starting an SSRI or SNRI and may benefit from a slower titration of these medications. In light of this and the length of time required for SSRIs or SNRIs to exert a positive effect (typically a few weeks), patients with acute anxiety are best served by treatment with a medication with an immediate onset of action, such as a benzodiazepine or a sleep medication (eg, zolpidem). Benzodiazepines and hypnotics such as zolpidem are best prescribed for as-needed use because they carry a risk of dependence. One might consider prescribing mirtazapine or pregabalin (both of which are used off-label to treat anxiety) because these medications also have a relatively rapid onset of action and can treat both anxiety and insomnia (particularly mirtazapine).

Research considerations. It would be helpful to study which treatments are most effective for the subset of patients who experience acute anxiety disorder as I define it. Perhaps psychotherapy treatment protocols could be adapted or created. Treatment with esketamine or IV ketamine might be further studied as a treatment for acute anxiety because some evidence suggests ketamine is efficacious for this indication.³

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is typically a severe, chronic illness in which patients have recurrent, unwanted thoughts, urges, and compulsions.¹ It causes significant morbidity and lost potential over time, and is the world’s 10th-most disabling disorder in terms of lost income and decreased quality of life, and the fifth-most disabling mental health condition.² Patients with OCD (and their clinicians) are often desperate for an efficacious treatment, but we must ensure that those who are not helped by traditional psychotherapeutic and/or pharmacologic treatments are appropriate for safe neurosurgical intervention.

Pros and cons of neurosurgical therapies

Most patients with OCD are effectively treated with cognitive-behavioral therapy and pharmacotherapy in the form of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, clomipramine, or second-generation antipsychotics. However, up to 5% of individuals with OCD will have symptoms refractory to these traditional therapies.³ These cases require more aggressive forms of therapy, including radiofrequency ablation surgeries and deep brain stimulation (DBS). The efficacy of both therapies is similar at 40% to 60%.^4,5 While these treatments can be life-changing for patients fortunate to receive them, they are not without issue.

Only a limited number of institutions offer these neurosurgical techniques, and for many patients, those locations may be inaccessible. Patients may not experience relief simply due to where they live, difficult logistics, and the high cost requisite to receive care. If fortunate enough to live near a participating institution or have the means to travel to one, the patient and clinician must then choose the best option based on the nuances of the patient’s situation.

Ablation techniques, such as gamma knife or magnetic resonance–guided ultrasound, are simpler and more cost-effective. A drawback of this approach, however, is that it is irreversible. Lesioned structures are irreparable, as are the adverse effects of the surgery, which, while rare, may include a persistent minimally conscious state or necrotic cysts.⁴ A benefit of this approach is that there is no need for lengthy follow-up as seen with DBS.

DBS is more complicated. In addition to having to undergo an open neurosurgical procedure, these patients require long-term follow-up and monitoring. A positive aspect is the device can be turned off or removed. However, the amount of follow-up and adjustments is significant. These patients need access to clinicians skilled in DBS device management.

Finally, we must consider the chronically ill patient’s perspective after successful treatment. While the patient’s symptoms may improve, their lives and identities likely developed around their symptoms. Bosanac et al⁶ describe this reality well in a case study in which a patient with OCD was “burdened with normality” after successful DBS treatment. He was finally able to work, build meaningful relationships, and approach previously unattainable social milestones. This was an overwhelming experience for him, and he and his family needed guidance into the world in which most of us find comfort.

As ablation techniques, DBS, and other cutting-edge therapies for OCD come to the forefront of modern care, clinicians must remember to keep patient safety first. Verify follow-up care before committing patients to invasive and irreversible treatments. While general access is currently poor, participating institutions should consider advertising and communicating that there is an accessible network available for these chronically ill individuals.

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is typically a severe, chronic illness in which patients have recurrent, unwanted thoughts, urges, and compulsions.¹ It causes significant morbidity and lost potential over time, and is the world’s 10th-most disabling disorder in terms of lost income and decreased quality of life, and the fifth-most disabling mental health condition.² Patients with OCD (and their clinicians) are often desperate for an efficacious treatment, but we must ensure that those who are not helped by traditional psychotherapeutic and/or pharmacologic treatments are appropriate for safe neurosurgical intervention.

Pros and cons of neurosurgical therapies

Most patients with OCD are effectively treated with cognitive-behavioral therapy and pharmacotherapy in the form of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, clomipramine, or second-generation antipsychotics. However, up to 5% of individuals with OCD will have symptoms refractory to these traditional therapies.³ These cases require more aggressive forms of therapy, including radiofrequency ablation surgeries and deep brain stimulation (DBS). The efficacy of both therapies is similar at 40% to 60%.^4,5 While these treatments can be life-changing for patients fortunate to receive them, they are not without issue.

Only a limited number of institutions offer these neurosurgical techniques, and for many patients, those locations may be inaccessible. Patients may not experience relief simply due to where they live, difficult logistics, and the high cost requisite to receive care. If fortunate enough to live near a participating institution or have the means to travel to one, the patient and clinician must then choose the best option based on the nuances of the patient’s situation.

Ablation techniques, such as gamma knife or magnetic resonance–guided ultrasound, are simpler and more cost-effective. A drawback of this approach, however, is that it is irreversible. Lesioned structures are irreparable, as are the adverse effects of the surgery, which, while rare, may include a persistent minimally conscious state or necrotic cysts.⁴ A benefit of this approach is that there is no need for lengthy follow-up as seen with DBS.

DBS is more complicated. In addition to having to undergo an open neurosurgical procedure, these patients require long-term follow-up and monitoring. A positive aspect is the device can be turned off or removed. However, the amount of follow-up and adjustments is significant. These patients need access to clinicians skilled in DBS device management.

Finally, we must consider the chronically ill patient’s perspective after successful treatment. While the patient’s symptoms may improve, their lives and identities likely developed around their symptoms. Bosanac et al⁶ describe this reality well in a case study in which a patient with OCD was “burdened with normality” after successful DBS treatment. He was finally able to work, build meaningful relationships, and approach previously unattainable social milestones. This was an overwhelming experience for him, and he and his family needed guidance into the world in which most of us find comfort.

As ablation techniques, DBS, and other cutting-edge therapies for OCD come to the forefront of modern care, clinicians must remember to keep patient safety first. Verify follow-up care before committing patients to invasive and irreversible treatments. While general access is currently poor, participating institutions should consider advertising and communicating that there is an accessible network available for these chronically ill individuals.

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is typically a severe, chronic illness in which patients have recurrent, unwanted thoughts, urges, and compulsions.¹ It causes significant morbidity and lost potential over time, and is the world’s 10th-most disabling disorder in terms of lost income and decreased quality of life, and the fifth-most disabling mental health condition.² Patients with OCD (and their clinicians) are often desperate for an efficacious treatment, but we must ensure that those who are not helped by traditional psychotherapeutic and/or pharmacologic treatments are appropriate for safe neurosurgical intervention.

Pros and cons of neurosurgical therapies

Most patients with OCD are effectively treated with cognitive-behavioral therapy and pharmacotherapy in the form of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, clomipramine, or second-generation antipsychotics. However, up to 5% of individuals with OCD will have symptoms refractory to these traditional therapies.³ These cases require more aggressive forms of therapy, including radiofrequency ablation surgeries and deep brain stimulation (DBS). The efficacy of both therapies is similar at 40% to 60%.^4,5 While these treatments can be life-changing for patients fortunate to receive them, they are not without issue.

Only a limited number of institutions offer these neurosurgical techniques, and for many patients, those locations may be inaccessible. Patients may not experience relief simply due to where they live, difficult logistics, and the high cost requisite to receive care. If fortunate enough to live near a participating institution or have the means to travel to one, the patient and clinician must then choose the best option based on the nuances of the patient’s situation.

Ablation techniques, such as gamma knife or magnetic resonance–guided ultrasound, are simpler and more cost-effective. A drawback of this approach, however, is that it is irreversible. Lesioned structures are irreparable, as are the adverse effects of the surgery, which, while rare, may include a persistent minimally conscious state or necrotic cysts.⁴ A benefit of this approach is that there is no need for lengthy follow-up as seen with DBS.

DBS is more complicated. In addition to having to undergo an open neurosurgical procedure, these patients require long-term follow-up and monitoring. A positive aspect is the device can be turned off or removed. However, the amount of follow-up and adjustments is significant. These patients need access to clinicians skilled in DBS device management.

Finally, we must consider the chronically ill patient’s perspective after successful treatment. While the patient’s symptoms may improve, their lives and identities likely developed around their symptoms. Bosanac et al⁶ describe this reality well in a case study in which a patient with OCD was “burdened with normality” after successful DBS treatment. He was finally able to work, build meaningful relationships, and approach previously unattainable social milestones. This was an overwhelming experience for him, and he and his family needed guidance into the world in which most of us find comfort.

As ablation techniques, DBS, and other cutting-edge therapies for OCD come to the forefront of modern care, clinicians must remember to keep patient safety first. Verify follow-up care before committing patients to invasive and irreversible treatments. While general access is currently poor, participating institutions should consider advertising and communicating that there is an accessible network available for these chronically ill individuals.

Dear colleagues,

Most of us engage with social media, whether actively tweeting, following friends on Facebook, or discussing TikTok videos with family. Many gastroenterologists leverage social media to build their professional brand and to reach a wider audience. Others remain wary of committing a social media faux paux or worry about patient confidentiality. In this Perspectives column, Dr. Stephen Chris Pappas and Dr. Mohammad Bilal discuss the risks and benefits of social media for the practicing gastroenterologist. Dr. Pappas has a unique perspective as a gastroenterologist who is also trained as a lawyer, and Dr. Bilal speaks from a wealth of experience leading educational activities on social media. We look forward to hearing your thoughts on Twitter @AGA_GIHN and by email at [email protected].

Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, an associate professor of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and chief of endoscopy at West Haven (Conn.) VA Medical Center. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.

Carefully consider the plentiful risks, concerns

BY STEPHEN CHRIS PAPPAS, MD, JD, FAASLD, FACLM

Social media for gastroenterologists comes with benefits accompanied by pesky risks. The risks are pesky like a mosquito bite: An itching bite is annoying, but getting malaria is serious. Managing your unprofessional tweet to salvage your reputation is going to be annoying. Disclosing a patient's identity on social media is going to be serious; you could find yourself fired, fined, reprimanded, and without hospital privileges, as happened recently to a Rhode Island physician. I divide the risks of social media into legal risks (for example, disclosing patient identity or inadvertently creating a doctor-patient relationship), risks of compromising ethical standards (for example, impairing the doctor-patient relationship), and mixed legal/ethics risks (for example, inappropriate Twitter banter disparaging individuals, promotion of “fake news”). Fortunately, these risks are intuitive and can be mitigated by attention to some simple principles.

Disclosing a patient’s identity on social media is clearly in violation of privacy laws and other regulations. Since privacy compliance is drummed into us ad nauseum via annual compliance training, we could ask “how on earth could an inadvertent disclosure of identity occur?” We must remember that sites that are nominally termed “secure” may not be. As a general suggestion, I would regard social media of all types as open public forums with permanent postings. Even limited descriptions of a patient on social media may allow identification of the actual patient. The risk may be highest in smaller communities; in the past I assisted a small-town practitioner manage the fallout from inadvertently identifying a patient on his professional Facebook page by simply saying “I recently managed a 38-year-old pregnant woman with Crohn’s disease ...” That small amount of information allowed some members of his community to identify the specific patient. My suggestion would be to never talk about individual patients on social media. Phrase comments or questions generically; for example, “Crohn’s disease in pregnancy is managed with attention to ...”.

Another legal risk of social media engagement is to unknowingly create a patient-doctor relationship with a duty to treat, opening the door for exposure to malpractice litigation if something goes awry. A patient may interpret a social media interaction as establishing a patient-doctor relationship. While we think we know what defines a doctor-patient relationship, it’s not always clear and varies between jurisdictions. Indeed, a physician-patient relationship may not even be a necessary element of a claim for professional negligence (an issue shared with “curbside” consults). A recent court case in Minnesota ruled that a duty to care is established if “... it is reasonably foreseeable that the third party will rely on the physician’s acts and be harmed by a breach of the standard of care.” That case involved a telephone call, but you could see the standard easily morphing to apply to social media posts. Gastroenterologists should always talk about disease and treatment on social media in generic terms, preferably with appropriate caveats (for example, “Patients with cholestasis and intense itching may be treated with naloxone in selected cases after detailed assessment by a hepatologist”).

