Nearly 123,000 cancer deaths – or almost 30% of all cancer deaths – in the United States in 2019 were linked to cigarette smoking, a new analysis suggests.

That corresponds to more than 2 million person-years of lost life and nearly $21 billion in annual lost earnings.

“During the past few decades, smoking has substantially declined in the U.S., followed by great declines in mortality from lung cancer and some other smoking-related cancers,” said lead author Farhad Islami, MD, senior scientific director of cancer disparity research at the American Cancer Society.

AtnoYdur/Thinkstock

Despite this “remarkable progress, our results indicate that smoking is still associated with about 30% of all cancer deaths and substantial lost earnings in the U.S., and that more work should be done to further reduce smoking in the country,” he said.

The study was published online in the International Journal of Cancer.

Dr. Islami and colleagues had found that lost earnings from cancer deaths in 2015 came to nearly $95 billion. Other research showed that a substantial portion of lost earnings from cancer deaths could be traced to cigarette smoking, but estimates were more than a decade old.

To provide more recent estimates and help guide tobacco control policies, Dr. Islami and colleagues estimated person-years of life lost (PYLL) and lost earnings from cigarette smoking-related cancer deaths in 2019.

Of the 418,563 cancer deaths in adults ages 25-79 years, an estimated 122,951 could be linked to cigarette smoking. That corresponds to 29.4% of all cancer deaths and roughly 2.2 million PYLL. Translated to lost earnings, the authors estimated $20.9 billion total, with average lost earnings of $170,000 per cancer death linked to smoking.

By cancer type, lung cancer accounted for about 62%, or $12.9 billion, of the total lost earnings linked to smoking, followed by esophageal cancer (7%, or $1.5 billion), colorectal cancer (6%, or $1.2 billion), and liver cancer (5%, or $1.1 billion).

Smoking-related death rates were highest in the 13 “tobacco nation” states with weaker tobacco control policies and a higher rate of cigarette smoking. These states are Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia.

The lost earnings rate in all 13 tobacco nation states combined was about 44% higher, compared with other states and the District of Columbia combined, and the annual PYLL rate was 47% higher in tobacco nation states.

The researchers estimated that if PYLL and lost earnings rates in all states matched those in Utah, which has the lowest rates, more than half of the total PYLL and lost earnings nationally would have been avoided. In other words, that would mean 1.27 million PYLL and $10.5 billion saved in 2019.

Ending the ‘scourge of tobacco’

To kick the smoking habit, health providers should “screen patients for tobacco use, document tobacco use status, advise people who smoke to quit, and assist in attempts to quit,” Dr. Islami said.

Getting more people to screen for lung cancer in the United States is also important, given that only 6.6% of eligible people in 2019 received screening.

In a statement, Lisa Lacasse, president of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, said this report “further demonstrates just how critical reducing tobacco use is to ending suffering and death from cancer.”

To end the “scourge of tobacco,” local, state, and federal lawmakers need to pass proven tobacco control policies, she said.

These include regular and significant tobacco tax increases, thorough statewide smoke-free laws, and enough funding for state programs to prevent and stop smoking. It also means ensuring all Medicaid enrollees have access to all services that can help smokers quit as well as access to all FDA-approved medications that help users stop smoking.

“We have the tools to get this done, we just need lawmakers to act,” Ms. Lacasse said.

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

Nearly 123,000 cancer deaths – or almost 30% of all cancer deaths – in the United States in 2019 were linked to cigarette smoking, a new analysis suggests.

That corresponds to more than 2 million person-years of lost life and nearly $21 billion in annual lost earnings.

“During the past few decades, smoking has substantially declined in the U.S., followed by great declines in mortality from lung cancer and some other smoking-related cancers,” said lead author Farhad Islami, MD, senior scientific director of cancer disparity research at the American Cancer Society.

AtnoYdur/Thinkstock

Despite this “remarkable progress, our results indicate that smoking is still associated with about 30% of all cancer deaths and substantial lost earnings in the U.S., and that more work should be done to further reduce smoking in the country,” he said.

The study was published online in the International Journal of Cancer.

Dr. Islami and colleagues had found that lost earnings from cancer deaths in 2015 came to nearly $95 billion. Other research showed that a substantial portion of lost earnings from cancer deaths could be traced to cigarette smoking, but estimates were more than a decade old.

To provide more recent estimates and help guide tobacco control policies, Dr. Islami and colleagues estimated person-years of life lost (PYLL) and lost earnings from cigarette smoking-related cancer deaths in 2019.

Of the 418,563 cancer deaths in adults ages 25-79 years, an estimated 122,951 could be linked to cigarette smoking. That corresponds to 29.4% of all cancer deaths and roughly 2.2 million PYLL. Translated to lost earnings, the authors estimated $20.9 billion total, with average lost earnings of $170,000 per cancer death linked to smoking.

By cancer type, lung cancer accounted for about 62%, or $12.9 billion, of the total lost earnings linked to smoking, followed by esophageal cancer (7%, or $1.5 billion), colorectal cancer (6%, or $1.2 billion), and liver cancer (5%, or $1.1 billion).

Smoking-related death rates were highest in the 13 “tobacco nation” states with weaker tobacco control policies and a higher rate of cigarette smoking. These states are Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia.

The lost earnings rate in all 13 tobacco nation states combined was about 44% higher, compared with other states and the District of Columbia combined, and the annual PYLL rate was 47% higher in tobacco nation states.

The researchers estimated that if PYLL and lost earnings rates in all states matched those in Utah, which has the lowest rates, more than half of the total PYLL and lost earnings nationally would have been avoided. In other words, that would mean 1.27 million PYLL and $10.5 billion saved in 2019.

Ending the ‘scourge of tobacco’

To kick the smoking habit, health providers should “screen patients for tobacco use, document tobacco use status, advise people who smoke to quit, and assist in attempts to quit,” Dr. Islami said.

Getting more people to screen for lung cancer in the United States is also important, given that only 6.6% of eligible people in 2019 received screening.

In a statement, Lisa Lacasse, president of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, said this report “further demonstrates just how critical reducing tobacco use is to ending suffering and death from cancer.”

To end the “scourge of tobacco,” local, state, and federal lawmakers need to pass proven tobacco control policies, she said.

These include regular and significant tobacco tax increases, thorough statewide smoke-free laws, and enough funding for state programs to prevent and stop smoking. It also means ensuring all Medicaid enrollees have access to all services that can help smokers quit as well as access to all FDA-approved medications that help users stop smoking.

“We have the tools to get this done, we just need lawmakers to act,” Ms. Lacasse said.

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

Nearly 123,000 cancer deaths – or almost 30% of all cancer deaths – in the United States in 2019 were linked to cigarette smoking, a new analysis suggests.

That corresponds to more than 2 million person-years of lost life and nearly $21 billion in annual lost earnings.

“During the past few decades, smoking has substantially declined in the U.S., followed by great declines in mortality from lung cancer and some other smoking-related cancers,” said lead author Farhad Islami, MD, senior scientific director of cancer disparity research at the American Cancer Society.

AtnoYdur/Thinkstock

Despite this “remarkable progress, our results indicate that smoking is still associated with about 30% of all cancer deaths and substantial lost earnings in the U.S., and that more work should be done to further reduce smoking in the country,” he said.

The study was published online in the International Journal of Cancer.

Dr. Islami and colleagues had found that lost earnings from cancer deaths in 2015 came to nearly $95 billion. Other research showed that a substantial portion of lost earnings from cancer deaths could be traced to cigarette smoking, but estimates were more than a decade old.

To provide more recent estimates and help guide tobacco control policies, Dr. Islami and colleagues estimated person-years of life lost (PYLL) and lost earnings from cigarette smoking-related cancer deaths in 2019.

Of the 418,563 cancer deaths in adults ages 25-79 years, an estimated 122,951 could be linked to cigarette smoking. That corresponds to 29.4% of all cancer deaths and roughly 2.2 million PYLL. Translated to lost earnings, the authors estimated $20.9 billion total, with average lost earnings of $170,000 per cancer death linked to smoking.

By cancer type, lung cancer accounted for about 62%, or $12.9 billion, of the total lost earnings linked to smoking, followed by esophageal cancer (7%, or $1.5 billion), colorectal cancer (6%, or $1.2 billion), and liver cancer (5%, or $1.1 billion).

Smoking-related death rates were highest in the 13 “tobacco nation” states with weaker tobacco control policies and a higher rate of cigarette smoking. These states are Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia.

The lost earnings rate in all 13 tobacco nation states combined was about 44% higher, compared with other states and the District of Columbia combined, and the annual PYLL rate was 47% higher in tobacco nation states.

The researchers estimated that if PYLL and lost earnings rates in all states matched those in Utah, which has the lowest rates, more than half of the total PYLL and lost earnings nationally would have been avoided. In other words, that would mean 1.27 million PYLL and $10.5 billion saved in 2019.

Ending the ‘scourge of tobacco’

To kick the smoking habit, health providers should “screen patients for tobacco use, document tobacco use status, advise people who smoke to quit, and assist in attempts to quit,” Dr. Islami said.

Getting more people to screen for lung cancer in the United States is also important, given that only 6.6% of eligible people in 2019 received screening.

In a statement, Lisa Lacasse, president of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, said this report “further demonstrates just how critical reducing tobacco use is to ending suffering and death from cancer.”

To end the “scourge of tobacco,” local, state, and federal lawmakers need to pass proven tobacco control policies, she said.

These include regular and significant tobacco tax increases, thorough statewide smoke-free laws, and enough funding for state programs to prevent and stop smoking. It also means ensuring all Medicaid enrollees have access to all services that can help smokers quit as well as access to all FDA-approved medications that help users stop smoking.

“We have the tools to get this done, we just need lawmakers to act,” Ms. Lacasse said.

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

Drinking tea has several reported health benefits, but most studies have been conducted in regions where green tea predominates. New data from Britain – where there is a strong tradition of ‘afternoon tea’ – now shows that black tea is also associated with health benefits.

The findings come from a prospective study of nearly 500,000 participants in the UK Biobank cohort, among whom drinking black tea was common. They suggest that drinking black tea may be associated with a moderately lower all-cause mortality risk, and the risk was lowest among those drinking two or more cups of tea per day.

The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

During a median follow-up of 11.2 years, those who drank at least two cups of tea each day had a lower all-cause mortality risk, reported Maki Inoue-Choi, PhD, and colleagues from the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md.  

After multivariate adjustment, the hazard ratios for death among tea drinkers, compared with no tea intake, were similar across intake levels: 0.95 for daily intake of up to 1 cup, 0.87 for 2-3 cups, 0.88 for 4-5 cups, 0.88 for 6-7 cups, 0.91 for 8-9 cups, and 0.89 for 10 or more cups.

Drinking tea also showed an inverse association with mortality from cardiovascular disease (adjusted HRs ranging from 0.98 to 0.76), ischemic heart disease (aHRs ranging from 1.03 to 0.74), and stroke (aHRs ranging from 0.92 to 0.48 ), However, the researchers added that “no clear trend was seen for cancer or respiratory disease mortality, with associations among higher intake categories tending toward the null.”

There is “no clear answer” as to why no association was observed between tea consumption and cancer mortality in the current study, Dr. Inoue-Choi said at a press briefing. Notably, the effects were apparent regardless of whether milk or sugar was added to tea, tea temperature, or genetic variations in caffeine metabolism among participants.

She and her colleagues controlled for these factors, as well as numerous others that could confound the results, including coffee consumption and baseline health and demographic characteristics..