Impairing an established doctor-patient relationship by “friending” a patient on your personal Facebook risks a potential compromise of professional ethics, breaking the boundaries between profession and person for the gastroenterologist. The approach by most professional societies is that a “friend” on social media is equal to a friend in the real world; the same legal and ethical standards apply. Doctor-patient friendships may compromise objectivity, lead to preferential but not optimal therapy, and increase the risk of skirting around informed consent among other issues. Being friends on social media is discouraged, but not prohibited, by most professional societies and licensing bodies. In my opinion, that is sound advice. Over a career of more than 40 years, I have had patients who became friends, but only after I had transferred their care to another hepatologist.

More recently with escalating, aggressive, tones for social media communications, GI/hepatology practitioners must be aware of the serious risk of blurring their personal and professional online lives, particularly where Twitter is involved. The rapidity which people seem to want to reply to a tweet, the public and durable natures of a tweet, and the ability to significantly retweet and repost all spell potential disasters for the physician tweeting an inappropriate communication. Separation of personal and professional social media accounts is strongly encouraged but alone is not enough; you are never totally anonymous online. The reality is that a physician will be judged for an inappropriate communication whether it’s found on their professional or personal site. Either posting could result in reputation damage, reprimands, medical license restrictions or revocations, and litigation. Nationally, medical boards now regularly deal with disciplinary actions for inappropriate social media activity. The best preventive measures include pausing before you post, check the veracity of what you are posting, place your post in context, and assess the tone of your post and the tone of the site that you are posting to. A perfect storm for disaster is that the material is not clearly evidence based and could be construed as “fake,” you are personally emotionally charged, and the site you are posting to is a known cauldron of emotion and fake news.

In summary, social media affords benefits in a health care setting but it comes with some baggage. However, the risks of a social media presence are largely instinctive. An initial starting point is pausing to consider, “Would I say/do this in a public venue where everybody could hear/see me?” If there is any concern, don’t post. Subsequently, conduct yourself on social media with meticulous attention to protecting confidentiality, avoiding any impression of creating a doctor-patient relationship, avoiding doctor-friend relationships, being aware of key legal, institutional, and professional society guidance, separating personal and professional activities, and maintaining professionalism.

Dr. Pappas is in the GI and hepatology section of the department of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. He has no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

Attai DJ et al. Semin Hematol. 2017 Oct; 54(4): 198-204.

Bal BS et al. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2019 Oct; 477(10): 2204-6.

Ekrem, D et al. 20111 Jun 6. https://www.kevinmd.com/2011/06/7-tips-avoid-hipaa-violations-social-media.html

Hallenbeck J. Doctor and Friend. 2005 Jun. https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/doctor-and-friend/2005-06

Moses RE et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014 Aug;109(8):1128-32.

Understand its multifaceted importance

BY MOHAMMAD BILAL, MD, FACP

Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines social media as “forms of electronic communication (such as websites for social networking and microblogging) through which users create online communities to share information, ideas, personal messages, and other content.” Over the last few years, there has been an increase in use of social media by medical professionals. Whether we like it or not, social media is here to stay. Patients use social media to look up information regarding their doctors, medical practices use it to promote the services they offer, institutions share their programs and initiatives, and doctors use it for education, to engage with like-minded colleagues, collaborate, spread awareness, network, and combat medical misinformation. Social media is now rapidly being used by gastroenterologists and hepatologists, as well as majority of professional GI organizations, and hashtags such as “#MedTwitter”, “#GITwitter,” and “#LiverTwitter” have developed into popular academic forums.¹ Therefore, the impact of social media in GI is multifaceted and includes its role in medical education, promoting your practice or division, finding collaborations, building your network and establishing mentors and peer-mentors, disseminating your work, and building your brand.²

What is your goal?

Gastroenterologists could have one or more of the goals mentioned above for using social media. Determining the goals for social media use a priori will allow for determining which social media platform will be appropriate for you. Therefore, it is important to understand the users of various social media platforms. In 2017, Facebook was the highest used social media platform in all age groups, whereas Instagram was most popular amongst ages 18-29 years, while Twitter was used more commonly in ages 30-59 years as compared with Instagram. If your goal is to share scientific knowledge and literature with like-minded physicians and interact with leaders in the field, then Twitter may be ideal. If you want to connect with a younger, more diverse audience, Instagram might be a good option. While many physicians may have a Facebook account, this is often reserved for personal use. Many have separated of personal and professional social media use, although they do not need to exist in silos. Defining your goal with social media use will direct you to the best platform to reach your audience.

Medical education

The use of social media especially Twitter for medical education is continuously increasing. Several leaders in the field use “Tweetorials” as a means to educate others. Tweetorials are a collective set of tweets that systematically cover a specialized topic.³ Other educational forums such as @ScopingSundays, @MondayNightIBD, @IBDClub and @GIJournal provide structured platforms for GI focused discussion.⁴ @MondayNightIBD is also a source for official continued medical education. Other social media educational platforms include “Liver Fellow Network” which has wide variety of educational materials pertaining to hepatology. In addition, there is continuous opportunity to engage with leaders in the field and authors of published studies and guidelines. Several endoscopy educators have dedicated YouTube channels which have endless supply of educational videos.

Networking

As mentioned above, platforms such as #GITwitter and #LiverTwitter have become popular forums for engaging and connecting with like minded colleagues. Social media provides a space to share ideas and build collaborations with colleagues working on similar projects. The concept “#Twitter2Paper” has been proposed which signifies an idea that generated on Twitter and was eventually converted to a manuscript.⁵

Institutional, divisional, and practice promotion

Social media is a great tool to showcase the clinical, educational and scholarship services and efforts by programs, practices or divisions. During the COVID-19 pandemic, recruitment efforts at all stages were mainly shifted to virtual platforms, and social media was an instrumental way for programs to highlight their culture and initiatives. Prospective applicants can often refer to social media to get a better understanding of what the program offers. Similarly, if a new clinical service is being provided, targeted efforts can be made to ensure that patients are aware of the available services.

Patient education and combating misinformation

Several gastroenterologists also use social media to spread awareness regarding GI diseases. Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok are effective mediums where one can reach a wider audience. It is important for gastroenterologists to provide accurate information since there is a sea of misinformation available on the internet as well. Posts regarding colonoscopy and colon cancer awareness can help alleviate myths regarding role of colonoscopy. In addition, patient advocates use social media to provide peer support to others who deal with challenges related to chronic illnesses such as inflammatory bowel disease.

Sharing your work

Sharing your work on social media can help your work reach a broader audience. Studies have shown that work shared on social media has higher altmetric scores and can also lead to increased citations.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion

Social media offers a platform where one can promote or showcase their support for causes they believe in. The hashtag “#DiversityinGI” has been instrumental in promoting causes pertaining to diversity and inclusion in GI.

Pitfalls

As gastroenterologists continue to use social media, it is important to be mindful of potential pitfalls. The most critical aspect is to always remember that no post should intentionally or unintentionally violate HIPAA. It is advisable to know your institutional and state social media policies.

Social media is beaming with knowledge, education, science and inspiration. There are endless opportunities for professional and personal growth with effective and responsible use of social media. Its never to late to join the conversation.

Dr. Bilal is an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis and an advanced endoscopist in the division of gastroenterology at Minneapolis VA Medical Center. He has no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

1. Mikolajczyk AE et al. Hepatol Commun. 2020 Jul 5;4(8):1229-33.

2. Bilal M and Oxentenko AS. Am J Gastroenterol. 2020 Oct;115(10):1549-52.

3. Breu AC. N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 19;381(12):1097-8.

4. Bilal M et al. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Aug;18(8):519-20.

5. Pawlak KM et al. United European Gastroenterol J. 2021 Feb;9(1):129-32.




 

Dear colleagues,

Most of us engage with social media, whether actively tweeting, following friends on Facebook, or discussing TikTok videos with family. Many gastroenterologists leverage social media to build their professional brand and to reach a wider audience. Others remain wary of committing a social media faux paux or worry about patient confidentiality. In this Perspectives column, Dr. Stephen Chris Pappas and Dr. Mohammad Bilal discuss the risks and benefits of social media for the practicing gastroenterologist. Dr. Pappas has a unique perspective as a gastroenterologist who is also trained as a lawyer, and Dr. Bilal speaks from a wealth of experience leading educational activities on social media. We look forward to hearing your thoughts on Twitter @AGA_GIHN and by email at [email protected].

Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, an associate professor of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and chief of endoscopy at West Haven (Conn.) VA Medical Center. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.

Carefully consider the plentiful risks, concerns

BY STEPHEN CHRIS PAPPAS, MD, JD, FAASLD, FACLM

Social media for gastroenterologists comes with benefits accompanied by pesky risks. The risks are pesky like a mosquito bite: An itching bite is annoying, but getting malaria is serious. Managing your unprofessional tweet to salvage your reputation is going to be annoying. Disclosing a patient's identity on social media is going to be serious; you could find yourself fired, fined, reprimanded, and without hospital privileges, as happened recently to a Rhode Island physician. I divide the risks of social media into legal risks (for example, disclosing patient identity or inadvertently creating a doctor-patient relationship), risks of compromising ethical standards (for example, impairing the doctor-patient relationship), and mixed legal/ethics risks (for example, inappropriate Twitter banter disparaging individuals, promotion of “fake news”). Fortunately, these risks are intuitive and can be mitigated by attention to some simple principles.

Disclosing a patient’s identity on social media is clearly in violation of privacy laws and other regulations. Since privacy compliance is drummed into us ad nauseum via annual compliance training, we could ask “how on earth could an inadvertent disclosure of identity occur?” We must remember that sites that are nominally termed “secure” may not be. As a general suggestion, I would regard social media of all types as open public forums with permanent postings. Even limited descriptions of a patient on social media may allow identification of the actual patient. The risk may be highest in smaller communities; in the past I assisted a small-town practitioner manage the fallout from inadvertently identifying a patient on his professional Facebook page by simply saying “I recently managed a 38-year-old pregnant woman with Crohn’s disease ...” That small amount of information allowed some members of his community to identify the specific patient. My suggestion would be to never talk about individual patients on social media. Phrase comments or questions generically; for example, “Crohn’s disease in pregnancy is managed with attention to ...”.

Another legal risk of social media engagement is to unknowingly create a patient-doctor relationship with a duty to treat, opening the door for exposure to malpractice litigation if something goes awry. A patient may interpret a social media interaction as establishing a patient-doctor relationship. While we think we know what defines a doctor-patient relationship, it’s not always clear and varies between jurisdictions. Indeed, a physician-patient relationship may not even be a necessary element of a claim for professional negligence (an issue shared with “curbside” consults). A recent court case in Minnesota ruled that a duty to care is established if “... it is reasonably foreseeable that the third party will rely on the physician’s acts and be harmed by a breach of the standard of care.” That case involved a telephone call, but you could see the standard easily morphing to apply to social media posts. Gastroenterologists should always talk about disease and treatment on social media in generic terms, preferably with appropriate caveats (for example, “Patients with cholestasis and intense itching may be treated with naloxone in selected cases after detailed assessment by a hepatologist”).

Impairing an established doctor-patient relationship by “friending” a patient on your personal Facebook risks a potential compromise of professional ethics, breaking the boundaries between profession and person for the gastroenterologist. The approach by most professional societies is that a “friend” on social media is equal to a friend in the real world; the same legal and ethical standards apply. Doctor-patient friendships may compromise objectivity, lead to preferential but not optimal therapy, and increase the risk of skirting around informed consent among other issues. Being friends on social media is discouraged, but not prohibited, by most professional societies and licensing bodies. In my opinion, that is sound advice. Over a career of more than 40 years, I have had patients who became friends, but only after I had transferred their care to another hepatologist.

More recently with escalating, aggressive, tones for social media communications, GI/hepatology practitioners must be aware of the serious risk of blurring their personal and professional online lives, particularly where Twitter is involved. The rapidity which people seem to want to reply to a tweet, the public and durable natures of a tweet, and the ability to significantly retweet and repost all spell potential disasters for the physician tweeting an inappropriate communication. Separation of personal and professional social media accounts is strongly encouraged but alone is not enough; you are never totally anonymous online. The reality is that a physician will be judged for an inappropriate communication whether it’s found on their professional or personal site. Either posting could result in reputation damage, reprimands, medical license restrictions or revocations, and litigation. Nationally, medical boards now regularly deal with disciplinary actions for inappropriate social media activity. The best preventive measures include pausing before you post, check the veracity of what you are posting, place your post in context, and assess the tone of your post and the tone of the site that you are posting to. A perfect storm for disaster is that the material is not clearly evidence based and could be construed as “fake,” you are personally emotionally charged, and the site you are posting to is a known cauldron of emotion and fake news.