The study subjects were 498,043 adults with a mean baseline age of 56.5 years. About 85% reported drinking tea, 90% reported drinking black tea, and most drank two to three cups (29%), four to five cups (26%), or six to seven cups (12%) per day.

A limitation of the study is the lack of information on certain aspects of tea intake, such as portion size and tea strength, the authors noted.

Tea is among the most frequently consumed beverages worldwide, and studies from places where green tea is popular, like China and Japan, have demonstrated health benefits. Data from places where black tea is more commonly consumed have been lacking and have provided conflicting results, Dr. Inoue-Choi said.

 A presumed mechanism of action related to tea consumption is reduced oxidative stress and inflammation thanks to "polyphenols and flavonoids, namely catechins and their oxidated products," the authors explained. Oxidative stress and inflammation may promote carcinogenesis; therefore, reducing oxidative stress and inflammation may improve endothelial function, they added.

“While these findings may offer reassurance to tea drinkers, they do not indicate that people should start drinking tea or change their tea consumption for health benefits,” Dr. Inoue-Choi said, explaining that “the results need to be replicated in future studies and extended in other diverse populations.”

This study was funded by the National Cancer Institute Intramural Research Program and the NCI division of cancer epidemiology & genetics. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

This article was updated 8/31/22.

Drinking tea has several reported health benefits, but most studies have been conducted in regions where green tea predominates. New data from Britain – where there is a strong tradition of ‘afternoon tea’ – now shows that black tea is also associated with health benefits.

The findings come from a prospective study of nearly 500,000 participants in the UK Biobank cohort, among whom drinking black tea was common. They suggest that drinking black tea may be associated with a moderately lower all-cause mortality risk, and the risk was lowest among those drinking two or more cups of tea per day.

The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

During a median follow-up of 11.2 years, those who drank at least two cups of tea each day had a lower all-cause mortality risk, reported Maki Inoue-Choi, PhD, and colleagues from the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md.  

After multivariate adjustment, the hazard ratios for death among tea drinkers, compared with no tea intake, were similar across intake levels: 0.95 for daily intake of up to 1 cup, 0.87 for 2-3 cups, 0.88 for 4-5 cups, 0.88 for 6-7 cups, 0.91 for 8-9 cups, and 0.89 for 10 or more cups.

Drinking tea also showed an inverse association with mortality from cardiovascular disease (adjusted HRs ranging from 0.98 to 0.76), ischemic heart disease (aHRs ranging from 1.03 to 0.74), and stroke (aHRs ranging from 0.92 to 0.48 ), However, the researchers added that “no clear trend was seen for cancer or respiratory disease mortality, with associations among higher intake categories tending toward the null.”

There is “no clear answer” as to why no association was observed between tea consumption and cancer mortality in the current study, Dr. Inoue-Choi said at a press briefing. Notably, the effects were apparent regardless of whether milk or sugar was added to tea, tea temperature, or genetic variations in caffeine metabolism among participants.

She and her colleagues controlled for these factors, as well as numerous others that could confound the results, including coffee consumption and baseline health and demographic characteristics..

The study subjects were 498,043 adults with a mean baseline age of 56.5 years. About 85% reported drinking tea, 90% reported drinking black tea, and most drank two to three cups (29%), four to five cups (26%), or six to seven cups (12%) per day.

A limitation of the study is the lack of information on certain aspects of tea intake, such as portion size and tea strength, the authors noted.

Tea is among the most frequently consumed beverages worldwide, and studies from places where green tea is popular, like China and Japan, have demonstrated health benefits. Data from places where black tea is more commonly consumed have been lacking and have provided conflicting results, Dr. Inoue-Choi said.

 A presumed mechanism of action related to tea consumption is reduced oxidative stress and inflammation thanks to "polyphenols and flavonoids, namely catechins and their oxidated products," the authors explained. Oxidative stress and inflammation may promote carcinogenesis; therefore, reducing oxidative stress and inflammation may improve endothelial function, they added.

“While these findings may offer reassurance to tea drinkers, they do not indicate that people should start drinking tea or change their tea consumption for health benefits,” Dr. Inoue-Choi said, explaining that “the results need to be replicated in future studies and extended in other diverse populations.”

This study was funded by the National Cancer Institute Intramural Research Program and the NCI division of cancer epidemiology & genetics. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

This article was updated 8/31/22.

Drinking tea has several reported health benefits, but most studies have been conducted in regions where green tea predominates. New data from Britain – where there is a strong tradition of ‘afternoon tea’ – now shows that black tea is also associated with health benefits.

The findings come from a prospective study of nearly 500,000 participants in the UK Biobank cohort, among whom drinking black tea was common. They suggest that drinking black tea may be associated with a moderately lower all-cause mortality risk, and the risk was lowest among those drinking two or more cups of tea per day.

The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

During a median follow-up of 11.2 years, those who drank at least two cups of tea each day had a lower all-cause mortality risk, reported Maki Inoue-Choi, PhD, and colleagues from the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md.  

After multivariate adjustment, the hazard ratios for death among tea drinkers, compared with no tea intake, were similar across intake levels: 0.95 for daily intake of up to 1 cup, 0.87 for 2-3 cups, 0.88 for 4-5 cups, 0.88 for 6-7 cups, 0.91 for 8-9 cups, and 0.89 for 10 or more cups.

Drinking tea also showed an inverse association with mortality from cardiovascular disease (adjusted HRs ranging from 0.98 to 0.76), ischemic heart disease (aHRs ranging from 1.03 to 0.74), and stroke (aHRs ranging from 0.92 to 0.48 ), However, the researchers added that “no clear trend was seen for cancer or respiratory disease mortality, with associations among higher intake categories tending toward the null.”

There is “no clear answer” as to why no association was observed between tea consumption and cancer mortality in the current study, Dr. Inoue-Choi said at a press briefing. Notably, the effects were apparent regardless of whether milk or sugar was added to tea, tea temperature, or genetic variations in caffeine metabolism among participants.

She and her colleagues controlled for these factors, as well as numerous others that could confound the results, including coffee consumption and baseline health and demographic characteristics..

The study subjects were 498,043 adults with a mean baseline age of 56.5 years. About 85% reported drinking tea, 90% reported drinking black tea, and most drank two to three cups (29%), four to five cups (26%), or six to seven cups (12%) per day.

A limitation of the study is the lack of information on certain aspects of tea intake, such as portion size and tea strength, the authors noted.

Tea is among the most frequently consumed beverages worldwide, and studies from places where green tea is popular, like China and Japan, have demonstrated health benefits. Data from places where black tea is more commonly consumed have been lacking and have provided conflicting results, Dr. Inoue-Choi said.

 A presumed mechanism of action related to tea consumption is reduced oxidative stress and inflammation thanks to "polyphenols and flavonoids, namely catechins and their oxidated products," the authors explained. Oxidative stress and inflammation may promote carcinogenesis; therefore, reducing oxidative stress and inflammation may improve endothelial function, they added.

“While these findings may offer reassurance to tea drinkers, they do not indicate that people should start drinking tea or change their tea consumption for health benefits,” Dr. Inoue-Choi said, explaining that “the results need to be replicated in future studies and extended in other diverse populations.”

This study was funded by the National Cancer Institute Intramural Research Program and the NCI division of cancer epidemiology & genetics. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

This article was updated 8/31/22.

Recently, a home test for oral and throat cancer was launched in the United States, and it is being marketed directly to the general public, aimed at former or current tobacco users and anyone 50 years or older.

Individuals can order the test – CancerDetect Test for Oral & Throat Cancer – directly from its maker, Viome Life Sciences, for $399.

It is not covered by medical insurance, and is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The test is being marketed under the agency’s “laboratory developed test” rubric.

People who qualify and buy the test are mailed a saliva collection tube, which they fill and mail back. The company then analyzes the RNA for changes in human cells and the oropharyngeal microbiome that are associated with cancer. During a 15-minute telemedicine conference – included in the $399 cost – those who test positive are told to follow up with a secondary care center for a definitive diagnosis.

For people who test positive but have no visible lesion to biopsy, doctors will likely opt for surveillance, computer scientist Guruduth Banavar, PhD, Viome’s chief technology officer, told this news organization.

Dr. Banavar said people have been buying the test every day since it was launched in early August, but he declined to give specific sales figures.

CancerDetect’s tagline is “test at home for peace of mind.” The test “brings unprecedented accuracy to early cancer detection and prevention,” the company said in a press release announcing the launch.

The test showed an overall specificity of 94% and sensitivity of 84.2%-90% for cancer in Viome’s  latest study, which is posted on medRxiv.org as a preprint. Banavar said it has been submitted to a top-tier medical journal.

Viome plans to market CancerDetect “in every possible way” to consumers, including social media, Dr. Banavar said. CancerDetect is not sold on Amazon at the moment, but the company sells another at-home test for gut microbiome plus cellular health on the website. 

As for outreach to the medical community, “we will start doing that with dentists first” and then eventually oncologists and other doctors, but “our primary target is to get out to the consumers themselves,” Dr. Banavar said.

Viome’s main goal is to help consumers be proactive regarding their health, he said.
 

An expert opinion

The marketing push means that sooner or later, oncologists will likely have to deal with a patient who tests positive on CancerDetect, so this news organization turned to numerous experts for their thoughts. None had heard about the test, but one responded with comments.

“I am happy to see industry working on strategies for the early detection of oral and throat cancers,” and CancerDetect has “potential,” said surgical oncologist Saral Mehra, MD, MBA, chief of head and neck surgery at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

However, after reviewing the study posted on medRxiv, Dr. Mehra advised caution. He said he was concerned about false negative results leading to missed cancers and false positives leading to unnecessary anxiety and testing.

According to the medRxiv preprint, the test was developed and validated using saliva samples from 1,175 people 50 years or older as well as adults with a history of tobacco use. 

In the 230-sample validation cohort, CancerDetect correctly classified 18 out of 20 people with oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) and 64/76 with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC), yielding sensitivities of 90% and 84.2%, respectively. 

The test also correctly identified 126/134 people as cancer free, for a specificity of 94%.

Results were similar between early and late-stage disease, but mixed in subgroups. Among people younger than age 50, for instance, 4/4 (100%) with OSCC and 2/3 (66.7%) with OPSCC were correctly classified as positive. Among older people, 15/17 (88.2%) with OSCC and 62/73 (84.9%) with OPSCC were correctly classified

Commenting on the results, Dr. Mehra noted that “the power of the study, especially for subgroup analysis, was low,” and investigators “used both advanced-stage and early-stage cancer patients in the model, while the target population for this test is early stage. 

“The research needs to be tightened significantly on specific target populations, the models adjusted to really limit false negatives, and a plan [put in place] to act upon positive results,” he said.

Also, the ability of CancerDetect to pick up premalignant lesions – “the greatest value in a screening test” – is not clear, he added.

Viome’s Dr. Banavar said that CancerDetect is in its first iteration, and the test uses machine learning, so its diagnostic performance will improve with the ongoing addition of real-world data.

The company is organizing a pivotal trial to gain formal FDA approval, with results expected in a year and a half or so, he said.

Viome is pushing ahead with its RNA diagnosis technology for the entire range of alimentary canal cancers and disorders, including inflammatory bowel disease. The company has partnered with pharmaceutical companies, including GSK, for vaccines, Dr. Banavar said.  

Dr. Mehra reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Recently, a home test for oral and throat cancer was launched in the United States, and it is being marketed directly to the general public, aimed at former or current tobacco users and anyone 50 years or older.

Individuals can order the test – CancerDetect Test for Oral & Throat Cancer – directly from its maker, Viome Life Sciences, for $399.

It is not covered by medical insurance, and is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The test is being marketed under the agency’s “laboratory developed test” rubric.

People who qualify and buy the test are mailed a saliva collection tube, which they fill and mail back. The company then analyzes the RNA for changes in human cells and the oropharyngeal microbiome that are associated with cancer. During a 15-minute telemedicine conference – included in the $399 cost – those who test positive are told to follow up with a secondary care center for a definitive diagnosis.

For people who test positive but have no visible lesion to biopsy, doctors will likely opt for surveillance, computer scientist Guruduth Banavar, PhD, Viome’s chief technology officer, told this news organization.

Dr. Banavar said people have been buying the test every day since it was launched in early August, but he declined to give specific sales figures.

CancerDetect’s tagline is “test at home for peace of mind.” The test “brings unprecedented accuracy to early cancer detection and prevention,” the company said in a press release announcing the launch.

The test showed an overall specificity of 94% and sensitivity of 84.2%-90% for cancer in Viome’s  latest study, which is posted on medRxiv.org as a preprint. Banavar said it has been submitted to a top-tier medical journal.

Viome plans to market CancerDetect “in every possible way” to consumers, including social media, Dr. Banavar said. CancerDetect is not sold on Amazon at the moment, but the company sells another at-home test for gut microbiome plus cellular health on the website. 

As for outreach to the medical community, “we will start doing that with dentists first” and then eventually oncologists and other doctors, but “our primary target is to get out to the consumers themselves,” Dr. Banavar said.

Viome’s main goal is to help consumers be proactive regarding their health, he said.
 

An expert opinion

The marketing push means that sooner or later, oncologists will likely have to deal with a patient who tests positive on CancerDetect, so this news organization turned to numerous experts for their thoughts. None had heard about the test, but one responded with comments.

“I am happy to see industry working on strategies for the early detection of oral and throat cancers,” and CancerDetect has “potential,” said surgical oncologist Saral Mehra, MD, MBA, chief of head and neck surgery at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

However, after reviewing the study posted on medRxiv, Dr. Mehra advised caution. He said he was concerned about false negative results leading to missed cancers and false positives leading to unnecessary anxiety and testing.

According to the medRxiv preprint, the test was developed and validated using saliva samples from 1,175 people 50 years or older as well as adults with a history of tobacco use. 

In the 230-sample validation cohort, CancerDetect correctly classified 18 out of 20 people with oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) and 64/76 with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC), yielding sensitivities of 90% and 84.2%, respectively. 

The test also correctly identified 126/134 people as cancer free, for a specificity of 94%.

Results were similar between early and late-stage disease, but mixed in subgroups. Among people younger than age 50, for instance, 4/4 (100%) with OSCC and 2/3 (66.7%) with OPSCC were correctly classified as positive. Among older people, 15/17 (88.2%) with OSCC and 62/73 (84.9%) with OPSCC were correctly classified

Commenting on the results, Dr. Mehra noted that “the power of the study, especially for subgroup analysis, was low,” and investigators “used both advanced-stage and early-stage cancer patients in the model, while the target population for this test is early stage. 

“The research needs to be tightened significantly on specific target populations, the models adjusted to really limit false negatives, and a plan [put in place] to act upon positive results,” he said.

Also, the ability of CancerDetect to pick up premalignant lesions – “the greatest value in a screening test” – is not clear, he added.

Viome’s Dr. Banavar said that CancerDetect is in its first iteration, and the test uses machine learning, so its diagnostic performance will improve with the ongoing addition of real-world data.

The company is organizing a pivotal trial to gain formal FDA approval, with results expected in a year and a half or so, he said.

Viome is pushing ahead with its RNA diagnosis technology for the entire range of alimentary canal cancers and disorders, including inflammatory bowel disease. The company has partnered with pharmaceutical companies, including GSK, for vaccines, Dr. Banavar said.  

Dr. Mehra reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Recently, a home test for oral and throat cancer was launched in the United States, and it is being marketed directly to the general public, aimed at former or current tobacco users and anyone 50 years or older.

Individuals can order the test – CancerDetect Test for Oral & Throat Cancer – directly from its maker, Viome Life Sciences, for $399.

It is not covered by medical insurance, and is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The test is being marketed under the agency’s “laboratory developed test” rubric.

People who qualify and buy the test are mailed a saliva collection tube, which they fill and mail back. The company then analyzes the RNA for changes in human cells and the oropharyngeal microbiome that are associated with cancer. During a 15-minute telemedicine conference – included in the $399 cost – those who test positive are told to follow up with a secondary care center for a definitive diagnosis.

For people who test positive but have no visible lesion to biopsy, doctors will likely opt for surveillance, computer scientist Guruduth Banavar, PhD, Viome’s chief technology officer, told this news organization.

Dr. Banavar said people have been buying the test every day since it was launched in early August, but he declined to give specific sales figures.

CancerDetect’s tagline is “test at home for peace of mind.” The test “brings unprecedented accuracy to early cancer detection and prevention,” the company said in a press release announcing the launch.

The test showed an overall specificity of 94% and sensitivity of 84.2%-90% for cancer in Viome’s  latest study, which is posted on medRxiv.org as a preprint. Banavar said it has been submitted to a top-tier medical journal.

Viome plans to market CancerDetect “in every possible way” to consumers, including social media, Dr. Banavar said. CancerDetect is not sold on Amazon at the moment, but the company sells another at-home test for gut microbiome plus cellular health on the website. 

As for outreach to the medical community, “we will start doing that with dentists first” and then eventually oncologists and other doctors, but “our primary target is to get out to the consumers themselves,” Dr. Banavar said.

Viome’s main goal is to help consumers be proactive regarding their health, he said.
 

An expert opinion

The marketing push means that sooner or later, oncologists will likely have to deal with a patient who tests positive on CancerDetect, so this news organization turned to numerous experts for their thoughts. None had heard about the test, but one responded with comments.

“I am happy to see industry working on strategies for the early detection of oral and throat cancers,” and CancerDetect has “potential,” said surgical oncologist Saral Mehra, MD, MBA, chief of head and neck surgery at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

However, after reviewing the study posted on medRxiv, Dr. Mehra advised caution. He said he was concerned about false negative results leading to missed cancers and false positives leading to unnecessary anxiety and testing.

According to the medRxiv preprint, the test was developed and validated using saliva samples from 1,175 people 50 years or older as well as adults with a history of tobacco use. 

In the 230-sample validation cohort, CancerDetect correctly classified 18 out of 20 people with oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) and 64/76 with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC), yielding sensitivities of 90% and 84.2%, respectively. 

The test also correctly identified 126/134 people as cancer free, for a specificity of 94%.

Results were similar between early and late-stage disease, but mixed in subgroups. Among people younger than age 50, for instance, 4/4 (100%) with OSCC and 2/3 (66.7%) with OPSCC were correctly classified as positive. Among older people, 15/17 (88.2%) with OSCC and 62/73 (84.9%) with OPSCC were correctly classified

Commenting on the results, Dr. Mehra noted that “the power of the study, especially for subgroup analysis, was low,” and investigators “used both advanced-stage and early-stage cancer patients in the model, while the target population for this test is early stage. 

“The research needs to be tightened significantly on specific target populations, the models adjusted to really limit false negatives, and a plan [put in place] to act upon positive results,” he said.

Also, the ability of CancerDetect to pick up premalignant lesions – “the greatest value in a screening test” – is not clear, he added.

Viome’s Dr. Banavar said that CancerDetect is in its first iteration, and the test uses machine learning, so its diagnostic performance will improve with the ongoing addition of real-world data.

The company is organizing a pivotal trial to gain formal FDA approval, with results expected in a year and a half or so, he said.

Viome is pushing ahead with its RNA diagnosis technology for the entire range of alimentary canal cancers and disorders, including inflammatory bowel disease. The company has partnered with pharmaceutical companies, including GSK, for vaccines, Dr. Banavar said.  

Dr. Mehra reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Clinical research in rheumatology was suffering from an identity crisis of sorts 40 years ago. A lack of consensus across continents resulted in differing views about clinical outcome measures and judgments about treatments.

Patients were not allowed to be the generating source of a clinical outcome, according to Peter Tugwell, MSc, MD. “The only outcomes that were acceptable were clinician assessments, blood tests, and imaging,” said Dr. Tugwell, professor of medicine, epidemiology, and public health at the University of Ottawa (Ont.) and a practicing rheumatologist at Ottawa Hospital.

Clinicians were coming to different conclusions about patient responses to treatment when managing rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice.

OMERACT sought to address this lack of uniformity. This international group, formed in 1992, leverages stakeholder groups to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology endpoints through a consensus-building, data-driven format.

It was originally known as “Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials,” but its leaders have since broadened its scope to “Outcome Measures in Rheumatology.” Over the years, it has evolved into an international network that assesses measurement across a wide variety of intervention studies. Now 30 years old, the network spans 40 active working groups and has influenced work in patient outcomes across 500 peer-reviewed publications.

The network meets every 2 years to address what is always a challenging agenda, said Dr. Tugwell, one of its founding members and chair. “There’s lots of strong opinions.” Participating in the discussions are individuals from all stages of seniority in rheumatology and clinical epidemiology, patient research partners, industry, approval agencies, and many countries who are committed to the spirit of OMERACT.

“The secret to our success has been getting world leaders to come together and have those discussions, work them through, and identify common ground in such a way that the approval agencies accept these outcome measures in clinical trials,” he added.

“My impression was the founders perceived a problem in the early 1990s and devised a consensus method in an attempt to quantify clinical parameters to define disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis – an important first step to do clinical trials and allow comparisons between them,” said Patricia Woo, CBE, FMedSci, FRCP, emeritus professor of pediatric rheumatology and previous head of the Centre for Paediatric and Adolescent Rheumatology at UCL, London. At that time, even disease definitions varied between the United States and Europe and other parts of the world, said Dr. Woo, who is not a part of OMERACT. “This was especially true for pediatric rheumatology.”
 

Fusing the continental divide

OMERACT arose from a need to streamline clinical outcome measures in rheumatology. Research papers during the 1980s demonstrated a lack of coherence in managing patients with rheumatoid arthritis in routine practice. In addition, the measures used to define clinical endpoints in clinical trials operated in silos – they were either too specific to a certain trial, overlapped with other concepts, or didn’t reflect changes in treatment.

Approval agencies in Europe and North America were approving only outcomes measures developed by their respective researchers. This was also true of patients they tested on. “This seemed crazy,” Dr. Tugwell said.

Dr. Tugwell was involved in the Cochrane collaboration, which conducts systematic reviews of best evidence across the world that assesses the magnitude of benefits versus harms.

To achieve this goal, “you need to pull studies from around the world,” he said. Maarten Boers, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist (and later professor of clinical epidemiology at Amsterdam University Medical Center) from the Netherlands, spent a year in Ontario, Canada, to train as a clinical epidemiologist. Together, Dr. Tugwell and Dr. Boers began discussing options to develop more streamlined outcome measures.

Courtesy OMERACT

They initiated the first OMERACT conference in Maastricht, the Netherlands, in 1992. The Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency participated, along with leaders of outcomes measurement in Europe and in North America.

Discussions centered on methods to develop outcomes in a meaningful fashion. During the first meeting, North American and European approval agencies agreed to accept each other’s studies and endpoints and patient reported outcomes.