In summary, social media affords benefits in a health care setting but it comes with some baggage. However, the risks of a social media presence are largely instinctive. An initial starting point is pausing to consider, “Would I say/do this in a public venue where everybody could hear/see me?” If there is any concern, don’t post. Subsequently, conduct yourself on social media with meticulous attention to protecting confidentiality, avoiding any impression of creating a doctor-patient relationship, avoiding doctor-friend relationships, being aware of key legal, institutional, and professional society guidance, separating personal and professional activities, and maintaining professionalism.

Dr. Pappas is in the GI and hepatology section of the department of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. He has no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

Attai DJ et al. Semin Hematol. 2017 Oct; 54(4): 198-204.

Bal BS et al. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2019 Oct; 477(10): 2204-6.

Ekrem, D et al. 20111 Jun 6. https://www.kevinmd.com/2011/06/7-tips-avoid-hipaa-violations-social-media.html

Hallenbeck J. Doctor and Friend. 2005 Jun. https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/doctor-and-friend/2005-06

Moses RE et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014 Aug;109(8):1128-32.

Understand its multifaceted importance

BY MOHAMMAD BILAL, MD, FACP

Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines social media as “forms of electronic communication (such as websites for social networking and microblogging) through which users create online communities to share information, ideas, personal messages, and other content.” Over the last few years, there has been an increase in use of social media by medical professionals. Whether we like it or not, social media is here to stay. Patients use social media to look up information regarding their doctors, medical practices use it to promote the services they offer, institutions share their programs and initiatives, and doctors use it for education, to engage with like-minded colleagues, collaborate, spread awareness, network, and combat medical misinformation. Social media is now rapidly being used by gastroenterologists and hepatologists, as well as majority of professional GI organizations, and hashtags such as “#MedTwitter”, “#GITwitter,” and “#LiverTwitter” have developed into popular academic forums.¹ Therefore, the impact of social media in GI is multifaceted and includes its role in medical education, promoting your practice or division, finding collaborations, building your network and establishing mentors and peer-mentors, disseminating your work, and building your brand.²

What is your goal?

Gastroenterologists could have one or more of the goals mentioned above for using social media. Determining the goals for social media use a priori will allow for determining which social media platform will be appropriate for you. Therefore, it is important to understand the users of various social media platforms. In 2017, Facebook was the highest used social media platform in all age groups, whereas Instagram was most popular amongst ages 18-29 years, while Twitter was used more commonly in ages 30-59 years as compared with Instagram. If your goal is to share scientific knowledge and literature with like-minded physicians and interact with leaders in the field, then Twitter may be ideal. If you want to connect with a younger, more diverse audience, Instagram might be a good option. While many physicians may have a Facebook account, this is often reserved for personal use. Many have separated of personal and professional social media use, although they do not need to exist in silos. Defining your goal with social media use will direct you to the best platform to reach your audience.

Medical education

The use of social media especially Twitter for medical education is continuously increasing. Several leaders in the field use “Tweetorials” as a means to educate others. Tweetorials are a collective set of tweets that systematically cover a specialized topic.³ Other educational forums such as @ScopingSundays, @MondayNightIBD, @IBDClub and @GIJournal provide structured platforms for GI focused discussion.⁴ @MondayNightIBD is also a source for official continued medical education. Other social media educational platforms include “Liver Fellow Network” which has wide variety of educational materials pertaining to hepatology. In addition, there is continuous opportunity to engage with leaders in the field and authors of published studies and guidelines. Several endoscopy educators have dedicated YouTube channels which have endless supply of educational videos.

Networking

As mentioned above, platforms such as #GITwitter and #LiverTwitter have become popular forums for engaging and connecting with like minded colleagues. Social media provides a space to share ideas and build collaborations with colleagues working on similar projects. The concept “#Twitter2Paper” has been proposed which signifies an idea that generated on Twitter and was eventually converted to a manuscript.⁵

Institutional, divisional, and practice promotion

Social media is a great tool to showcase the clinical, educational and scholarship services and efforts by programs, practices or divisions. During the COVID-19 pandemic, recruitment efforts at all stages were mainly shifted to virtual platforms, and social media was an instrumental way for programs to highlight their culture and initiatives. Prospective applicants can often refer to social media to get a better understanding of what the program offers. Similarly, if a new clinical service is being provided, targeted efforts can be made to ensure that patients are aware of the available services.

Patient education and combating misinformation

Several gastroenterologists also use social media to spread awareness regarding GI diseases. Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok are effective mediums where one can reach a wider audience. It is important for gastroenterologists to provide accurate information since there is a sea of misinformation available on the internet as well. Posts regarding colonoscopy and colon cancer awareness can help alleviate myths regarding role of colonoscopy. In addition, patient advocates use social media to provide peer support to others who deal with challenges related to chronic illnesses such as inflammatory bowel disease.

Sharing your work

Sharing your work on social media can help your work reach a broader audience. Studies have shown that work shared on social media has higher altmetric scores and can also lead to increased citations.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion

Social media offers a platform where one can promote or showcase their support for causes they believe in. The hashtag “#DiversityinGI” has been instrumental in promoting causes pertaining to diversity and inclusion in GI.

Pitfalls

As gastroenterologists continue to use social media, it is important to be mindful of potential pitfalls. The most critical aspect is to always remember that no post should intentionally or unintentionally violate HIPAA. It is advisable to know your institutional and state social media policies.

Social media is beaming with knowledge, education, science and inspiration. There are endless opportunities for professional and personal growth with effective and responsible use of social media. Its never to late to join the conversation.

Dr. Bilal is an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis and an advanced endoscopist in the division of gastroenterology at Minneapolis VA Medical Center. He has no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

1. Mikolajczyk AE et al. Hepatol Commun. 2020 Jul 5;4(8):1229-33.

2. Bilal M and Oxentenko AS. Am J Gastroenterol. 2020 Oct;115(10):1549-52.

3. Breu AC. N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 19;381(12):1097-8.

4. Bilal M et al. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Aug;18(8):519-20.

5. Pawlak KM et al. United European Gastroenterol J. 2021 Feb;9(1):129-32.




 

Dear colleagues,

Most of us engage with social media, whether actively tweeting, following friends on Facebook, or discussing TikTok videos with family. Many gastroenterologists leverage social media to build their professional brand and to reach a wider audience. Others remain wary of committing a social media faux paux or worry about patient confidentiality. In this Perspectives column, Dr. Stephen Chris Pappas and Dr. Mohammad Bilal discuss the risks and benefits of social media for the practicing gastroenterologist. Dr. Pappas has a unique perspective as a gastroenterologist who is also trained as a lawyer, and Dr. Bilal speaks from a wealth of experience leading educational activities on social media. We look forward to hearing your thoughts on Twitter @AGA_GIHN and by email at [email protected].

Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, an associate professor of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and chief of endoscopy at West Haven (Conn.) VA Medical Center. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.

Carefully consider the plentiful risks, concerns

BY STEPHEN CHRIS PAPPAS, MD, JD, FAASLD, FACLM

Social media for gastroenterologists comes with benefits accompanied by pesky risks. The risks are pesky like a mosquito bite: An itching bite is annoying, but getting malaria is serious. Managing your unprofessional tweet to salvage your reputation is going to be annoying. Disclosing a patient's identity on social media is going to be serious; you could find yourself fired, fined, reprimanded, and without hospital privileges, as happened recently to a Rhode Island physician. I divide the risks of social media into legal risks (for example, disclosing patient identity or inadvertently creating a doctor-patient relationship), risks of compromising ethical standards (for example, impairing the doctor-patient relationship), and mixed legal/ethics risks (for example, inappropriate Twitter banter disparaging individuals, promotion of “fake news”). Fortunately, these risks are intuitive and can be mitigated by attention to some simple principles.

Disclosing a patient’s identity on social media is clearly in violation of privacy laws and other regulations. Since privacy compliance is drummed into us ad nauseum via annual compliance training, we could ask “how on earth could an inadvertent disclosure of identity occur?” We must remember that sites that are nominally termed “secure” may not be. As a general suggestion, I would regard social media of all types as open public forums with permanent postings. Even limited descriptions of a patient on social media may allow identification of the actual patient. The risk may be highest in smaller communities; in the past I assisted a small-town practitioner manage the fallout from inadvertently identifying a patient on his professional Facebook page by simply saying “I recently managed a 38-year-old pregnant woman with Crohn’s disease ...” That small amount of information allowed some members of his community to identify the specific patient. My suggestion would be to never talk about individual patients on social media. Phrase comments or questions generically; for example, “Crohn’s disease in pregnancy is managed with attention to ...”.

Another legal risk of social media engagement is to unknowingly create a patient-doctor relationship with a duty to treat, opening the door for exposure to malpractice litigation if something goes awry. A patient may interpret a social media interaction as establishing a patient-doctor relationship. While we think we know what defines a doctor-patient relationship, it’s not always clear and varies between jurisdictions. Indeed, a physician-patient relationship may not even be a necessary element of a claim for professional negligence (an issue shared with “curbside” consults). A recent court case in Minnesota ruled that a duty to care is established if “... it is reasonably foreseeable that the third party will rely on the physician’s acts and be harmed by a breach of the standard of care.” That case involved a telephone call, but you could see the standard easily morphing to apply to social media posts. Gastroenterologists should always talk about disease and treatment on social media in generic terms, preferably with appropriate caveats (for example, “Patients with cholestasis and intense itching may be treated with naloxone in selected cases after detailed assessment by a hepatologist”).

Impairing an established doctor-patient relationship by “friending” a patient on your personal Facebook risks a potential compromise of professional ethics, breaking the boundaries between profession and person for the gastroenterologist. The approach by most professional societies is that a “friend” on social media is equal to a friend in the real world; the same legal and ethical standards apply. Doctor-patient friendships may compromise objectivity, lead to preferential but not optimal therapy, and increase the risk of skirting around informed consent among other issues. Being friends on social media is discouraged, but not prohibited, by most professional societies and licensing bodies. In my opinion, that is sound advice. Over a career of more than 40 years, I have had patients who became friends, but only after I had transferred their care to another hepatologist.

More recently with escalating, aggressive, tones for social media communications, GI/hepatology practitioners must be aware of the serious risk of blurring their personal and professional online lives, particularly where Twitter is involved. The rapidity which people seem to want to reply to a tweet, the public and durable natures of a tweet, and the ability to significantly retweet and repost all spell potential disasters for the physician tweeting an inappropriate communication. Separation of personal and professional social media accounts is strongly encouraged but alone is not enough; you are never totally anonymous online. The reality is that a physician will be judged for an inappropriate communication whether it’s found on their professional or personal site. Either posting could result in reputation damage, reprimands, medical license restrictions or revocations, and litigation. Nationally, medical boards now regularly deal with disciplinary actions for inappropriate social media activity. The best preventive measures include pausing before you post, check the veracity of what you are posting, place your post in context, and assess the tone of your post and the tone of the site that you are posting to. A perfect storm for disaster is that the material is not clearly evidence based and could be construed as “fake,” you are personally emotionally charged, and the site you are posting to is a known cauldron of emotion and fake news.

In summary, social media affords benefits in a health care setting but it comes with some baggage. However, the risks of a social media presence are largely instinctive. An initial starting point is pausing to consider, “Would I say/do this in a public venue where everybody could hear/see me?” If there is any concern, don’t post. Subsequently, conduct yourself on social media with meticulous attention to protecting confidentiality, avoiding any impression of creating a doctor-patient relationship, avoiding doctor-friend relationships, being aware of key legal, institutional, and professional society guidance, separating personal and professional activities, and maintaining professionalism.

Dr. Pappas is in the GI and hepatology section of the department of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. He has no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

Attai DJ et al. Semin Hematol. 2017 Oct; 54(4): 198-204.

Bal BS et al. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2019 Oct; 477(10): 2204-6.

Ekrem, D et al. 20111 Jun 6. https://www.kevinmd.com/2011/06/7-tips-avoid-hipaa-violations-social-media.html

Hallenbeck J. Doctor and Friend. 2005 Jun. https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/doctor-and-friend/2005-06

Moses RE et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014 Aug;109(8):1128-32.

Understand its multifaceted importance

BY MOHAMMAD BILAL, MD, FACP

Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines social media as “forms of electronic communication (such as websites for social networking and microblogging) through which users create online communities to share information, ideas, personal messages, and other content.” Over the last few years, there has been an increase in use of social media by medical professionals. Whether we like it or not, social media is here to stay. Patients use social media to look up information regarding their doctors, medical practices use it to promote the services they offer, institutions share their programs and initiatives, and doctors use it for education, to engage with like-minded colleagues, collaborate, spread awareness, network, and combat medical misinformation. Social media is now rapidly being used by gastroenterologists and hepatologists, as well as majority of professional GI organizations, and hashtags such as “#MedTwitter”, “#GITwitter,” and “#LiverTwitter” have developed into popular academic forums.¹ Therefore, the impact of social media in GI is multifaceted and includes its role in medical education, promoting your practice or division, finding collaborations, building your network and establishing mentors and peer-mentors, disseminating your work, and building your brand.²

What is your goal?

Gastroenterologists could have one or more of the goals mentioned above for using social media. Determining the goals for social media use a priori will allow for determining which social media platform will be appropriate for you. Therefore, it is important to understand the users of various social media platforms. In 2017, Facebook was the highest used social media platform in all age groups, whereas Instagram was most popular amongst ages 18-29 years, while Twitter was used more commonly in ages 30-59 years as compared with Instagram. If your goal is to share scientific knowledge and literature with like-minded physicians and interact with leaders in the field, then Twitter may be ideal. If you want to connect with a younger, more diverse audience, Instagram might be a good option. While many physicians may have a Facebook account, this is often reserved for personal use. Many have separated of personal and professional social media use, although they do not need to exist in silos. Defining your goal with social media use will direct you to the best platform to reach your audience.

Medical education

The use of social media especially Twitter for medical education is continuously increasing. Several leaders in the field use “Tweetorials” as a means to educate others. Tweetorials are a collective set of tweets that systematically cover a specialized topic.³ Other educational forums such as @ScopingSundays, @MondayNightIBD, @IBDClub and @GIJournal provide structured platforms for GI focused discussion.⁴ @MondayNightIBD is also a source for official continued medical education. Other social media educational platforms include “Liver Fellow Network” which has wide variety of educational materials pertaining to hepatology. In addition, there is continuous opportunity to engage with leaders in the field and authors of published studies and guidelines. Several endoscopy educators have dedicated YouTube channels which have endless supply of educational videos.

Networking

As mentioned above, platforms such as #GITwitter and #LiverTwitter have become popular forums for engaging and connecting with like minded colleagues. Social media provides a space to share ideas and build collaborations with colleagues working on similar projects. The concept “#Twitter2Paper” has been proposed which signifies an idea that generated on Twitter and was eventually converted to a manuscript.⁵

Institutional, divisional, and practice promotion

Social media is a great tool to showcase the clinical, educational and scholarship services and efforts by programs, practices or divisions. During the COVID-19 pandemic, recruitment efforts at all stages were mainly shifted to virtual platforms, and social media was an instrumental way for programs to highlight their culture and initiatives. Prospective applicants can often refer to social media to get a better understanding of what the program offers. Similarly, if a new clinical service is being provided, targeted efforts can be made to ensure that patients are aware of the available services.

Patient education and combating misinformation

Several gastroenterologists also use social media to spread awareness regarding GI diseases. Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok are effective mediums where one can reach a wider audience. It is important for gastroenterologists to provide accurate information since there is a sea of misinformation available on the internet as well. Posts regarding colonoscopy and colon cancer awareness can help alleviate myths regarding role of colonoscopy. In addition, patient advocates use social media to provide peer support to others who deal with challenges related to chronic illnesses such as inflammatory bowel disease.

Sharing your work

Sharing your work on social media can help your work reach a broader audience. Studies have shown that work shared on social media has higher altmetric scores and can also lead to increased citations.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion

Social media offers a platform where one can promote or showcase their support for causes they believe in. The hashtag “#DiversityinGI” has been instrumental in promoting causes pertaining to diversity and inclusion in GI.

Pitfalls

As gastroenterologists continue to use social media, it is important to be mindful of potential pitfalls. The most critical aspect is to always remember that no post should intentionally or unintentionally violate HIPAA. It is advisable to know your institutional and state social media policies.

Social media is beaming with knowledge, education, science and inspiration. There are endless opportunities for professional and personal growth with effective and responsible use of social media. Its never to late to join the conversation.

Dr. Bilal is an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis and an advanced endoscopist in the division of gastroenterology at Minneapolis VA Medical Center. He has no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

1. Mikolajczyk AE et al. Hepatol Commun. 2020 Jul 5;4(8):1229-33.

2. Bilal M and Oxentenko AS. Am J Gastroenterol. 2020 Oct;115(10):1549-52.

3. Breu AC. N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 19;381(12):1097-8.

4. Bilal M et al. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Aug;18(8):519-20.

5. Pawlak KM et al. United European Gastroenterol J. 2021 Feb;9(1):129-32.




 

Since the first issue of GI & Hepatology News was published 15 years ago, the field of hepatology has undergone a tremendous transformation.

In the late 2000s, we witnessed revolutionary discoveries and advances in our understanding and management of chronic hepatitis C. Who knew that when IL-28B was first described in 2009, providing a genetic basis for patients’ response to interferon-based therapies, its impact would also be so swiftly supplanted by the introduction of direct acting antivirals a few years later? The pipeline for HCV treatment was feverish for several years, which resulted in a complete transformation of HCV treatment from a long, exhausting, side-effect filled course to a simple 8-to-12-week regimen. Furthermore, we now have established protocols for organ transplantation for patients without active HCV infection to receive HCV-positive organs due to the effectiveness of treatments for HCV. This kind of progress in our field demonstrates how awe-inspiring medical advances can be and how fortunate we are to have witnessed and lived this progress in such a short period of time.

Dr. Jou is associate professor of medicine, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, School of Medicine Fellowship program director, Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, School of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland. She reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

Since the first issue of GI & Hepatology News was published 15 years ago, the field of hepatology has undergone a tremendous transformation.

In the late 2000s, we witnessed revolutionary discoveries and advances in our understanding and management of chronic hepatitis C. Who knew that when IL-28B was first described in 2009, providing a genetic basis for patients’ response to interferon-based therapies, its impact would also be so swiftly supplanted by the introduction of direct acting antivirals a few years later? The pipeline for HCV treatment was feverish for several years, which resulted in a complete transformation of HCV treatment from a long, exhausting, side-effect filled course to a simple 8-to-12-week regimen. Furthermore, we now have established protocols for organ transplantation for patients without active HCV infection to receive HCV-positive organs due to the effectiveness of treatments for HCV. This kind of progress in our field demonstrates how awe-inspiring medical advances can be and how fortunate we are to have witnessed and lived this progress in such a short period of time.

Dr. Jou is associate professor of medicine, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, School of Medicine Fellowship program director, Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, School of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland. She reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

Since the first issue of GI & Hepatology News was published 15 years ago, the field of hepatology has undergone a tremendous transformation.

In the late 2000s, we witnessed revolutionary discoveries and advances in our understanding and management of chronic hepatitis C. Who knew that when IL-28B was first described in 2009, providing a genetic basis for patients’ response to interferon-based therapies, its impact would also be so swiftly supplanted by the introduction of direct acting antivirals a few years later? The pipeline for HCV treatment was feverish for several years, which resulted in a complete transformation of HCV treatment from a long, exhausting, side-effect filled course to a simple 8-to-12-week regimen. Furthermore, we now have established protocols for organ transplantation for patients without active HCV infection to receive HCV-positive organs due to the effectiveness of treatments for HCV. This kind of progress in our field demonstrates how awe-inspiring medical advances can be and how fortunate we are to have witnessed and lived this progress in such a short period of time.

Dr. Jou is associate professor of medicine, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, School of Medicine Fellowship program director, Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, School of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland. She reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

Recent publications on psoriatic arthritis (PsA) have focused on targeted therapies, particularly those targeting interleukin (IL) 17 and 23. Bimekizumab is a novel biologic that dually inhibits IL-17A and IL-17F. Coates and colleagues reported 3-year results from the phase 2b BE ACTIVE trial that included 206 adults with active PsA randomly assigned to receive bimekizumab or placebo for 48 weeks, of which 184 patients were enrolled in the open-label extension phase for a further 104 weeks of treatment. They report that at least 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology score was maintained by 64.1% of patients at week 152 compared with 72.3% of patients at week 48. By week 152, 89.3% of patients had reported one or more treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE), with serious TEAE being reported by 10.7% of patients. Fungal infections are of special interest when inhibiting both IL-17A and IL-17F. It was observed that 9.7% had fungal infections (all mild-to-moderate and localized), of which 4.6% had candidiasis. Thus, bimekizumab shows promise as a new therapy for PsA.

In addition to improving signs and symptoms, clinically meaningful improvement in health-related quality of life is an important goal of treatment. Two studies reported improvement in patient reported outcomes on treatment with IL-23 inhibitors.

An analysis of data from the phase 3 DISCOVER 2 trial included 738 biologic-naive patients with active PsA and inadequate response to standard treatments. These patients were randomly assigned to receive 100 mg guselkumab every 4 weeks (Q4W) or every 8 weeks (Q8W) or placebo. Curtis and colleagues showed that a significantly higher proportion of patients receiving guselkumab Q4W/Q8W vs placebo reported achieving minimally important differences (MID) in the EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) Index (56.0%/56.0% vs 43.4%; P < .006) and Visual Analog Scale (EQ-VAS) score (62.8%/63.5% vs 44.4%; P < .0001) at week 24, with more than 60% of patients reporting improvements at week 52.

Similarly, analyses of data by Kristensen and colleagues from two phase 3 trials, KEEPsAKE-1 and KEEPsAKE-2, included adults with PsA and inadequate response/intolerance to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or biologics. The patients were randomly assigned to receive risankizumab or placebo for 24 weeks and only risankizumab during weeks 24-52. At week 24, patients receiving risankizumab vs placebo were significantly more likely to report achieving MID in Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA) in both KEEPsAKE-1 (odds ratio [OR] 2.0; P < .001) and KEEPsAKE-2 (OR 1.9; P < .01) studies, with further improvement at week 52. Improvement was also seen on the Patient's Assessment of Pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire – Disability Index, Short-Form 36 Physical and Mental Component Summary scores, EQ-5D-5L, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy – Fatigue, and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment.

An interesting insight from two studies showed the importance of nail disease in predicting treatment response. A post hoc analysis by Helliwell and colleagues of the phase 3 SEAM-PsA trial of 851 biologic/methotrexate-naive patients with active PsA who were randomly assigned to receive methotrexate monotherapy, etanercept monotherapy, or methotrexate + etanercept combination therapy showed that the presence of both dactylitis and nail disease at baseline were significantly associated with the achievement of minimal disease activity (OR 1.4; P = .0457; and OR 1.8; P = .0233, respectively), as well as low PsA Disease Activity Score (OR 1.8; P = .0014; and OR 1.8; P = .0168, respectively).

Similarly, a post hoc analysis by Baraliakos and colleagues of the phase 3b MAXIMISE trial of 473 adult patients with PsA and axial manifestations who were randomly assigned to receive secukinumab (150 or 300 mg) or placebo showed that the presence vs the absence of nail dystrophy was associated with the achievement of significantly better Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society 20 response in the 300 mg secukinumab group (OR 5.0; 95% CI 1.47-17.19).

Recent publications on psoriatic arthritis (PsA) have focused on targeted therapies, particularly those targeting interleukin (IL) 17 and 23. Bimekizumab is a novel biologic that dually inhibits IL-17A and IL-17F. Coates and colleagues reported 3-year results from the phase 2b BE ACTIVE trial that included 206 adults with active PsA randomly assigned to receive bimekizumab or placebo for 48 weeks, of which 184 patients were enrolled in the open-label extension phase for a further 104 weeks of treatment. They report that at least 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology score was maintained by 64.1% of patients at week 152 compared with 72.3% of patients at week 48. By week 152, 89.3% of patients had reported one or more treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE), with serious TEAE being reported by 10.7% of patients. Fungal infections are of special interest when inhibiting both IL-17A and IL-17F. It was observed that 9.7% had fungal infections (all mild-to-moderate and localized), of which 4.6% had candidiasis. Thus, bimekizumab shows promise as a new therapy for PsA.

In addition to improving signs and symptoms, clinically meaningful improvement in health-related quality of life is an important goal of treatment. Two studies reported improvement in patient reported outcomes on treatment with IL-23 inhibitors.

An analysis of data from the phase 3 DISCOVER 2 trial included 738 biologic-naive patients with active PsA and inadequate response to standard treatments. These patients were randomly assigned to receive 100 mg guselkumab every 4 weeks (Q4W) or every 8 weeks (Q8W) or placebo. Curtis and colleagues showed that a significantly higher proportion of patients receiving guselkumab Q4W/Q8W vs placebo reported achieving minimally important differences (MID) in the EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) Index (56.0%/56.0% vs 43.4%; P < .006) and Visual Analog Scale (EQ-VAS) score (62.8%/63.5% vs 44.4%; P < .0001) at week 24, with more than 60% of patients reporting improvements at week 52.