Agreement was achieved on a preliminary set of outcome domains and measures that later became known as the WHO-ILAR (World Health Organization–International League of Associations for Rheumatology) core set. The set included seven outcome domains: tender joints, swollen joints, pain, physician global assessment, patient global assessment, physical disability, and acute phase reactants, and one additional outcome domain for studies lasting 1 year or more: radiographs of the joints.

“A proactive program was planned to test not only the validity of these endpoints, but also the methods for their measurement. This was the start of a continuing process,” OMERACT members said in a joint statement for this article. Meetings have since taken place every 2 years.

Courtesy OMERACT

OMERACT accomplishments

OMERACT now requires buy-in from four continents: Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America.

Its leaders have developed an explicit process for gaining endorsement of core outcome domains and instrument measurement sets. To fully capture the possibilities of “what to measure,” i.e., “measurable aspects of health conditions,” OMERACT has developed a framework of concepts, core areas, and outcome domains. The key concepts are pathophysiology (with a core area termed “manifestations/abnormalities”) and impact (with core areas of “death/lifespan,” and “life impact,” and the optional area of “societal/resource use”). An outcome domain defines an element of a core area to measure the effects of a treatment, such as blood markers, pain intensity, physical function, or emotional well-being.

A core outcome domain set is developed by agreeing to at least one outcome domain within one of the three core areas. Subsequently, a core outcome measurement set is developed by agreeing to at least one applicable measurement instrument for each core outcome domain. This requires documentation of validity, summarized under three metrics: truth, discrimination, and feasibility.

OMERACT’s handbook provides tutelage on establishing and implementing core outcomes, and several workbooks offer guidance on developing core outcome domain sets, selecting instruments for core outcome measurement sets, and OMERACT methodology.

All this work has led to widespread adoption.

Approval agencies have accepted OMERACT’s filter and methods advances, which have been adopted by many research groups in rheumatology and among nonrheumatology research groups. Organizations such as the U.S. National Institutes of Health’s National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke have sought its advice.

Its core outcomes have been adopted and used for approval in the great majority of studies on rheumatoid arthritis, Dr. Tugwell said.

Several BMJ articles underscore the influence and uptake of OMERACT’s core outcome set. One 2017 paper, which analyzed 273 randomized trials of rheumatoid arthritis drug treatments on ClinicalTrials.gov, found that the WHO-ILAR arthritis core outcome set was reported in 81% of the studies. “The adoption of a core outcome set has the potential to increase consistency in outcomes measured across trials and ensure that trials are more likely to measure appropriate outcomes,” the authors concluded.

Since the initial 1992 meeting, OMERACT has broadened its focus from rheumatoid arthritis to 25 other musculoskeletal conditions.

For example, other OMERACT conferences have led to consensus on core sets of measures for osteoarthritis and osteoporosis, psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis, psychosocial measures, and a core set of data for cost-effectiveness evaluations.
 

‘Speed is a limitation’

OMERACT is a bottom-up volunteer organization. It doesn’t represent any official organization of any clinical society. “We’ve not asked to be adopted by the American College of Rheumatology, EULAR [European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology], or other international organizations,” Dr. Tugwell said. It offers a chance for patients, users, and doers of research to work together to agree on rigorous criteria accepted by the approval agencies and take the necessary time to work things through.

This is not a fast process, usually taking 4-6 years to initiate and establish an outcome domain set, he emphasized. “It would be beneficial to do it faster if we had the resources to meet every year. The fact is we’re a volunteer organization that meets every 2 years.”

Speed is a limitation, he acknowledged, but it’s an acceptable trade-off for doing things correctly.

The group has faced other challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, pivoting to a virtual format that had benefits and limitations.

In one respect, moving to a virtual meeting increased uptake in participation and voting, Dr. Tugwell said. Patient participants with severe rheumatoid arthritis no longer faced the challenges of travel. “On the other hand, we didn’t have the same opportunity to achieve common ground virtually,” he said. “Where there are strong disagreements, I’m a great believer that people need to know one another. There needs to be relationship building.”

OMERACT’s emerging leader program has been a cornerstone of its in-person meetings, engaging young rheumatologists to interact with some of the leaders of outcome measurement. The virtual format dampened this process somewhat, eliminating those important “café chats” between the stakeholders.

The hope is to bring people face-to-face once more at the next meeting in May 2023. The agenda will focus on relationship building, identifying controversial areas, and bringing younger people to develop relationships, Dr. Tugwell said. OMERACT will retain a virtual option for the worldwide voting, “which will allow for more buy-in from so many more people,” he added.
 

A consensus on pain

The onus of developing outcome measures that move with the times is sometimes too great for one group to manage. In 2018, OMERACT became a part of the Red Hat Group (RHG), an organization conceived at the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) VII meeting in Amsterdam.

RHG aims to improve the choice of outcomes in health research. It includes eight groups: COMET; OMERACT; the Cochrane Skin Core Outcome Set Initiative; Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations; Center for Medical Technology Policy; COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments; Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium; and Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology.

The collaboration between groups offers a “very interesting interface between consensus building as well as hard evidence,” Dr. Tugwell said. The focus goes beyond rheumatology to other clinical areas of common interest, exploring how one classifies outcome domains in terms of symptoms, life impact, or death.

Pain is an important common denominator that the RHG has evaluated.

“We believe it’s too general. We’re trying to define pain across all Red Hat Groups because it’s clear that the research community has all these different scales for defining pain severity,” Dr. Tugwell said. “We have to find a way to make ruthless decisions and rules for doing it. And of course, it has to be transparent.”
 

Looking ahead

As part of its ongoing work, OMERACT is evaluating the robustness of instruments that rheumatologists use as outcome measures in clinical trials, which can be a laborious process. The OMERACT Filter 2.0, part of the latest iteration of the handbook, offers strong guidance for researchers but needs a long-term strategy and key methodological support. “To that end, we set up a technical advisory group to help people in the instrument selection work and that remains an ongoing process,” OMERACT leaders said in their joint statement.

OMERACT is looking at opportunities to create benchmark processes for developing core sets outside of rheumatology and a methodology around outcome measures such as contextual factors, composites, and surrogates.

It will also be taking a step back to solicit opinions from the approval agencies represented by the OMERACT membership on the OMERACT handbook.

The goal is to make sure the handbook aligns with everyone else’s approval and labeling requirements.
 

OMERACT’s patient participants bring important perspectives

OMERACT over the years has sought to become a more patient-centered group. Patients have been involved in OMERACT activities since its sixth meeting, forming an independent, yet integrated, group within the network. They have their own steering committee and produced and helped to update a glossary for OMERACT patients and professionals. 

Catherine (McGowan) Hofstetter, who was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis 30 years ago, chairs OMERACT’s Patient Research Partners Support Team. In a Q&A, she discussed the importance of patient voices and OMERACT’s plans to further educate and include patients in the dialogue on outcomes.

Question: Have patients always been a part of OMERACT meetings? 

Answer: Patients have been involved with OMERACT since 2002. The patient voice adds relevance to all the work that OMERACT does. You can’t begin to talk about outcomes unless there is a patient at the table with lived experience.

Q: Can you cite a few examples of how the patient voice enriches the conversation on outcomes research? 

A: Outcomes and priorities that are important to patients are often completely different than those of the clinician. For instance, a work outcome is important to someone who doesn’t have any medical insurance or disability insurance, so that you can ensure that there is food on the table and a roof over your head. Or it may be important to someone because the employment provides medical and disability insurance to provide security for them and their family. These are two different perspectives on work and therefore work priorities and outcomes.

Q: What have been some of the challenges of getting patients to participate?

A: Training patients is one challenge. OMERACT’s work has a very steep learning curve, and while the basics are the same between the groups in terms of looking at what we measure and how we measure it, the nuances of different working groups require a lot of time and energy to be comfortable enough with the work, and then be confident enough to bring your perspective and lived experience to the table. It’s also a very accomplished group, which can be quite intimidating. Self-disclosure is a very personal and intimate undertaking that requires patience, compassion, and respect.

Q: Are there any plans to enhance patient engagement?

A: When we had OMERACT 2020 it was a virtual conference that took place over about 6 months. We had far more patient research partners [PRPs] participate than we have ever had at any OMERACT face-to-face meeting. There is a desire and passion on the part of patients to lend their voices to the work. The working groups meet virtually throughout the year to advance their agendas, and PRPs are a part of each of the working groups. 

Hopefully, we can start working toward including more voices at the conferences by enabling a hybrid model. The PRP Support Team will begin engaging patients this fall with education, mentoring, and team-building exercises so by the time we meet in person in May 2023, they will have enough background knowledge and information to give them the confidence that will enhance their experience at the face-to-face meeting.

We also need to ensure that those patients who want to stay engaged can. This means that the education and training should continue long after the face-to-face meeting is over. We need to build capacity in the PRP group and look to succession planning and be a resource to working groups struggling to find PRPs to work with them on a longer-term basis.

Clinical research in rheumatology was suffering from an identity crisis of sorts 40 years ago. A lack of consensus across continents resulted in differing views about clinical outcome measures and judgments about treatments.

Patients were not allowed to be the generating source of a clinical outcome, according to Peter Tugwell, MSc, MD. “The only outcomes that were acceptable were clinician assessments, blood tests, and imaging,” said Dr. Tugwell, professor of medicine, epidemiology, and public health at the University of Ottawa (Ont.) and a practicing rheumatologist at Ottawa Hospital.

Clinicians were coming to different conclusions about patient responses to treatment when managing rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice.

OMERACT sought to address this lack of uniformity. This international group, formed in 1992, leverages stakeholder groups to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology endpoints through a consensus-building, data-driven format.

It was originally known as “Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials,” but its leaders have since broadened its scope to “Outcome Measures in Rheumatology.” Over the years, it has evolved into an international network that assesses measurement across a wide variety of intervention studies. Now 30 years old, the network spans 40 active working groups and has influenced work in patient outcomes across 500 peer-reviewed publications.

The network meets every 2 years to address what is always a challenging agenda, said Dr. Tugwell, one of its founding members and chair. “There’s lots of strong opinions.” Participating in the discussions are individuals from all stages of seniority in rheumatology and clinical epidemiology, patient research partners, industry, approval agencies, and many countries who are committed to the spirit of OMERACT.

“The secret to our success has been getting world leaders to come together and have those discussions, work them through, and identify common ground in such a way that the approval agencies accept these outcome measures in clinical trials,” he added.

“My impression was the founders perceived a problem in the early 1990s and devised a consensus method in an attempt to quantify clinical parameters to define disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis – an important first step to do clinical trials and allow comparisons between them,” said Patricia Woo, CBE, FMedSci, FRCP, emeritus professor of pediatric rheumatology and previous head of the Centre for Paediatric and Adolescent Rheumatology at UCL, London. At that time, even disease definitions varied between the United States and Europe and other parts of the world, said Dr. Woo, who is not a part of OMERACT. “This was especially true for pediatric rheumatology.”
 

Fusing the continental divide

OMERACT arose from a need to streamline clinical outcome measures in rheumatology. Research papers during the 1980s demonstrated a lack of coherence in managing patients with rheumatoid arthritis in routine practice. In addition, the measures used to define clinical endpoints in clinical trials operated in silos – they were either too specific to a certain trial, overlapped with other concepts, or didn’t reflect changes in treatment.

Approval agencies in Europe and North America were approving only outcomes measures developed by their respective researchers. This was also true of patients they tested on. “This seemed crazy,” Dr. Tugwell said.