Similarly, analyses of data by Kristensen and colleagues from two phase 3 trials, KEEPsAKE-1 and KEEPsAKE-2, included adults with PsA and inadequate response/intolerance to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or biologics. The patients were randomly assigned to receive risankizumab or placebo for 24 weeks and only risankizumab during weeks 24-52. At week 24, patients receiving risankizumab vs placebo were significantly more likely to report achieving MID in Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA) in both KEEPsAKE-1 (odds ratio [OR] 2.0; P < .001) and KEEPsAKE-2 (OR 1.9; P < .01) studies, with further improvement at week 52. Improvement was also seen on the Patient's Assessment of Pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire – Disability Index, Short-Form 36 Physical and Mental Component Summary scores, EQ-5D-5L, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy – Fatigue, and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment.

An interesting insight from two studies showed the importance of nail disease in predicting treatment response. A post hoc analysis by Helliwell and colleagues of the phase 3 SEAM-PsA trial of 851 biologic/methotrexate-naive patients with active PsA who were randomly assigned to receive methotrexate monotherapy, etanercept monotherapy, or methotrexate + etanercept combination therapy showed that the presence of both dactylitis and nail disease at baseline were significantly associated with the achievement of minimal disease activity (OR 1.4; P = .0457; and OR 1.8; P = .0233, respectively), as well as low PsA Disease Activity Score (OR 1.8; P = .0014; and OR 1.8; P = .0168, respectively).

Similarly, a post hoc analysis by Baraliakos and colleagues of the phase 3b MAXIMISE trial of 473 adult patients with PsA and axial manifestations who were randomly assigned to receive secukinumab (150 or 300 mg) or placebo showed that the presence vs the absence of nail dystrophy was associated with the achievement of significantly better Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society 20 response in the 300 mg secukinumab group (OR 5.0; 95% CI 1.47-17.19).

Recent publications on psoriatic arthritis (PsA) have focused on targeted therapies, particularly those targeting interleukin (IL) 17 and 23. Bimekizumab is a novel biologic that dually inhibits IL-17A and IL-17F. Coates and colleagues reported 3-year results from the phase 2b BE ACTIVE trial that included 206 adults with active PsA randomly assigned to receive bimekizumab or placebo for 48 weeks, of which 184 patients were enrolled in the open-label extension phase for a further 104 weeks of treatment. They report that at least 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology score was maintained by 64.1% of patients at week 152 compared with 72.3% of patients at week 48. By week 152, 89.3% of patients had reported one or more treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE), with serious TEAE being reported by 10.7% of patients. Fungal infections are of special interest when inhibiting both IL-17A and IL-17F. It was observed that 9.7% had fungal infections (all mild-to-moderate and localized), of which 4.6% had candidiasis. Thus, bimekizumab shows promise as a new therapy for PsA.

In addition to improving signs and symptoms, clinically meaningful improvement in health-related quality of life is an important goal of treatment. Two studies reported improvement in patient reported outcomes on treatment with IL-23 inhibitors.

An analysis of data from the phase 3 DISCOVER 2 trial included 738 biologic-naive patients with active PsA and inadequate response to standard treatments. These patients were randomly assigned to receive 100 mg guselkumab every 4 weeks (Q4W) or every 8 weeks (Q8W) or placebo. Curtis and colleagues showed that a significantly higher proportion of patients receiving guselkumab Q4W/Q8W vs placebo reported achieving minimally important differences (MID) in the EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) Index (56.0%/56.0% vs 43.4%; P < .006) and Visual Analog Scale (EQ-VAS) score (62.8%/63.5% vs 44.4%; P < .0001) at week 24, with more than 60% of patients reporting improvements at week 52.

Similarly, analyses of data by Kristensen and colleagues from two phase 3 trials, KEEPsAKE-1 and KEEPsAKE-2, included adults with PsA and inadequate response/intolerance to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or biologics. The patients were randomly assigned to receive risankizumab or placebo for 24 weeks and only risankizumab during weeks 24-52. At week 24, patients receiving risankizumab vs placebo were significantly more likely to report achieving MID in Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA) in both KEEPsAKE-1 (odds ratio [OR] 2.0; P < .001) and KEEPsAKE-2 (OR 1.9; P < .01) studies, with further improvement at week 52. Improvement was also seen on the Patient's Assessment of Pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire – Disability Index, Short-Form 36 Physical and Mental Component Summary scores, EQ-5D-5L, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy – Fatigue, and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment.

An interesting insight from two studies showed the importance of nail disease in predicting treatment response. A post hoc analysis by Helliwell and colleagues of the phase 3 SEAM-PsA trial of 851 biologic/methotrexate-naive patients with active PsA who were randomly assigned to receive methotrexate monotherapy, etanercept monotherapy, or methotrexate + etanercept combination therapy showed that the presence of both dactylitis and nail disease at baseline were significantly associated with the achievement of minimal disease activity (OR 1.4; P = .0457; and OR 1.8; P = .0233, respectively), as well as low PsA Disease Activity Score (OR 1.8; P = .0014; and OR 1.8; P = .0168, respectively).

Similarly, a post hoc analysis by Baraliakos and colleagues of the phase 3b MAXIMISE trial of 473 adult patients with PsA and axial manifestations who were randomly assigned to receive secukinumab (150 or 300 mg) or placebo showed that the presence vs the absence of nail dystrophy was associated with the achievement of significantly better Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society 20 response in the 300 mg secukinumab group (OR 5.0; 95% CI 1.47-17.19).

The potential to prevent clinical rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in patients at risk of developing arthritis is of long-standing interest in the rheumatology community. Other studies have addressed the potential for early treatment with glucocorticoids, hydroxychloroquine, or biologics to prevent arthritis, with mixed results. Few published studies have assessed the efficacy of methotrexate in the prevention of arthritis. A randomized controlled trial by Krijbolder and colleagues of adults with arthralgias deemed to be at risk for progression to RA evaluated the use of a single intramuscular steroid injection combined with 1 year of oral methotrexate, compared with placebo, for preventing the development of RA according to the 2010 American College of Rheumatology classification criteria. Although no difference was seen between the groups in development of RA, those treated with methotrexate did have lower levels of joint inflammation seen on MRI and better functional status as per Health Assessment Questionnaire score.

Su and colleagues also looked at the impact of different medications on the development of RA. Using a national health insurance database in Taiwan (between 1997 and 2013), they studied the use of biguanides and sulfonylureas in patients with diabetes and the risk for incident RA. In over 90,000 patients with diabetes, a longer duration of sulfonylurea or biguanide prescription within the first 3 years of diabetes diagnosis was associated with a lower risk for RA compared with non-use. However, use of any antihyperglycemic agents was also associated with lower risk for RA incidence. Limited information is available on both the severity of diabetes and activity of RA, so even a potential mechanism in terms of reduction of blood glucose or inflammation is hard to determine, and more detailed studies are needed.

The safety of different treatments during pregnancy, as well as the effect of both RA and its treatment on pregnancy outcomes, have been areas of research interest in terms of counseling patients with RA about pregnancy planning and management of medications. Gerardi and colleagues followed 63 patients with RA prospectively during pregnancy. They found that although the general understanding is that inflammatory arthritis improves during pregnancy, the percentage of patients with moderate and high disease activity increased slightly, and 37% of patients experienced a flare. Flares were associated with elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) levels and use of multiple prior biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD) (suggesting overall more active arthritis), as well as bDMARD discontinuation in early pregnancy. Similarly, preterm delivery was associated with elevated CRP, higher Disease Activity Score-28 scores, and flares. The study findings provide further support for the importance of controlling maternal disease activity in favoring a better RA course as well as better pregnancy outcomes.

Smeele and colleagues recently published an analysis of the PreCARA cohort study looking at birthweight in pregnant patients with RA. RA is associated with children being born small for gestational age. In this cohort study of 188 pregnant patients with RA, the treatment protocol before pregnancy included hydroxychloroquine, sulfasalazine, prednisone, and anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents (adalimumab, infliximab, etanercept, and certolizumab). Anti-TNF medications were stopped at 20, 20, 28, or 38 weeks, respectively, according to the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) recommendations. In terms of gestational age at delivery and congenital malformations, no difference was seen between patients who used anti-TNF agents during pregnancy and those who did not. Anti-TNF use during pregnancy was associated, however, with increased birthweight and a lower percentage of infants who were small for gestational age. These findings are in keeping with those of prior studies, although larger studies would be helpful in determining whether there are critical periods during pregnancy that have a significant effect on birthweight or whether overall control of inflammation is the predominant factor.

The potential to prevent clinical rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in patients at risk of developing arthritis is of long-standing interest in the rheumatology community. Other studies have addressed the potential for early treatment with glucocorticoids, hydroxychloroquine, or biologics to prevent arthritis, with mixed results. Few published studies have assessed the efficacy of methotrexate in the prevention of arthritis. A randomized controlled trial by Krijbolder and colleagues of adults with arthralgias deemed to be at risk for progression to RA evaluated the use of a single intramuscular steroid injection combined with 1 year of oral methotrexate, compared with placebo, for preventing the development of RA according to the 2010 American College of Rheumatology classification criteria. Although no difference was seen between the groups in development of RA, those treated with methotrexate did have lower levels of joint inflammation seen on MRI and better functional status as per Health Assessment Questionnaire score.

Su and colleagues also looked at the impact of different medications on the development of RA. Using a national health insurance database in Taiwan (between 1997 and 2013), they studied the use of biguanides and sulfonylureas in patients with diabetes and the risk for incident RA. In over 90,000 patients with diabetes, a longer duration of sulfonylurea or biguanide prescription within the first 3 years of diabetes diagnosis was associated with a lower risk for RA compared with non-use. However, use of any antihyperglycemic agents was also associated with lower risk for RA incidence. Limited information is available on both the severity of diabetes and activity of RA, so even a potential mechanism in terms of reduction of blood glucose or inflammation is hard to determine, and more detailed studies are needed.

The safety of different treatments during pregnancy, as well as the effect of both RA and its treatment on pregnancy outcomes, have been areas of research interest in terms of counseling patients with RA about pregnancy planning and management of medications. Gerardi and colleagues followed 63 patients with RA prospectively during pregnancy. They found that although the general understanding is that inflammatory arthritis improves during pregnancy, the percentage of patients with moderate and high disease activity increased slightly, and 37% of patients experienced a flare. Flares were associated with elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) levels and use of multiple prior biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD) (suggesting overall more active arthritis), as well as bDMARD discontinuation in early pregnancy. Similarly, preterm delivery was associated with elevated CRP, higher Disease Activity Score-28 scores, and flares. The study findings provide further support for the importance of controlling maternal disease activity in favoring a better RA course as well as better pregnancy outcomes.

Smeele and colleagues recently published an analysis of the PreCARA cohort study looking at birthweight in pregnant patients with RA. RA is associated with children being born small for gestational age. In this cohort study of 188 pregnant patients with RA, the treatment protocol before pregnancy included hydroxychloroquine, sulfasalazine, prednisone, and anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents (adalimumab, infliximab, etanercept, and certolizumab). Anti-TNF medications were stopped at 20, 20, 28, or 38 weeks, respectively, according to the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) recommendations. In terms of gestational age at delivery and congenital malformations, no difference was seen between patients who used anti-TNF agents during pregnancy and those who did not. Anti-TNF use during pregnancy was associated, however, with increased birthweight and a lower percentage of infants who were small for gestational age. These findings are in keeping with those of prior studies, although larger studies would be helpful in determining whether there are critical periods during pregnancy that have a significant effect on birthweight or whether overall control of inflammation is the predominant factor.

The potential to prevent clinical rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in patients at risk of developing arthritis is of long-standing interest in the rheumatology community. Other studies have addressed the potential for early treatment with glucocorticoids, hydroxychloroquine, or biologics to prevent arthritis, with mixed results. Few published studies have assessed the efficacy of methotrexate in the prevention of arthritis. A randomized controlled trial by Krijbolder and colleagues of adults with arthralgias deemed to be at risk for progression to RA evaluated the use of a single intramuscular steroid injection combined with 1 year of oral methotrexate, compared with placebo, for preventing the development of RA according to the 2010 American College of Rheumatology classification criteria. Although no difference was seen between the groups in development of RA, those treated with methotrexate did have lower levels of joint inflammation seen on MRI and better functional status as per Health Assessment Questionnaire score.

Su and colleagues also looked at the impact of different medications on the development of RA. Using a national health insurance database in Taiwan (between 1997 and 2013), they studied the use of biguanides and sulfonylureas in patients with diabetes and the risk for incident RA. In over 90,000 patients with diabetes, a longer duration of sulfonylurea or biguanide prescription within the first 3 years of diabetes diagnosis was associated with a lower risk for RA compared with non-use. However, use of any antihyperglycemic agents was also associated with lower risk for RA incidence. Limited information is available on both the severity of diabetes and activity of RA, so even a potential mechanism in terms of reduction of blood glucose or inflammation is hard to determine, and more detailed studies are needed.

The safety of different treatments during pregnancy, as well as the effect of both RA and its treatment on pregnancy outcomes, have been areas of research interest in terms of counseling patients with RA about pregnancy planning and management of medications. Gerardi and colleagues followed 63 patients with RA prospectively during pregnancy. They found that although the general understanding is that inflammatory arthritis improves during pregnancy, the percentage of patients with moderate and high disease activity increased slightly, and 37% of patients experienced a flare. Flares were associated with elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) levels and use of multiple prior biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD) (suggesting overall more active arthritis), as well as bDMARD discontinuation in early pregnancy. Similarly, preterm delivery was associated with elevated CRP, higher Disease Activity Score-28 scores, and flares. The study findings provide further support for the importance of controlling maternal disease activity in favoring a better RA course as well as better pregnancy outcomes.

Smeele and colleagues recently published an analysis of the PreCARA cohort study looking at birthweight in pregnant patients with RA. RA is associated with children being born small for gestational age. In this cohort study of 188 pregnant patients with RA, the treatment protocol before pregnancy included hydroxychloroquine, sulfasalazine, prednisone, and anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents (adalimumab, infliximab, etanercept, and certolizumab). Anti-TNF medications were stopped at 20, 20, 28, or 38 weeks, respectively, according to the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) recommendations. In terms of gestational age at delivery and congenital malformations, no difference was seen between patients who used anti-TNF agents during pregnancy and those who did not. Anti-TNF use during pregnancy was associated, however, with increased birthweight and a lower percentage of infants who were small for gestational age. These findings are in keeping with those of prior studies, although larger studies would be helpful in determining whether there are critical periods during pregnancy that have a significant effect on birthweight or whether overall control of inflammation is the predominant factor.

BY WILL PASS

Don’t count on a runny nose. Young kids with COVID-19 often have no symptoms at all, even when they have a high viral load, according to a study supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Just 14% of adults who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 were asymptomatic, versus 37% of children aged 0-4 years, in the paper. This raises concern that parents, childcare providers, and preschools may be underestimating infection in seemingly healthy young kids who have been exposed to COVID, wrote lead author Ruth A. Karron, MD, and colleagues in JAMA Network Open.

Methods

The new research involved 690 individuals from 175 households in Maryland who were monitored closely between November 2020 and October 2021. Every week for 8 months, participants completed online symptom checks and underwent PCR testing using nasal swabs, with symptomatic individuals submitting additional swabs for analysis.

“What was different about our study [compared with previous studies] was the intensity of our collection, and the fact that we collected specimens from asymptomatic people,” said Dr. Karron, a pediatrician and professor in the department of international health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, in an interview. “You shed more virus earlier in the infection than later, and the fact that we were sampling every single week meant that we could pick up those early infections.”

The study also stands out for its focus on young children, Dr. Karron said. Enrollment required all households to have at least one child aged 0-4 years, so 256 out of 690 participants (37.1%) were in this youngest age group. The remainder of the population consisted of 100 older children aged 5-17 years (14.5%) and 334 adults aged 18-74 years (48.4%).

Children 4 and under more than twice as likely to be asymptomatic

By the end of the study, 51 participants had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, among whom 14 had no symptoms. A closer look showed that children 0-4 years of age who contracted COVID were more than twice as likely to be asymptomatic as infected adults (36.8% vs. 14.3%).

The relationship between symptoms and viral load also differed between adults and young children.

While adults with high viral loads – suggesting greater contagiousness – typically had more severe COVID symptoms, no correlation was found in young kids, meaning children with mild or no symptoms could still be highly contagious.

Dr. Karron said these findings should help parents and other stakeholders make better-informed decisions based on known risks. She recommended testing young, asymptomatic children for COVID if they have been exposed to infected individuals, then acting accordingly based on the results.

“If a family is infected with the virus, and the 2-year-old is asymptomatic, and people are thinking about a visit to elderly grandparents who may be frail, one shouldn’t assume that the 2-year-old is uninfected,” Dr. Karron said. “That child should be tested along with other family members.”

Testing should also be considered for young children exposed to COVID at childcare facilities, she added.

But not every expert consulted for this piece shared these opinions of Dr. Karron.

“I question whether that effort is worth it,” said Dean Blumberg, MD, professor and chief of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at UC Davis Health, Sacramento, Calif.

He noted that recent Food and Drug Administration guidance for COVID testing calls for three negative at-home antigen tests to confirm lack of infection.

“That would take 4 days to get those tests done,” he said. “So, it’s a lot of testing. It’s a lot of record keeping, it’s inconvenient, it’s uncomfortable to be tested, and I just question whether it’s worth that effort.”

Applicability of findings to today questioned

Dr. Blumberg also questioned whether the study, which was completed almost a year ago, reflects the current pandemic landscape.

“At the time this study was done, it was predominantly Delta [variant instead of Omicron],” Dr. Blumberg said. “The other issue [with the study] is that … most of the children didn’t have preexisting immunity, so you have to take that into account.”

Preexisting immunity – whether from exposure or vaccination – could lower viral loads, so asymptomatic children today really could be less contagious than they were when the study was done, according to Dr. Blumberg. Kids without symptoms are also less likely to spread the virus, because they aren’t coughing or sneezing, he added.

Sara R. Kim, MD, and Janet A. Englund, MD, of the Seattle Children’s Research Institute, University of Washington, said it’s challenging to know how applicable the findings are, although they sided more with the investigators than Dr. Blumberg.

“Given the higher rate of transmissibility and infectivity of the Omicron variant, it is difficult to make direct associations between findings reported during this study period and those present in the current era during which the Omicron variant is circulating,” they wrote in an accompanying editorial. “However, the higher rates of asymptomatic infection observed among children in this study are likely to be consistent with those observed for current and future viral variants.”

Although the experts offered different interpretations of the findings, they shared similar perspectives on vaccination.

“The most important thing that parents can do is get their kids vaccinated, be vaccinated themselves, and have everybody in the household vaccinated and up to date for all doses that are indicated,” Dr. Blumberg said.

Dr. Karron noted that vaccination will be increasingly important in the coming months.

“Summer is ending; school is starting,” she said. “We’re going to be in large groups indoors again very soon. To keep young children safe, I think it’s really important for them to get vaccinated.”

The study was funded by the CDC. The investigators disclosed no other relationships. Dr. Englund disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and others. Dr. Kim and Dr. Blumberg disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

BY WILL PASS

Don’t count on a runny nose. Young kids with COVID-19 often have no symptoms at all, even when they have a high viral load, according to a study supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Just 14% of adults who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 were asymptomatic, versus 37% of children aged 0-4 years, in the paper. This raises concern that parents, childcare providers, and preschools may be underestimating infection in seemingly healthy young kids who have been exposed to COVID, wrote lead author Ruth A. Karron, MD, and colleagues in JAMA Network Open.

Methods

The new research involved 690 individuals from 175 households in Maryland who were monitored closely between November 2020 and October 2021. Every week for 8 months, participants completed online symptom checks and underwent PCR testing using nasal swabs, with symptomatic individuals submitting additional swabs for analysis.

“What was different about our study [compared with previous studies] was the intensity of our collection, and the fact that we collected specimens from asymptomatic people,” said Dr. Karron, a pediatrician and professor in the department of international health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, in an interview. “You shed more virus earlier in the infection than later, and the fact that we were sampling every single week meant that we could pick up those early infections.”

The study also stands out for its focus on young children, Dr. Karron said. Enrollment required all households to have at least one child aged 0-4 years, so 256 out of 690 participants (37.1%) were in this youngest age group. The remainder of the population consisted of 100 older children aged 5-17 years (14.5%) and 334 adults aged 18-74 years (48.4%).

Children 4 and under more than twice as likely to be asymptomatic

By the end of the study, 51 participants had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, among whom 14 had no symptoms. A closer look showed that children 0-4 years of age who contracted COVID were more than twice as likely to be asymptomatic as infected adults (36.8% vs. 14.3%).

The relationship between symptoms and viral load also differed between adults and young children.

While adults with high viral loads – suggesting greater contagiousness – typically had more severe COVID symptoms, no correlation was found in young kids, meaning children with mild or no symptoms could still be highly contagious.

Dr. Karron said these findings should help parents and other stakeholders make better-informed decisions based on known risks. She recommended testing young, asymptomatic children for COVID if they have been exposed to infected individuals, then acting accordingly based on the results.

“If a family is infected with the virus, and the 2-year-old is asymptomatic, and people are thinking about a visit to elderly grandparents who may be frail, one shouldn’t assume that the 2-year-old is uninfected,” Dr. Karron said. “That child should be tested along with other family members.”

Testing should also be considered for young children exposed to COVID at childcare facilities, she added.

But not every expert consulted for this piece shared these opinions of Dr. Karron.

“I question whether that effort is worth it,” said Dean Blumberg, MD, professor and chief of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at UC Davis Health, Sacramento, Calif.

He noted that recent Food and Drug Administration guidance for COVID testing calls for three negative at-home antigen tests to confirm lack of infection.

“That would take 4 days to get those tests done,” he said. “So, it’s a lot of testing. It’s a lot of record keeping, it’s inconvenient, it’s uncomfortable to be tested, and I just question whether it’s worth that effort.”

Applicability of findings to today questioned

Dr. Blumberg also questioned whether the study, which was completed almost a year ago, reflects the current pandemic landscape.

“At the time this study was done, it was predominantly Delta [variant instead of Omicron],” Dr. Blumberg said. “The other issue [with the study] is that … most of the children didn’t have preexisting immunity, so you have to take that into account.”

Preexisting immunity – whether from exposure or vaccination – could lower viral loads, so asymptomatic children today really could be less contagious than they were when the study was done, according to Dr. Blumberg. Kids without symptoms are also less likely to spread the virus, because they aren’t coughing or sneezing, he added.

Sara R. Kim, MD, and Janet A. Englund, MD, of the Seattle Children’s Research Institute, University of Washington, said it’s challenging to know how applicable the findings are, although they sided more with the investigators than Dr. Blumberg.

“Given the higher rate of transmissibility and infectivity of the Omicron variant, it is difficult to make direct associations between findings reported during this study period and those present in the current era during which the Omicron variant is circulating,” they wrote in an accompanying editorial. “However, the higher rates of asymptomatic infection observed among children in this study are likely to be consistent with those observed for current and future viral variants.”

Although the experts offered different interpretations of the findings, they shared similar perspectives on vaccination.

“The most important thing that parents can do is get their kids vaccinated, be vaccinated themselves, and have everybody in the household vaccinated and up to date for all doses that are indicated,” Dr. Blumberg said.

Dr. Karron noted that vaccination will be increasingly important in the coming months.

“Summer is ending; school is starting,” she said. “We’re going to be in large groups indoors again very soon. To keep young children safe, I think it’s really important for them to get vaccinated.”

The study was funded by the CDC. The investigators disclosed no other relationships. Dr. Englund disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and others. Dr. Kim and Dr. Blumberg disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

BY WILL PASS

Don’t count on a runny nose. Young kids with COVID-19 often have no symptoms at all, even when they have a high viral load, according to a study supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Just 14% of adults who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 were asymptomatic, versus 37% of children aged 0-4 years, in the paper. This raises concern that parents, childcare providers, and preschools may be underestimating infection in seemingly healthy young kids who have been exposed to COVID, wrote lead author Ruth A. Karron, MD, and colleagues in JAMA Network Open.

Methods

The new research involved 690 individuals from 175 households in Maryland who were monitored closely between November 2020 and October 2021. Every week for 8 months, participants completed online symptom checks and underwent PCR testing using nasal swabs, with symptomatic individuals submitting additional swabs for analysis.

“What was different about our study [compared with previous studies] was the intensity of our collection, and the fact that we collected specimens from asymptomatic people,” said Dr. Karron, a pediatrician and professor in the department of international health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, in an interview. “You shed more virus earlier in the infection than later, and the fact that we were sampling every single week meant that we could pick up those early infections.”

The study also stands out for its focus on young children, Dr. Karron said. Enrollment required all households to have at least one child aged 0-4 years, so 256 out of 690 participants (37.1%) were in this youngest age group. The remainder of the population consisted of 100 older children aged 5-17 years (14.5%) and 334 adults aged 18-74 years (48.4%).

Children 4 and under more than twice as likely to be asymptomatic

By the end of the study, 51 participants had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, among whom 14 had no symptoms. A closer look showed that children 0-4 years of age who contracted COVID were more than twice as likely to be asymptomatic as infected adults (36.8% vs. 14.3%).

The relationship between symptoms and viral load also differed between adults and young children.