Dr. Tugwell was involved in the Cochrane collaboration, which conducts systematic reviews of best evidence across the world that assesses the magnitude of benefits versus harms.

To achieve this goal, “you need to pull studies from around the world,” he said. Maarten Boers, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist (and later professor of clinical epidemiology at Amsterdam University Medical Center) from the Netherlands, spent a year in Ontario, Canada, to train as a clinical epidemiologist. Together, Dr. Tugwell and Dr. Boers began discussing options to develop more streamlined outcome measures.

Courtesy OMERACT

They initiated the first OMERACT conference in Maastricht, the Netherlands, in 1992. The Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency participated, along with leaders of outcomes measurement in Europe and in North America.

Discussions centered on methods to develop outcomes in a meaningful fashion. During the first meeting, North American and European approval agencies agreed to accept each other’s studies and endpoints and patient reported outcomes.

Agreement was achieved on a preliminary set of outcome domains and measures that later became known as the WHO-ILAR (World Health Organization–International League of Associations for Rheumatology) core set. The set included seven outcome domains: tender joints, swollen joints, pain, physician global assessment, patient global assessment, physical disability, and acute phase reactants, and one additional outcome domain for studies lasting 1 year or more: radiographs of the joints.

“A proactive program was planned to test not only the validity of these endpoints, but also the methods for their measurement. This was the start of a continuing process,” OMERACT members said in a joint statement for this article. Meetings have since taken place every 2 years.

Courtesy OMERACT

OMERACT accomplishments

OMERACT now requires buy-in from four continents: Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America.

Its leaders have developed an explicit process for gaining endorsement of core outcome domains and instrument measurement sets. To fully capture the possibilities of “what to measure,” i.e., “measurable aspects of health conditions,” OMERACT has developed a framework of concepts, core areas, and outcome domains. The key concepts are pathophysiology (with a core area termed “manifestations/abnormalities”) and impact (with core areas of “death/lifespan,” and “life impact,” and the optional area of “societal/resource use”). An outcome domain defines an element of a core area to measure the effects of a treatment, such as blood markers, pain intensity, physical function, or emotional well-being.

A core outcome domain set is developed by agreeing to at least one outcome domain within one of the three core areas. Subsequently, a core outcome measurement set is developed by agreeing to at least one applicable measurement instrument for each core outcome domain. This requires documentation of validity, summarized under three metrics: truth, discrimination, and feasibility.

OMERACT’s handbook provides tutelage on establishing and implementing core outcomes, and several workbooks offer guidance on developing core outcome domain sets, selecting instruments for core outcome measurement sets, and OMERACT methodology.

All this work has led to widespread adoption.

Approval agencies have accepted OMERACT’s filter and methods advances, which have been adopted by many research groups in rheumatology and among nonrheumatology research groups. Organizations such as the U.S. National Institutes of Health’s National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke have sought its advice.

Its core outcomes have been adopted and used for approval in the great majority of studies on rheumatoid arthritis, Dr. Tugwell said.

Several BMJ articles underscore the influence and uptake of OMERACT’s core outcome set. One 2017 paper, which analyzed 273 randomized trials of rheumatoid arthritis drug treatments on ClinicalTrials.gov, found that the WHO-ILAR arthritis core outcome set was reported in 81% of the studies. “The adoption of a core outcome set has the potential to increase consistency in outcomes measured across trials and ensure that trials are more likely to measure appropriate outcomes,” the authors concluded.

Since the initial 1992 meeting, OMERACT has broadened its focus from rheumatoid arthritis to 25 other musculoskeletal conditions.

For example, other OMERACT conferences have led to consensus on core sets of measures for osteoarthritis and osteoporosis, psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis, psychosocial measures, and a core set of data for cost-effectiveness evaluations.
 

‘Speed is a limitation’

OMERACT is a bottom-up volunteer organization. It doesn’t represent any official organization of any clinical society. “We’ve not asked to be adopted by the American College of Rheumatology, EULAR [European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology], or other international organizations,” Dr. Tugwell said. It offers a chance for patients, users, and doers of research to work together to agree on rigorous criteria accepted by the approval agencies and take the necessary time to work things through.

This is not a fast process, usually taking 4-6 years to initiate and establish an outcome domain set, he emphasized. “It would be beneficial to do it faster if we had the resources to meet every year. The fact is we’re a volunteer organization that meets every 2 years.”

Speed is a limitation, he acknowledged, but it’s an acceptable trade-off for doing things correctly.

The group has faced other challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, pivoting to a virtual format that had benefits and limitations.

In one respect, moving to a virtual meeting increased uptake in participation and voting, Dr. Tugwell said. Patient participants with severe rheumatoid arthritis no longer faced the challenges of travel. “On the other hand, we didn’t have the same opportunity to achieve common ground virtually,” he said. “Where there are strong disagreements, I’m a great believer that people need to know one another. There needs to be relationship building.”

OMERACT’s emerging leader program has been a cornerstone of its in-person meetings, engaging young rheumatologists to interact with some of the leaders of outcome measurement. The virtual format dampened this process somewhat, eliminating those important “café chats” between the stakeholders.

The hope is to bring people face-to-face once more at the next meeting in May 2023. The agenda will focus on relationship building, identifying controversial areas, and bringing younger people to develop relationships, Dr. Tugwell said. OMERACT will retain a virtual option for the worldwide voting, “which will allow for more buy-in from so many more people,” he added.
 

A consensus on pain

The onus of developing outcome measures that move with the times is sometimes too great for one group to manage. In 2018, OMERACT became a part of the Red Hat Group (RHG), an organization conceived at the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) VII meeting in Amsterdam.

RHG aims to improve the choice of outcomes in health research. It includes eight groups: COMET; OMERACT; the Cochrane Skin Core Outcome Set Initiative; Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations; Center for Medical Technology Policy; COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments; Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium; and Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology.

The collaboration between groups offers a “very interesting interface between consensus building as well as hard evidence,” Dr. Tugwell said. The focus goes beyond rheumatology to other clinical areas of common interest, exploring how one classifies outcome domains in terms of symptoms, life impact, or death.

Pain is an important common denominator that the RHG has evaluated.

“We believe it’s too general. We’re trying to define pain across all Red Hat Groups because it’s clear that the research community has all these different scales for defining pain severity,” Dr. Tugwell said. “We have to find a way to make ruthless decisions and rules for doing it. And of course, it has to be transparent.”
 

Looking ahead

As part of its ongoing work, OMERACT is evaluating the robustness of instruments that rheumatologists use as outcome measures in clinical trials, which can be a laborious process. The OMERACT Filter 2.0, part of the latest iteration of the handbook, offers strong guidance for researchers but needs a long-term strategy and key methodological support. “To that end, we set up a technical advisory group to help people in the instrument selection work and that remains an ongoing process,” OMERACT leaders said in their joint statement.

OMERACT is looking at opportunities to create benchmark processes for developing core sets outside of rheumatology and a methodology around outcome measures such as contextual factors, composites, and surrogates.

It will also be taking a step back to solicit opinions from the approval agencies represented by the OMERACT membership on the OMERACT handbook.

The goal is to make sure the handbook aligns with everyone else’s approval and labeling requirements.
 

OMERACT’s patient participants bring important perspectives

OMERACT over the years has sought to become a more patient-centered group. Patients have been involved in OMERACT activities since its sixth meeting, forming an independent, yet integrated, group within the network. They have their own steering committee and produced and helped to update a glossary for OMERACT patients and professionals. 

Catherine (McGowan) Hofstetter, who was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis 30 years ago, chairs OMERACT’s Patient Research Partners Support Team. In a Q&A, she discussed the importance of patient voices and OMERACT’s plans to further educate and include patients in the dialogue on outcomes.

Question: Have patients always been a part of OMERACT meetings? 

Answer: Patients have been involved with OMERACT since 2002. The patient voice adds relevance to all the work that OMERACT does. You can’t begin to talk about outcomes unless there is a patient at the table with lived experience.

Q: Can you cite a few examples of how the patient voice enriches the conversation on outcomes research? 

A: Outcomes and priorities that are important to patients are often completely different than those of the clinician. For instance, a work outcome is important to someone who doesn’t have any medical insurance or disability insurance, so that you can ensure that there is food on the table and a roof over your head. Or it may be important to someone because the employment provides medical and disability insurance to provide security for them and their family. These are two different perspectives on work and therefore work priorities and outcomes.

Q: What have been some of the challenges of getting patients to participate?

A: Training patients is one challenge. OMERACT’s work has a very steep learning curve, and while the basics are the same between the groups in terms of looking at what we measure and how we measure it, the nuances of different working groups require a lot of time and energy to be comfortable enough with the work, and then be confident enough to bring your perspective and lived experience to the table. It’s also a very accomplished group, which can be quite intimidating. Self-disclosure is a very personal and intimate undertaking that requires patience, compassion, and respect.

Q: Are there any plans to enhance patient engagement?

A: When we had OMERACT 2020 it was a virtual conference that took place over about 6 months. We had far more patient research partners [PRPs] participate than we have ever had at any OMERACT face-to-face meeting. There is a desire and passion on the part of patients to lend their voices to the work. The working groups meet virtually throughout the year to advance their agendas, and PRPs are a part of each of the working groups. 

Hopefully, we can start working toward including more voices at the conferences by enabling a hybrid model. The PRP Support Team will begin engaging patients this fall with education, mentoring, and team-building exercises so by the time we meet in person in May 2023, they will have enough background knowledge and information to give them the confidence that will enhance their experience at the face-to-face meeting.

We also need to ensure that those patients who want to stay engaged can. This means that the education and training should continue long after the face-to-face meeting is over. We need to build capacity in the PRP group and look to succession planning and be a resource to working groups struggling to find PRPs to work with them on a longer-term basis.

Clinical research in rheumatology was suffering from an identity crisis of sorts 40 years ago. A lack of consensus across continents resulted in differing views about clinical outcome measures and judgments about treatments.

Patients were not allowed to be the generating source of a clinical outcome, according to Peter Tugwell, MSc, MD. “The only outcomes that were acceptable were clinician assessments, blood tests, and imaging,” said Dr. Tugwell, professor of medicine, epidemiology, and public health at the University of Ottawa (Ont.) and a practicing rheumatologist at Ottawa Hospital.

Clinicians were coming to different conclusions about patient responses to treatment when managing rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice.

OMERACT sought to address this lack of uniformity. This international group, formed in 1992, leverages stakeholder groups to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology endpoints through a consensus-building, data-driven format.

It was originally known as “Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials,” but its leaders have since broadened its scope to “Outcome Measures in Rheumatology.” Over the years, it has evolved into an international network that assesses measurement across a wide variety of intervention studies. Now 30 years old, the network spans 40 active working groups and has influenced work in patient outcomes across 500 peer-reviewed publications.

The network meets every 2 years to address what is always a challenging agenda, said Dr. Tugwell, one of its founding members and chair. “There’s lots of strong opinions.” Participating in the discussions are individuals from all stages of seniority in rheumatology and clinical epidemiology, patient research partners, industry, approval agencies, and many countries who are committed to the spirit of OMERACT.

“The secret to our success has been getting world leaders to come together and have those discussions, work them through, and identify common ground in such a way that the approval agencies accept these outcome measures in clinical trials,” he added.