While adults with high viral loads – suggesting greater contagiousness – typically had more severe COVID symptoms, no correlation was found in young kids, meaning children with mild or no symptoms could still be highly contagious.

Dr. Karron said these findings should help parents and other stakeholders make better-informed decisions based on known risks. She recommended testing young, asymptomatic children for COVID if they have been exposed to infected individuals, then acting accordingly based on the results.

“If a family is infected with the virus, and the 2-year-old is asymptomatic, and people are thinking about a visit to elderly grandparents who may be frail, one shouldn’t assume that the 2-year-old is uninfected,” Dr. Karron said. “That child should be tested along with other family members.”

Testing should also be considered for young children exposed to COVID at childcare facilities, she added.

But not every expert consulted for this piece shared these opinions of Dr. Karron.

“I question whether that effort is worth it,” said Dean Blumberg, MD, professor and chief of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at UC Davis Health, Sacramento, Calif.

He noted that recent Food and Drug Administration guidance for COVID testing calls for three negative at-home antigen tests to confirm lack of infection.

“That would take 4 days to get those tests done,” he said. “So, it’s a lot of testing. It’s a lot of record keeping, it’s inconvenient, it’s uncomfortable to be tested, and I just question whether it’s worth that effort.”

Applicability of findings to today questioned

Dr. Blumberg also questioned whether the study, which was completed almost a year ago, reflects the current pandemic landscape.

“At the time this study was done, it was predominantly Delta [variant instead of Omicron],” Dr. Blumberg said. “The other issue [with the study] is that … most of the children didn’t have preexisting immunity, so you have to take that into account.”

Preexisting immunity – whether from exposure or vaccination – could lower viral loads, so asymptomatic children today really could be less contagious than they were when the study was done, according to Dr. Blumberg. Kids without symptoms are also less likely to spread the virus, because they aren’t coughing or sneezing, he added.

Sara R. Kim, MD, and Janet A. Englund, MD, of the Seattle Children’s Research Institute, University of Washington, said it’s challenging to know how applicable the findings are, although they sided more with the investigators than Dr. Blumberg.

“Given the higher rate of transmissibility and infectivity of the Omicron variant, it is difficult to make direct associations between findings reported during this study period and those present in the current era during which the Omicron variant is circulating,” they wrote in an accompanying editorial. “However, the higher rates of asymptomatic infection observed among children in this study are likely to be consistent with those observed for current and future viral variants.”

Although the experts offered different interpretations of the findings, they shared similar perspectives on vaccination.

“The most important thing that parents can do is get their kids vaccinated, be vaccinated themselves, and have everybody in the household vaccinated and up to date for all doses that are indicated,” Dr. Blumberg said.

Dr. Karron noted that vaccination will be increasingly important in the coming months.

“Summer is ending; school is starting,” she said. “We’re going to be in large groups indoors again very soon. To keep young children safe, I think it’s really important for them to get vaccinated.”

The study was funded by the CDC. The investigators disclosed no other relationships. Dr. Englund disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and others. Dr. Kim and Dr. Blumberg disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

PORTLAND, ORE. – During her dermatology residency training at the University of California, Irvine, Medical Center, Jenny Murase, MD, remembers hearing a colleague say that her most angry patients of the day were adult women with recalcitrant acne who present to the clinic with questions like, “My skin has been clear my whole life! What’s going on?”

Such expressions of frustration may partly stem from the fact that high acne treatment failure rates occur in women over the age of 25. In fact, 82% fail multiple courses of systemic antibiotics and 32% relapse after using isotretinoin, Dr. Murase, director of medical dermatology consultative services and patch testing at the Palo Alto Foundation Medical Group, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association.

In her clinical experience, hormonal therapy is a safe long-term option for recalcitrant acne in postmenarcheal females over the age of 14. “Although oral antibiotics are going to be superior to hormonal therapy in the first month or two, when you get to about six months, they have equivalent efficacy,” she said.

Obencem/Thinkstock

Telltale signs of acne associated with androgen excess include the development of nodulocystic papules along the jawline and small comedones over the forehead. Female patients with acne may request that labs be ordered to check their hormone levels, but that often is not necessary, according to Dr. Murase, who is also associate clinical professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco. “There aren’t strict guidelines to indicate when you should perform hormonal testing, but warning signs that warrant further evaluation include hirsutism, androgenetic alopecia, virilization, infertility, oligomenorrhea or amenorrhea, and sudden onset of severe acne. The most common situation that warrants hormonal testing is polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS).”

When there is a strong suspicion for hyperandrogenism, essential labs include free and total testosterone. Free testosterone is commonly elevated in patients with PCOS and total testosterone levels over 200 ng/dL is suggestive of an ovarian tumor. Other essential labs include 17-hyydroxyprogesterone (values greater than 200 ng/dL indicate congenital adrenal hyperplasia), and dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEA-S); levels over 8,000 mcg/dL indicate an adrenal tumor, while levels in the 4,000-8,000 mcg/dL range indicate congenital adrenal hyperplasia.

Helpful lab tests to consider include the ratio of luteinizing hormone to follicle-stimulating hormone; a 3:1 ratio or greater is suggestive for PCOS. “Ordering a prolactin level can also help, especially if patients are describing issues with headaches, which could indicate a pituitary tumor,” Dr. Murase added. Measuring sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG) levels can also be helpful. “If a patient has been on oral contraceptives for a long time, it increases their SHBG,” which, in older women, she said, “is inversely related to the development of type 2 diabetes.”

All labs for hyperandrogenism should be performed early in the morning on day 3 of the patient’s menstrual cycle. “If patients are on some kind of hormonal therapy, they need to be off of it for at least 6 weeks in order for you get a relevant test,” she said. Other relevant labs to consider include fasting glucose and lipids, cortisol, and thyroid-stimulating hormone.
 

Oral contraceptives

Estrogen contained in oral contraceptives (OCs) provides the most benefit to acne patients. “It reduces sebum production, decreases free testosterone and DHEA-S by stimulating SHBG synthesis in the liver, inhibits 5-alpha-reductase, which decreases peripheral testosterone conversion, and it decreases the production of ovarian and adrenal androgens,” Dr. Murase explained. “On average, you can get about 40%-70% reduction of lesion count, which is pretty good.”

Progestins with low androgenetic activity are the most helpful for acne, including norgestimate, desogestrel, and drospirenone. FDA-approved OC options include Ortho Tri-Cyclen, EstroStep, Yaz, and Beyaz. None has data showing superior efficacy.

No Pap smear or pelvic exam is required when prescribing OCs, but the risk of clotting should be discussed with patients. According to Dr. Murase, the risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) at baseline is about 1 per 10,000 woman-years, while the risk of DVT after 1 year on an OC is 3.4 per 10,000 years.

“This is a very mild increased risk that we’re talking about, but it is relevant in smokers, in those with hypertension, and in those who are diabetic,” she said. As for the risk of cancer associated with the use of OCs, a large collaborative study found a relative risk of 1.24 for developing breast cancer (not dose or duration related), but a risk reduction for endometrial, colorectal, and ovarian cancer.

The most common side effects associated with OCs are unscheduled bleeding, nausea, breast tenderness, and possible weight gain. Concomitant antibiotics can be used, with the exception of CYP3A4 inducers, such as rifampin. “That’s the main antibiotic we have to worry about that could affect the efficacy of the birth control pill,” she said. “It accounts for about three-quarters of pregnancies on antibiotics.”

Tetracyclines do not appear to increase the rate of birth defects with incidental first-trimester exposure, and data are reassuring but “tetracycline should be stopped within the first trimester as soon as the patient discovers she is pregnant,” Dr. Murase said.

Contraindications for OCs include being pregnant or breastfeeding; history of stroke, venous thromboembolism, or MI; history of smoking and being over age 35; uncontrolled hypertension; migraines with focal symptoms/aura; current or past breast cancer; hypercholesterolemia; diabetes with end-organ damage or having diabetes over age 35; liver issues such as a tumor, viral hepatitis, or cirrhosis; and a history of major surgery with prolonged immobilization.
 

Spironolactone

Another treatment option is spironolactone, a potassium-sparing diuretic that blocks aldosterone at a dose of 25 mg/day. At doses of 50-100 mg/day, it blocks androgen. “It can be used in combination with an oral contraceptive, with the rates of efficacy reported to range between 33% and 85%,” Dr. Murase said.

Spironolactone can also reduce hirsutism, improve androgenetic alopecia, and lower blood pressure by about 5 mm Hg systolic and 2.5 mm Hg diastolic. Dr. Murase usually checks blood pressure in patients, and “only if they’re really low I’ll talk about the potential for postural hypotension and the fact that you can get a little bit dizzy when going from a position of lying down to standing up.” Potassium levels should be checked at baseline and 4 weeks in patients older than age 46, in those with cardiac and/or renal disease, or in those on concomitant drospirenone or a third-generation progestin.

Spironolactone is classified as a pregnancy category D drug that could compromise the genital development of a male fetus. “So the onus is on us as providers to have the conversation with our patient,” she said. “If you’re putting a patient on spironolactone and they are of child-bearing age, you need to make sure that you’ve had the conversation with them about the fact that they should not get pregnant while on the medicine.”

Spironolactone also has a boxed warning citing the development of benign tumors in animal studies. That warning is based on studies in rats at doses of 10-150 mg/kg per day, “which is an extremely high dose and would never be given in humans,” said Dr. Murase, who has coauthored CME content regarding the safety of dermatologic medications in pregnancy and lactation.

In humans, there has been no evidence of the development of benign tumors associated with spironolactone therapy, and “there has been a decreased risk of prostate cancer and no association with its use and the development of breast, ovarian, bladder, kidney, gastric, or esophageal cancer,” she said.

Dr. Murase noted that during pregnancy, first-line oral antibiotics include amoxicillin for acne rosacea and cefadroxil for acne vulgaris. Macrolides are a second-line choice because of an increase in atrial/ventricular septal defects and pyloric stenosis that have been reported with first-trimester exposure.

“Erythromycin is the preferred choice over azithromycin and clarithromycin because it has the most data, [but] erythromycin estolate has been associated with increased AST levels in the second trimester,” she said. “It occurs in about 10% of cases and is reversible. Erythromycin base and erythromycin ethylsuccinate do not have this risk, and those are preferable.”

Dr. Murase disclosed that she has been a paid speaker of unbranded medical content for Regeneron and UCB. She is also a member of the advisory board for Leo Pharma, Eli Lilly, UCB, and Genzyme/Sanofi.

PORTLAND, ORE. – During her dermatology residency training at the University of California, Irvine, Medical Center, Jenny Murase, MD, remembers hearing a colleague say that her most angry patients of the day were adult women with recalcitrant acne who present to the clinic with questions like, “My skin has been clear my whole life! What’s going on?”

Such expressions of frustration may partly stem from the fact that high acne treatment failure rates occur in women over the age of 25. In fact, 82% fail multiple courses of systemic antibiotics and 32% relapse after using isotretinoin, Dr. Murase, director of medical dermatology consultative services and patch testing at the Palo Alto Foundation Medical Group, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association.

In her clinical experience, hormonal therapy is a safe long-term option for recalcitrant acne in postmenarcheal females over the age of 14. “Although oral antibiotics are going to be superior to hormonal therapy in the first month or two, when you get to about six months, they have equivalent efficacy,” she said.

Obencem/Thinkstock

Telltale signs of acne associated with androgen excess include the development of nodulocystic papules along the jawline and small comedones over the forehead. Female patients with acne may request that labs be ordered to check their hormone levels, but that often is not necessary, according to Dr. Murase, who is also associate clinical professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco. “There aren’t strict guidelines to indicate when you should perform hormonal testing, but warning signs that warrant further evaluation include hirsutism, androgenetic alopecia, virilization, infertility, oligomenorrhea or amenorrhea, and sudden onset of severe acne. The most common situation that warrants hormonal testing is polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS).”

When there is a strong suspicion for hyperandrogenism, essential labs include free and total testosterone. Free testosterone is commonly elevated in patients with PCOS and total testosterone levels over 200 ng/dL is suggestive of an ovarian tumor. Other essential labs include 17-hyydroxyprogesterone (values greater than 200 ng/dL indicate congenital adrenal hyperplasia), and dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEA-S); levels over 8,000 mcg/dL indicate an adrenal tumor, while levels in the 4,000-8,000 mcg/dL range indicate congenital adrenal hyperplasia.

Helpful lab tests to consider include the ratio of luteinizing hormone to follicle-stimulating hormone; a 3:1 ratio or greater is suggestive for PCOS. “Ordering a prolactin level can also help, especially if patients are describing issues with headaches, which could indicate a pituitary tumor,” Dr. Murase added. Measuring sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG) levels can also be helpful. “If a patient has been on oral contraceptives for a long time, it increases their SHBG,” which, in older women, she said, “is inversely related to the development of type 2 diabetes.”

All labs for hyperandrogenism should be performed early in the morning on day 3 of the patient’s menstrual cycle. “If patients are on some kind of hormonal therapy, they need to be off of it for at least 6 weeks in order for you get a relevant test,” she said. Other relevant labs to consider include fasting glucose and lipids, cortisol, and thyroid-stimulating hormone.
 

Oral contraceptives

Estrogen contained in oral contraceptives (OCs) provides the most benefit to acne patients. “It reduces sebum production, decreases free testosterone and DHEA-S by stimulating SHBG synthesis in the liver, inhibits 5-alpha-reductase, which decreases peripheral testosterone conversion, and it decreases the production of ovarian and adrenal androgens,” Dr. Murase explained. “On average, you can get about 40%-70% reduction of lesion count, which is pretty good.”

Progestins with low androgenetic activity are the most helpful for acne, including norgestimate, desogestrel, and drospirenone. FDA-approved OC options include Ortho Tri-Cyclen, EstroStep, Yaz, and Beyaz. None has data showing superior efficacy.

No Pap smear or pelvic exam is required when prescribing OCs, but the risk of clotting should be discussed with patients. According to Dr. Murase, the risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) at baseline is about 1 per 10,000 woman-years, while the risk of DVT after 1 year on an OC is 3.4 per 10,000 years.

“This is a very mild increased risk that we’re talking about, but it is relevant in smokers, in those with hypertension, and in those who are diabetic,” she said. As for the risk of cancer associated with the use of OCs, a large collaborative study found a relative risk of 1.24 for developing breast cancer (not dose or duration related), but a risk reduction for endometrial, colorectal, and ovarian cancer.

The most common side effects associated with OCs are unscheduled bleeding, nausea, breast tenderness, and possible weight gain. Concomitant antibiotics can be used, with the exception of CYP3A4 inducers, such as rifampin. “That’s the main antibiotic we have to worry about that could affect the efficacy of the birth control pill,” she said. “It accounts for about three-quarters of pregnancies on antibiotics.”

Tetracyclines do not appear to increase the rate of birth defects with incidental first-trimester exposure, and data are reassuring but “tetracycline should be stopped within the first trimester as soon as the patient discovers she is pregnant,” Dr. Murase said.

Contraindications for OCs include being pregnant or breastfeeding; history of stroke, venous thromboembolism, or MI; history of smoking and being over age 35; uncontrolled hypertension; migraines with focal symptoms/aura; current or past breast cancer; hypercholesterolemia; diabetes with end-organ damage or having diabetes over age 35; liver issues such as a tumor, viral hepatitis, or cirrhosis; and a history of major surgery with prolonged immobilization.
 

Spironolactone

Another treatment option is spironolactone, a potassium-sparing diuretic that blocks aldosterone at a dose of 25 mg/day. At doses of 50-100 mg/day, it blocks androgen. “It can be used in combination with an oral contraceptive, with the rates of efficacy reported to range between 33% and 85%,” Dr. Murase said.

Spironolactone can also reduce hirsutism, improve androgenetic alopecia, and lower blood pressure by about 5 mm Hg systolic and 2.5 mm Hg diastolic. Dr. Murase usually checks blood pressure in patients, and “only if they’re really low I’ll talk about the potential for postural hypotension and the fact that you can get a little bit dizzy when going from a position of lying down to standing up.” Potassium levels should be checked at baseline and 4 weeks in patients older than age 46, in those with cardiac and/or renal disease, or in those on concomitant drospirenone or a third-generation progestin.

Spironolactone is classified as a pregnancy category D drug that could compromise the genital development of a male fetus. “So the onus is on us as providers to have the conversation with our patient,” she said. “If you’re putting a patient on spironolactone and they are of child-bearing age, you need to make sure that you’ve had the conversation with them about the fact that they should not get pregnant while on the medicine.”

Spironolactone also has a boxed warning citing the development of benign tumors in animal studies. That warning is based on studies in rats at doses of 10-150 mg/kg per day, “which is an extremely high dose and would never be given in humans,” said Dr. Murase, who has coauthored CME content regarding the safety of dermatologic medications in pregnancy and lactation.

In humans, there has been no evidence of the development of benign tumors associated with spironolactone therapy, and “there has been a decreased risk of prostate cancer and no association with its use and the development of breast, ovarian, bladder, kidney, gastric, or esophageal cancer,” she said.

Dr. Murase noted that during pregnancy, first-line oral antibiotics include amoxicillin for acne rosacea and cefadroxil for acne vulgaris. Macrolides are a second-line choice because of an increase in atrial/ventricular septal defects and pyloric stenosis that have been reported with first-trimester exposure.

“Erythromycin is the preferred choice over azithromycin and clarithromycin because it has the most data, [but] erythromycin estolate has been associated with increased AST levels in the second trimester,” she said. “It occurs in about 10% of cases and is reversible. Erythromycin base and erythromycin ethylsuccinate do not have this risk, and those are preferable.”

Dr. Murase disclosed that she has been a paid speaker of unbranded medical content for Regeneron and UCB. She is also a member of the advisory board for Leo Pharma, Eli Lilly, UCB, and Genzyme/Sanofi.

PORTLAND, ORE. – During her dermatology residency training at the University of California, Irvine, Medical Center, Jenny Murase, MD, remembers hearing a colleague say that her most angry patients of the day were adult women with recalcitrant acne who present to the clinic with questions like, “My skin has been clear my whole life! What’s going on?”

Such expressions of frustration may partly stem from the fact that high acne treatment failure rates occur in women over the age of 25. In fact, 82% fail multiple courses of systemic antibiotics and 32% relapse after using isotretinoin, Dr. Murase, director of medical dermatology consultative services and patch testing at the Palo Alto Foundation Medical Group, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association.

In her clinical experience, hormonal therapy is a safe long-term option for recalcitrant acne in postmenarcheal females over the age of 14. “Although oral antibiotics are going to be superior to hormonal therapy in the first month or two, when you get to about six months, they have equivalent efficacy,” she said.

Obencem/Thinkstock

Telltale signs of acne associated with androgen excess include the development of nodulocystic papules along the jawline and small comedones over the forehead. Female patients with acne may request that labs be ordered to check their hormone levels, but that often is not necessary, according to Dr. Murase, who is also associate clinical professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco. “There aren’t strict guidelines to indicate when you should perform hormonal testing, but warning signs that warrant further evaluation include hirsutism, androgenetic alopecia, virilization, infertility, oligomenorrhea or amenorrhea, and sudden onset of severe acne. The most common situation that warrants hormonal testing is polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS).”

When there is a strong suspicion for hyperandrogenism, essential labs include free and total testosterone. Free testosterone is commonly elevated in patients with PCOS and total testosterone levels over 200 ng/dL is suggestive of an ovarian tumor. Other essential labs include 17-hyydroxyprogesterone (values greater than 200 ng/dL indicate congenital adrenal hyperplasia), and dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEA-S); levels over 8,000 mcg/dL indicate an adrenal tumor, while levels in the 4,000-8,000 mcg/dL range indicate congenital adrenal hyperplasia.

Helpful lab tests to consider include the ratio of luteinizing hormone to follicle-stimulating hormone; a 3:1 ratio or greater is suggestive for PCOS. “Ordering a prolactin level can also help, especially if patients are describing issues with headaches, which could indicate a pituitary tumor,” Dr. Murase added. Measuring sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG) levels can also be helpful. “If a patient has been on oral contraceptives for a long time, it increases their SHBG,” which, in older women, she said, “is inversely related to the development of type 2 diabetes.”

All labs for hyperandrogenism should be performed early in the morning on day 3 of the patient’s menstrual cycle. “If patients are on some kind of hormonal therapy, they need to be off of it for at least 6 weeks in order for you get a relevant test,” she said. Other relevant labs to consider include fasting glucose and lipids, cortisol, and thyroid-stimulating hormone.
 

Oral contraceptives

Estrogen contained in oral contraceptives (OCs) provides the most benefit to acne patients. “It reduces sebum production, decreases free testosterone and DHEA-S by stimulating SHBG synthesis in the liver, inhibits 5-alpha-reductase, which decreases peripheral testosterone conversion, and it decreases the production of ovarian and adrenal androgens,” Dr. Murase explained. “On average, you can get about 40%-70% reduction of lesion count, which is pretty good.”

Progestins with low androgenetic activity are the most helpful for acne, including norgestimate, desogestrel, and drospirenone. FDA-approved OC options include Ortho Tri-Cyclen, EstroStep, Yaz, and Beyaz. None has data showing superior efficacy.

No Pap smear or pelvic exam is required when prescribing OCs, but the risk of clotting should be discussed with patients. According to Dr. Murase, the risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) at baseline is about 1 per 10,000 woman-years, while the risk of DVT after 1 year on an OC is 3.4 per 10,000 years.

“This is a very mild increased risk that we’re talking about, but it is relevant in smokers, in those with hypertension, and in those who are diabetic,” she said. As for the risk of cancer associated with the use of OCs, a large collaborative study found a relative risk of 1.24 for developing breast cancer (not dose or duration related), but a risk reduction for endometrial, colorectal, and ovarian cancer.

The most common side effects associated with OCs are unscheduled bleeding, nausea, breast tenderness, and possible weight gain. Concomitant antibiotics can be used, with the exception of CYP3A4 inducers, such as rifampin. “That’s the main antibiotic we have to worry about that could affect the efficacy of the birth control pill,” she said. “It accounts for about three-quarters of pregnancies on antibiotics.”

Tetracyclines do not appear to increase the rate of birth defects with incidental first-trimester exposure, and data are reassuring but “tetracycline should be stopped within the first trimester as soon as the patient discovers she is pregnant,” Dr. Murase said.

Contraindications for OCs include being pregnant or breastfeeding; history of stroke, venous thromboembolism, or MI; history of smoking and being over age 35; uncontrolled hypertension; migraines with focal symptoms/aura; current or past breast cancer; hypercholesterolemia; diabetes with end-organ damage or having diabetes over age 35; liver issues such as a tumor, viral hepatitis, or cirrhosis; and a history of major surgery with prolonged immobilization.
 

Spironolactone

Another treatment option is spironolactone, a potassium-sparing diuretic that blocks aldosterone at a dose of 25 mg/day. At doses of 50-100 mg/day, it blocks androgen. “It can be used in combination with an oral contraceptive, with the rates of efficacy reported to range between 33% and 85%,” Dr. Murase said.

Spironolactone can also reduce hirsutism, improve androgenetic alopecia, and lower blood pressure by about 5 mm Hg systolic and 2.5 mm Hg diastolic. Dr. Murase usually checks blood pressure in patients, and “only if they’re really low I’ll talk about the potential for postural hypotension and the fact that you can get a little bit dizzy when going from a position of lying down to standing up.” Potassium levels should be checked at baseline and 4 weeks in patients older than age 46, in those with cardiac and/or renal disease, or in those on concomitant drospirenone or a third-generation progestin.

Spironolactone is classified as a pregnancy category D drug that could compromise the genital development of a male fetus. “So the onus is on us as providers to have the conversation with our patient,” she said. “If you’re putting a patient on spironolactone and they are of child-bearing age, you need to make sure that you’ve had the conversation with them about the fact that they should not get pregnant while on the medicine.”

Spironolactone also has a boxed warning citing the development of benign tumors in animal studies. That warning is based on studies in rats at doses of 10-150 mg/kg per day, “which is an extremely high dose and would never be given in humans,” said Dr. Murase, who has coauthored CME content regarding the safety of dermatologic medications in pregnancy and lactation.

In humans, there has been no evidence of the development of benign tumors associated with spironolactone therapy, and “there has been a decreased risk of prostate cancer and no association with its use and the development of breast, ovarian, bladder, kidney, gastric, or esophageal cancer,” she said.

Dr. Murase noted that during pregnancy, first-line oral antibiotics include amoxicillin for acne rosacea and cefadroxil for acne vulgaris. Macrolides are a second-line choice because of an increase in atrial/ventricular septal defects and pyloric stenosis that have been reported with first-trimester exposure.

“Erythromycin is the preferred choice over azithromycin and clarithromycin because it has the most data, [but] erythromycin estolate has been associated with increased AST levels in the second trimester,” she said. “It occurs in about 10% of cases and is reversible. Erythromycin base and erythromycin ethylsuccinate do not have this risk, and those are preferable.”

Dr. Murase disclosed that she has been a paid speaker of unbranded medical content for Regeneron and UCB. She is also a member of the advisory board for Leo Pharma, Eli Lilly, UCB, and Genzyme/Sanofi.