“My impression was the founders perceived a problem in the early 1990s and devised a consensus method in an attempt to quantify clinical parameters to define disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis – an important first step to do clinical trials and allow comparisons between them,” said Patricia Woo, CBE, FMedSci, FRCP, emeritus professor of pediatric rheumatology and previous head of the Centre for Paediatric and Adolescent Rheumatology at UCL, London. At that time, even disease definitions varied between the United States and Europe and other parts of the world, said Dr. Woo, who is not a part of OMERACT. “This was especially true for pediatric rheumatology.”
 

Fusing the continental divide

OMERACT arose from a need to streamline clinical outcome measures in rheumatology. Research papers during the 1980s demonstrated a lack of coherence in managing patients with rheumatoid arthritis in routine practice. In addition, the measures used to define clinical endpoints in clinical trials operated in silos – they were either too specific to a certain trial, overlapped with other concepts, or didn’t reflect changes in treatment.

Approval agencies in Europe and North America were approving only outcomes measures developed by their respective researchers. This was also true of patients they tested on. “This seemed crazy,” Dr. Tugwell said.

Dr. Tugwell was involved in the Cochrane collaboration, which conducts systematic reviews of best evidence across the world that assesses the magnitude of benefits versus harms.

To achieve this goal, “you need to pull studies from around the world,” he said. Maarten Boers, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist (and later professor of clinical epidemiology at Amsterdam University Medical Center) from the Netherlands, spent a year in Ontario, Canada, to train as a clinical epidemiologist. Together, Dr. Tugwell and Dr. Boers began discussing options to develop more streamlined outcome measures.

Courtesy OMERACT

They initiated the first OMERACT conference in Maastricht, the Netherlands, in 1992. The Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency participated, along with leaders of outcomes measurement in Europe and in North America.

Discussions centered on methods to develop outcomes in a meaningful fashion. During the first meeting, North American and European approval agencies agreed to accept each other’s studies and endpoints and patient reported outcomes.

Agreement was achieved on a preliminary set of outcome domains and measures that later became known as the WHO-ILAR (World Health Organization–International League of Associations for Rheumatology) core set. The set included seven outcome domains: tender joints, swollen joints, pain, physician global assessment, patient global assessment, physical disability, and acute phase reactants, and one additional outcome domain for studies lasting 1 year or more: radiographs of the joints.

“A proactive program was planned to test not only the validity of these endpoints, but also the methods for their measurement. This was the start of a continuing process,” OMERACT members said in a joint statement for this article. Meetings have since taken place every 2 years.

Courtesy OMERACT

OMERACT accomplishments

OMERACT now requires buy-in from four continents: Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America.

Its leaders have developed an explicit process for gaining endorsement of core outcome domains and instrument measurement sets. To fully capture the possibilities of “what to measure,” i.e., “measurable aspects of health conditions,” OMERACT has developed a framework of concepts, core areas, and outcome domains. The key concepts are pathophysiology (with a core area termed “manifestations/abnormalities”) and impact (with core areas of “death/lifespan,” and “life impact,” and the optional area of “societal/resource use”). An outcome domain defines an element of a core area to measure the effects of a treatment, such as blood markers, pain intensity, physical function, or emotional well-being.

A core outcome domain set is developed by agreeing to at least one outcome domain within one of the three core areas. Subsequently, a core outcome measurement set is developed by agreeing to at least one applicable measurement instrument for each core outcome domain. This requires documentation of validity, summarized under three metrics: truth, discrimination, and feasibility.

OMERACT’s handbook provides tutelage on establishing and implementing core outcomes, and several workbooks offer guidance on developing core outcome domain sets, selecting instruments for core outcome measurement sets, and OMERACT methodology.

All this work has led to widespread adoption.

Approval agencies have accepted OMERACT’s filter and methods advances, which have been adopted by many research groups in rheumatology and among nonrheumatology research groups. Organizations such as the U.S. National Institutes of Health’s National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke have sought its advice.

Its core outcomes have been adopted and used for approval in the great majority of studies on rheumatoid arthritis, Dr. Tugwell said.

Several BMJ articles underscore the influence and uptake of OMERACT’s core outcome set. One 2017 paper, which analyzed 273 randomized trials of rheumatoid arthritis drug treatments on ClinicalTrials.gov, found that the WHO-ILAR arthritis core outcome set was reported in 81% of the studies. “The adoption of a core outcome set has the potential to increase consistency in outcomes measured across trials and ensure that trials are more likely to measure appropriate outcomes,” the authors concluded.

Since the initial 1992 meeting, OMERACT has broadened its focus from rheumatoid arthritis to 25 other musculoskeletal conditions.

For example, other OMERACT conferences have led to consensus on core sets of measures for osteoarthritis and osteoporosis, psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis, psychosocial measures, and a core set of data for cost-effectiveness evaluations.
 

‘Speed is a limitation’

OMERACT is a bottom-up volunteer organization. It doesn’t represent any official organization of any clinical society. “We’ve not asked to be adopted by the American College of Rheumatology, EULAR [European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology], or other international organizations,” Dr. Tugwell said. It offers a chance for patients, users, and doers of research to work together to agree on rigorous criteria accepted by the approval agencies and take the necessary time to work things through.

This is not a fast process, usually taking 4-6 years to initiate and establish an outcome domain set, he emphasized. “It would be beneficial to do it faster if we had the resources to meet every year. The fact is we’re a volunteer organization that meets every 2 years.”

Speed is a limitation, he acknowledged, but it’s an acceptable trade-off for doing things correctly.

The group has faced other challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, pivoting to a virtual format that had benefits and limitations.

In one respect, moving to a virtual meeting increased uptake in participation and voting, Dr. Tugwell said. Patient participants with severe rheumatoid arthritis no longer faced the challenges of travel. “On the other hand, we didn’t have the same opportunity to achieve common ground virtually,” he said. “Where there are strong disagreements, I’m a great believer that people need to know one another. There needs to be relationship building.”

OMERACT’s emerging leader program has been a cornerstone of its in-person meetings, engaging young rheumatologists to interact with some of the leaders of outcome measurement. The virtual format dampened this process somewhat, eliminating those important “café chats” between the stakeholders.

The hope is to bring people face-to-face once more at the next meeting in May 2023. The agenda will focus on relationship building, identifying controversial areas, and bringing younger people to develop relationships, Dr. Tugwell said. OMERACT will retain a virtual option for the worldwide voting, “which will allow for more buy-in from so many more people,” he added.
 

A consensus on pain

The onus of developing outcome measures that move with the times is sometimes too great for one group to manage. In 2018, OMERACT became a part of the Red Hat Group (RHG), an organization conceived at the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) VII meeting in Amsterdam.

RHG aims to improve the choice of outcomes in health research. It includes eight groups: COMET; OMERACT; the Cochrane Skin Core Outcome Set Initiative; Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations; Center for Medical Technology Policy; COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments; Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium; and Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology.

The collaboration between groups offers a “very interesting interface between consensus building as well as hard evidence,” Dr. Tugwell said. The focus goes beyond rheumatology to other clinical areas of common interest, exploring how one classifies outcome domains in terms of symptoms, life impact, or death.

Pain is an important common denominator that the RHG has evaluated.

“We believe it’s too general. We’re trying to define pain across all Red Hat Groups because it’s clear that the research community has all these different scales for defining pain severity,” Dr. Tugwell said. “We have to find a way to make ruthless decisions and rules for doing it. And of course, it has to be transparent.”
 

Looking ahead

As part of its ongoing work, OMERACT is evaluating the robustness of instruments that rheumatologists use as outcome measures in clinical trials, which can be a laborious process. The OMERACT Filter 2.0, part of the latest iteration of the handbook, offers strong guidance for researchers but needs a long-term strategy and key methodological support. “To that end, we set up a technical advisory group to help people in the instrument selection work and that remains an ongoing process,” OMERACT leaders said in their joint statement.

OMERACT is looking at opportunities to create benchmark processes for developing core sets outside of rheumatology and a methodology around outcome measures such as contextual factors, composites, and surrogates.

It will also be taking a step back to solicit opinions from the approval agencies represented by the OMERACT membership on the OMERACT handbook.

The goal is to make sure the handbook aligns with everyone else’s approval and labeling requirements.
 

OMERACT’s patient participants bring important perspectives

OMERACT over the years has sought to become a more patient-centered group. Patients have been involved in OMERACT activities since its sixth meeting, forming an independent, yet integrated, group within the network. They have their own steering committee and produced and helped to update a glossary for OMERACT patients and professionals. 

Catherine (McGowan) Hofstetter, who was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis 30 years ago, chairs OMERACT’s Patient Research Partners Support Team. In a Q&A, she discussed the importance of patient voices and OMERACT’s plans to further educate and include patients in the dialogue on outcomes.

Question: Have patients always been a part of OMERACT meetings? 

Answer: Patients have been involved with OMERACT since 2002. The patient voice adds relevance to all the work that OMERACT does. You can’t begin to talk about outcomes unless there is a patient at the table with lived experience.

Q: Can you cite a few examples of how the patient voice enriches the conversation on outcomes research? 

A: Outcomes and priorities that are important to patients are often completely different than those of the clinician. For instance, a work outcome is important to someone who doesn’t have any medical insurance or disability insurance, so that you can ensure that there is food on the table and a roof over your head. Or it may be important to someone because the employment provides medical and disability insurance to provide security for them and their family. These are two different perspectives on work and therefore work priorities and outcomes.

Q: What have been some of the challenges of getting patients to participate?

A: Training patients is one challenge. OMERACT’s work has a very steep learning curve, and while the basics are the same between the groups in terms of looking at what we measure and how we measure it, the nuances of different working groups require a lot of time and energy to be comfortable enough with the work, and then be confident enough to bring your perspective and lived experience to the table. It’s also a very accomplished group, which can be quite intimidating. Self-disclosure is a very personal and intimate undertaking that requires patience, compassion, and respect.

Q: Are there any plans to enhance patient engagement?

A: When we had OMERACT 2020 it was a virtual conference that took place over about 6 months. We had far more patient research partners [PRPs] participate than we have ever had at any OMERACT face-to-face meeting. There is a desire and passion on the part of patients to lend their voices to the work. The working groups meet virtually throughout the year to advance their agendas, and PRPs are a part of each of the working groups. 

Hopefully, we can start working toward including more voices at the conferences by enabling a hybrid model. The PRP Support Team will begin engaging patients this fall with education, mentoring, and team-building exercises so by the time we meet in person in May 2023, they will have enough background knowledge and information to give them the confidence that will enhance their experience at the face-to-face meeting.

We also need to ensure that those patients who want to stay engaged can. This means that the education and training should continue long after the face-to-face meeting is over. We need to build capacity in the PRP group and look to succession planning and be a resource to working groups struggling to find PRPs to work with them on a longer-term basis.

Lower levels of serum sclerostin (SOST) were significantly associated with increased risk of lung exacerbations and hospitalizations in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), based on data from 139 individuals.

COPD exacerbations contribute to poorer prognosis and diminished quality of life, but many potential triggers of these exacerbations, including serum biomarkers, have not been well studied, wrote Carlos A. Amado, MD, of Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla, Santander, Spain, and colleagues.

These biomarkers include sclerostin, which is associated with bone metabolism and may play a role in “muscle-bone crosstalk,” thereby impacting lung function, they said.

In a study published in Pulmonology, the researchers recruited 139 adult outpatients with stable COPD and normal kidney function who were treated at a single center. The patients were followed for 12 months after study enrollment and a baseline assessment of serum SOST, bone metabolism parameters, body composition, clinical characteristics, and lung function. The mean age of the participants was 65.8 years, and 71% were men. Notably, 41.7% of the participants were current smokers. Body composition was assessed using fat-free mass index (FFMI), and lung function was assessed using forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC).

A total of 55 patients had SOST levels of 20 pmol/L at baseline, and 84 had SOST levels greater than 20 pmol/L. In a multivariate analysis, only age and FFMI were positively correlated with SOST levels (beta = 0.264 and beta = 1.241, respectively).

Patients in the lower tertile of SOST levels had a significantly higher risk of moderate COPD exacerbation (hazard ratio, 2.015; P = .017) and hospital admission related to COPD (HR, 5.142; P = .015), compared with the other patients. Also in a multivariate analysis, low levels of SOST were independently associated with FFMI (odds ratio, 1.936; P = .004) but not with any of the other variables.

“We can only speculate about the possible causes and effects of low SOST in COPD,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. However, “we found that SOST and FFMI were positively associated in patients with COPD; therefore, lower levels of circulating SOST might reflect sarcopenia,” they noted. Low levels of muscle mass are associated with COPD exacerbations, they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of patients from only one center and the high prevalence of hypovitaminosis D in the study population. The study also was not designed to show causality, the researchers said.

However, the results were strengthened by their specific design and overall well-selected population, as well as the evaluation of bone metabolism, they said.

The study offers the first evidence of an association between SOST and clinical outcomes in COPD “and may have a role as a biomarker to evaluate the risk of exacerbation and hospitalization in COPD,” but more research is needed in other populations to fully evaluate the therapeutic aspects of the study findings, the researchers concluded.

The study was supported by the Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria of Cantabria. The researchers disclosed no financial conflicts.

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

Lower levels of serum sclerostin (SOST) were significantly associated with increased risk of lung exacerbations and hospitalizations in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), based on data from 139 individuals.

COPD exacerbations contribute to poorer prognosis and diminished quality of life, but many potential triggers of these exacerbations, including serum biomarkers, have not been well studied, wrote Carlos A. Amado, MD, of Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla, Santander, Spain, and colleagues.

These biomarkers include sclerostin, which is associated with bone metabolism and may play a role in “muscle-bone crosstalk,” thereby impacting lung function, they said.

In a study published in Pulmonology, the researchers recruited 139 adult outpatients with stable COPD and normal kidney function who were treated at a single center. The patients were followed for 12 months after study enrollment and a baseline assessment of serum SOST, bone metabolism parameters, body composition, clinical characteristics, and lung function. The mean age of the participants was 65.8 years, and 71% were men. Notably, 41.7% of the participants were current smokers. Body composition was assessed using fat-free mass index (FFMI), and lung function was assessed using forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC).

A total of 55 patients had SOST levels of 20 pmol/L at baseline, and 84 had SOST levels greater than 20 pmol/L. In a multivariate analysis, only age and FFMI were positively correlated with SOST levels (beta = 0.264 and beta = 1.241, respectively).

Patients in the lower tertile of SOST levels had a significantly higher risk of moderate COPD exacerbation (hazard ratio, 2.015; P = .017) and hospital admission related to COPD (HR, 5.142; P = .015), compared with the other patients. Also in a multivariate analysis, low levels of SOST were independently associated with FFMI (odds ratio, 1.936; P = .004) but not with any of the other variables.

“We can only speculate about the possible causes and effects of low SOST in COPD,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. However, “we found that SOST and FFMI were positively associated in patients with COPD; therefore, lower levels of circulating SOST might reflect sarcopenia,” they noted. Low levels of muscle mass are associated with COPD exacerbations, they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of patients from only one center and the high prevalence of hypovitaminosis D in the study population. The study also was not designed to show causality, the researchers said.

However, the results were strengthened by their specific design and overall well-selected population, as well as the evaluation of bone metabolism, they said.

The study offers the first evidence of an association between SOST and clinical outcomes in COPD “and may have a role as a biomarker to evaluate the risk of exacerbation and hospitalization in COPD,” but more research is needed in other populations to fully evaluate the therapeutic aspects of the study findings, the researchers concluded.

The study was supported by the Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria of Cantabria. The researchers disclosed no financial conflicts.

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

Lower levels of serum sclerostin (SOST) were significantly associated with increased risk of lung exacerbations and hospitalizations in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), based on data from 139 individuals.

COPD exacerbations contribute to poorer prognosis and diminished quality of life, but many potential triggers of these exacerbations, including serum biomarkers, have not been well studied, wrote Carlos A. Amado, MD, of Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla, Santander, Spain, and colleagues.

These biomarkers include sclerostin, which is associated with bone metabolism and may play a role in “muscle-bone crosstalk,” thereby impacting lung function, they said.

In a study published in Pulmonology, the researchers recruited 139 adult outpatients with stable COPD and normal kidney function who were treated at a single center. The patients were followed for 12 months after study enrollment and a baseline assessment of serum SOST, bone metabolism parameters, body composition, clinical characteristics, and lung function. The mean age of the participants was 65.8 years, and 71% were men. Notably, 41.7% of the participants were current smokers. Body composition was assessed using fat-free mass index (FFMI), and lung function was assessed using forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC).

A total of 55 patients had SOST levels of 20 pmol/L at baseline, and 84 had SOST levels greater than 20 pmol/L. In a multivariate analysis, only age and FFMI were positively correlated with SOST levels (beta = 0.264 and beta = 1.241, respectively).

Patients in the lower tertile of SOST levels had a significantly higher risk of moderate COPD exacerbation (hazard ratio, 2.015; P = .017) and hospital admission related to COPD (HR, 5.142; P = .015), compared with the other patients. Also in a multivariate analysis, low levels of SOST were independently associated with FFMI (odds ratio, 1.936; P = .004) but not with any of the other variables.

“We can only speculate about the possible causes and effects of low SOST in COPD,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. However, “we found that SOST and FFMI were positively associated in patients with COPD; therefore, lower levels of circulating SOST might reflect sarcopenia,” they noted. Low levels of muscle mass are associated with COPD exacerbations, they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of patients from only one center and the high prevalence of hypovitaminosis D in the study population. The study also was not designed to show causality, the researchers said.

However, the results were strengthened by their specific design and overall well-selected population, as well as the evaluation of bone metabolism, they said.

The study offers the first evidence of an association between SOST and clinical outcomes in COPD “and may have a role as a biomarker to evaluate the risk of exacerbation and hospitalization in COPD,” but more research is needed in other populations to fully evaluate the therapeutic aspects of the study findings, the researchers concluded.

The study was supported by the Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria of Cantabria. The researchers disclosed no financial conflicts.

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

A new study suggests that oncologists can safely pull back on standard locoregional radiotherapy (RT) in select patients with cT1-2N1 breast cancer who are treated with primary chemotherapy prior to surgery. The key is to divide patients by risk level and treat them according to the study’s guidelines, the researchers reported.

“We think this study is a good step towards de-escalation, which should lead to equal survival chances but better quality of life,” lead study author Sabine de Wild, MD, a PhD student at Maastricht (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, said in an interview.

The study, published in The Lancet Oncology, was intended to provide insight into which breast cancer patients need adjuvant locoregional radiotherapy following postchemotherapy surgery, coauthor Liesbeth Boersma, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist at Maastricht University Medical Center, said in an interview. “It is not yet known which of these patients would benefit from adjuvant locoregional radiotherapy and to what extent the response of the tumor to the chemotherapy should be taken into account.”

For the study, believed to be the first prospective analysis tackling this topic, researchers tracked 838 patients in The Netherlands who were treated for cT1-2N1 breast cancer with primary chemotherapy and surgery of the breast and axilla from 2011-2015. Tumors were less than 5 cm and metastases were one to three axillary nodes.

The subjects were divided into groups based on risk of locoregional recurrence, and each group underwent different therapies.

• Low-risk group: no metastases were present in the nodes (n = 291). “We omitted regional radiotherapy, and we omitted RT of the chest wall in case of a mastectomy. After breast conserving surgery, regular RT of the breast was recommended,” Dr. de Wild said.
• Intermediate-risk group, one to three metastases were still present (n = 370). “We omitted regional radiotherapy, but irradiated the chest wall or breast,” she said.
• High-risk group, three metastases were present (n = 177). “We did not de-escalate, and all patients were treated with locoregional RT,” she said.

According to the study, “the 5-year locoregional recurrence rate in all patients was 2.2% (95% confidence interval, 1.4-3.4). The 5-year locoregional recurrence rate was 2.1% (95% CI, 0.9-4.3) in the low-risk group, 2.2% (95% CI, 1.0-4.1) in the intermediate-risk group, and 2.3% (95% CI, 0.8-5.5) in the high-risk group.”

In 26% of cases, patients received more radiotherapy than the study guidelines suggested. “Remarkably,” the researchers wrote, “this did not seem to affect locoregional recurrence rate, recurrence­-free interval, and overall survival in a statistically significant or clinically relevant way.”

As for limitations, the authors noted that, “in each risk group, the actual sample size treated according to the study guideline was smaller than required based on the power calculation. Nevertheless, when performing the analyses in the subset of patients treated according to the study guideline, the upper limit of 95% CI of 5­-year locoregional recurrence rate did not exceed 7.8%.”

The study authors wrote that, “in the future, the results of this study might lead to more frequent omission of locoregional radiotherapy, which could result in lower morbidity and a better quality of life for patients with breast cancer who are receiving primary chemotherapy.”

However, Dr. de Wild said randomized trials are necessary “to investigate how treatment can be individualized further, i.e., by taking into account specific tumor characteristics.” Also, most patients in the study underwent axillary lymph node dissection, “while patients in daily practice may instead undergo targeted axillary dissection. Future studies are needed to determine if less radiotherapy is also safe in patients in whom axillary lymph node dissection is omitted.”

The study was funded by the Dutch Cancer Society. One coauthor reported a pending patent plus grants from AstraZeneca, Eurocept Plaza, Roche, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Tesaro, Novartis, Dutch Cancer Society, ZonMw, and A Sister’s Hope; as well as consulting fees and other financial support from a variety of pharmaceutical companies. The other authors had no disclosures.

A new study suggests that oncologists can safely pull back on standard locoregional radiotherapy (RT) in select patients with cT1-2N1 breast cancer who are treated with primary chemotherapy prior to surgery. The key is to divide patients by risk level and treat them according to the study’s guidelines, the researchers reported.

“We think this study is a good step towards de-escalation, which should lead to equal survival chances but better quality of life,” lead study author Sabine de Wild, MD, a PhD student at Maastricht (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, said in an interview.

The study, published in The Lancet Oncology, was intended to provide insight into which breast cancer patients need adjuvant locoregional radiotherapy following postchemotherapy surgery, coauthor Liesbeth Boersma, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist at Maastricht University Medical Center, said in an interview. “It is not yet known which of these patients would benefit from adjuvant locoregional radiotherapy and to what extent the response of the tumor to the chemotherapy should be taken into account.”

For the study, believed to be the first prospective analysis tackling this topic, researchers tracked 838 patients in The Netherlands who were treated for cT1-2N1 breast cancer with primary chemotherapy and surgery of the breast and axilla from 2011-2015. Tumors were less than 5 cm and metastases were one to three axillary nodes.

The subjects were divided into groups based on risk of locoregional recurrence, and each group underwent different therapies.

• Low-risk group: no metastases were present in the nodes (n = 291). “We omitted regional radiotherapy, and we omitted RT of the chest wall in case of a mastectomy. After breast conserving surgery, regular RT of the breast was recommended,” Dr. de Wild said.
• Intermediate-risk group, one to three metastases were still present (n = 370). “We omitted regional radiotherapy, but irradiated the chest wall or breast,” she said.
• High-risk group, three metastases were present (n = 177). “We did not de-escalate, and all patients were treated with locoregional RT,” she said.

According to the study, “the 5-year locoregional recurrence rate in all patients was 2.2% (95% confidence interval, 1.4-3.4). The 5-year locoregional recurrence rate was 2.1% (95% CI, 0.9-4.3) in the low-risk group, 2.2% (95% CI, 1.0-4.1) in the intermediate-risk group, and 2.3% (95% CI, 0.8-5.5) in the high-risk group.”

In 26% of cases, patients received more radiotherapy than the study guidelines suggested. “Remarkably,” the researchers wrote, “this did not seem to affect locoregional recurrence rate, recurrence­-free interval, and overall survival in a statistically significant or clinically relevant way.”

As for limitations, the authors noted that, “in each risk group, the actual sample size treated according to the study guideline was smaller than required based on the power calculation. Nevertheless, when performing the analyses in the subset of patients treated according to the study guideline, the upper limit of 95% CI of 5­-year locoregional recurrence rate did not exceed 7.8%.”

The study authors wrote that, “in the future, the results of this study might lead to more frequent omission of locoregional radiotherapy, which could result in lower morbidity and a better quality of life for patients with breast cancer who are receiving primary chemotherapy.”

However, Dr. de Wild said randomized trials are necessary “to investigate how treatment can be individualized further, i.e., by taking into account specific tumor characteristics.” Also, most patients in the study underwent axillary lymph node dissection, “while patients in daily practice may instead undergo targeted axillary dissection. Future studies are needed to determine if less radiotherapy is also safe in patients in whom axillary lymph node dissection is omitted.”

The study was funded by the Dutch Cancer Society. One coauthor reported a pending patent plus grants from AstraZeneca, Eurocept Plaza, Roche, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Tesaro, Novartis, Dutch Cancer Society, ZonMw, and A Sister’s Hope; as well as consulting fees and other financial support from a variety of pharmaceutical companies. The other authors had no disclosures.

A new study suggests that oncologists can safely pull back on standard locoregional radiotherapy (RT) in select patients with cT1-2N1 breast cancer who are treated with primary chemotherapy prior to surgery. The key is to divide patients by risk level and treat them according to the study’s guidelines, the researchers reported.

“We think this study is a good step towards de-escalation, which should lead to equal survival chances but better quality of life,” lead study author Sabine de Wild, MD, a PhD student at Maastricht (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, said in an interview.

The study, published in The Lancet Oncology, was intended to provide insight into which breast cancer patients need adjuvant locoregional radiotherapy following postchemotherapy surgery, coauthor Liesbeth Boersma, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist at Maastricht University Medical Center, said in an interview. “It is not yet known which of these patients would benefit from adjuvant locoregional radiotherapy and to what extent the response of the tumor to the chemotherapy should be taken into account.”

For the study, believed to be the first prospective analysis tackling this topic, researchers tracked 838 patients in The Netherlands who were treated for cT1-2N1 breast cancer with primary chemotherapy and surgery of the breast and axilla from 2011-2015. Tumors were less than 5 cm and metastases were one to three axillary nodes.

The subjects were divided into groups based on risk of locoregional recurrence, and each group underwent different therapies.

• Low-risk group: no metastases were present in the nodes (n = 291). “We omitted regional radiotherapy, and we omitted RT of the chest wall in case of a mastectomy. After breast conserving surgery, regular RT of the breast was recommended,” Dr. de Wild said.
• Intermediate-risk group, one to three metastases were still present (n = 370). “We omitted regional radiotherapy, but irradiated the chest wall or breast,” she said.
• High-risk group, three metastases were present (n = 177). “We did not de-escalate, and all patients were treated with locoregional RT,” she said.

According to the study, “the 5-year locoregional recurrence rate in all patients was 2.2% (95% confidence interval, 1.4-3.4). The 5-year locoregional recurrence rate was 2.1% (95% CI, 0.9-4.3) in the low-risk group, 2.2% (95% CI, 1.0-4.1) in the intermediate-risk group, and 2.3% (95% CI, 0.8-5.5) in the high-risk group.”

In 26% of cases, patients received more radiotherapy than the study guidelines suggested. “Remarkably,” the researchers wrote, “this did not seem to affect locoregional recurrence rate, recurrence­-free interval, and overall survival in a statistically significant or clinically relevant way.”

As for limitations, the authors noted that, “in each risk group, the actual sample size treated according to the study guideline was smaller than required based on the power calculation. Nevertheless, when performing the analyses in the subset of patients treated according to the study guideline, the upper limit of 95% CI of 5­-year locoregional recurrence rate did not exceed 7.8%.”

The study authors wrote that, “in the future, the results of this study might lead to more frequent omission of locoregional radiotherapy, which could result in lower morbidity and a better quality of life for patients with breast cancer who are receiving primary chemotherapy.”

However, Dr. de Wild said randomized trials are necessary “to investigate how treatment can be individualized further, i.e., by taking into account specific tumor characteristics.” Also, most patients in the study underwent axillary lymph node dissection, “while patients in daily practice may instead undergo targeted axillary dissection. Future studies are needed to determine if less radiotherapy is also safe in patients in whom axillary lymph node dissection is omitted.”

The study was funded by the Dutch Cancer Society. One coauthor reported a pending patent plus grants from AstraZeneca, Eurocept Plaza, Roche, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Tesaro, Novartis, Dutch Cancer Society, ZonMw, and A Sister’s Hope; as well as consulting fees and other financial support from a variety of pharmaceutical companies. The other authors had no disclosures.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: When were you officially diagnosed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: Were you still struggling with COVID?

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

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

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

Q: Did you continue seeing patients?

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

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

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

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

Q: What happened after you had your vaccine?

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

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

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

Q: What helped you?

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

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

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

Q: What is the current atmosphere in your clinic?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: What are you doing now?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: When were you officially diagnosed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: Were you still struggling with COVID?

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

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

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

Q: Did you continue seeing patients?

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

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

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

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

Q: What happened after you had your vaccine?

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

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

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

Q: What helped you?

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

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

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

Q: What is the current atmosphere in your clinic?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: What are you doing now?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: When were you officially diagnosed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: Were you still struggling with COVID?

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

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

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

Q: Did you continue seeing patients?

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

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

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

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

Q: What happened after you had your vaccine?

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

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

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

Q: What helped you?

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

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

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

Q: What is the current atmosphere in your clinic?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: What are you doing now?

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

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

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

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

Punch biopsies for standard pathology and direct immunofluorescence were performed and ruled out vesiculobullous disease. Further conversation with the patient revealed that this was a phototoxic drug eruption that resulted from a medication mix-up. The patient had intended to treat an eczema flare with a topical steroid but had inadvertently applied 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), which he had left over from a previous bout of actinic keratosis. While selective to precancerous cells with rapid DNA replication, 5-FU can trigger a significant photodermatitis when applied to heavily sun-exposed skin.

Phototoxic skin reactions can be an adverse result of multiple systemic and topical therapies. Common systemic examples include amiodarone, chlorpromazine, doxycycline, hydrochlorothiazide, isotretinoin, nalidixic acid, naproxen, piroxicam, tetracycline, thioridazine, vemurafenib, and voriconazole.¹ Topical examples include retinoids, levulinic acid, and 5-FU. Treatment requires that the patient stop the offending medication and use photoprotection. The patient followed this protocol and his erosions resolved over the course of a few weeks.

This case demonstrates that topical therapies, like systemic medications, can have chemical names that are confusing to patients. Further complicating matters can be the practice of folding metal tubes of cream over their life of use, thus obscuring the label.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained). Dr. Karnes is the medical director of MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME. 

Punch biopsies for standard pathology and direct immunofluorescence were performed and ruled out vesiculobullous disease. Further conversation with the patient revealed that this was a phototoxic drug eruption that resulted from a medication mix-up. The patient had intended to treat an eczema flare with a topical steroid but had inadvertently applied 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), which he had left over from a previous bout of actinic keratosis. While selective to precancerous cells with rapid DNA replication, 5-FU can trigger a significant photodermatitis when applied to heavily sun-exposed skin.

Phototoxic skin reactions can be an adverse result of multiple systemic and topical therapies. Common systemic examples include amiodarone, chlorpromazine, doxycycline, hydrochlorothiazide, isotretinoin, nalidixic acid, naproxen, piroxicam, tetracycline, thioridazine, vemurafenib, and voriconazole.¹ Topical examples include retinoids, levulinic acid, and 5-FU. Treatment requires that the patient stop the offending medication and use photoprotection. The patient followed this protocol and his erosions resolved over the course of a few weeks.

This case demonstrates that topical therapies, like systemic medications, can have chemical names that are confusing to patients. Further complicating matters can be the practice of folding metal tubes of cream over their life of use, thus obscuring the label.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained). Dr. Karnes is the medical director of MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME. 

Punch biopsies for standard pathology and direct immunofluorescence were performed and ruled out vesiculobullous disease. Further conversation with the patient revealed that this was a phototoxic drug eruption that resulted from a medication mix-up. The patient had intended to treat an eczema flare with a topical steroid but had inadvertently applied 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), which he had left over from a previous bout of actinic keratosis. While selective to precancerous cells with rapid DNA replication, 5-FU can trigger a significant photodermatitis when applied to heavily sun-exposed skin.

Phototoxic skin reactions can be an adverse result of multiple systemic and topical therapies. Common systemic examples include amiodarone, chlorpromazine, doxycycline, hydrochlorothiazide, isotretinoin, nalidixic acid, naproxen, piroxicam, tetracycline, thioridazine, vemurafenib, and voriconazole.¹ Topical examples include retinoids, levulinic acid, and 5-FU. Treatment requires that the patient stop the offending medication and use photoprotection. The patient followed this protocol and his erosions resolved over the course of a few weeks.

This case demonstrates that topical therapies, like systemic medications, can have chemical names that are confusing to patients. Further complicating matters can be the practice of folding metal tubes of cream over their life of use, thus obscuring the label.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained). Dr. Karnes is the medical director of MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME. 

Patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) treated with intravenous ublituximab had fewer relapses and brain lesions compared with those treated with oral teriflunomide, although both therapies resulted in similar rates of worsening disability, according to results of the two identical phase 3 ULTIMATE I and II trials.

“In these two 96-week trials involving participants with MS, annualized relapse rates were lower with intravenous ublituximab than with oral teriflunomide. Ublituximab was associated with infusion-related reactions. Larger and longer trials are required to determine the efficacy and safety of ublituximab in patients with relapsing MS, including comparison with other disease-modifying treatments such as existing anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies,” noted lead author Lawrence Steinman, MD, professor of neurology and neurological sciences, pediatrics, and genetics at Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues.

Two trials

The double-blind, double-dummy ULTIMATE I and II trials enrolled 549 and 545 participants respectively, with a median follow-up of 95 weeks. Subjects, aged between 18 and 55 years, were randomized to receive either oral placebo and intravenous ublituximab (150 mg on day 1, followed by 450 mg on day 15 and at weeks 24, 48, and 72), or oral teriflunomide (14 mg once daily) and intravenous placebo. The primary endpoint was the annualized relapse rate, defined as the number of confirmed MS relapses per participant-year, with a range of secondary end points including number of lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) by 96 weeks, and worsening of disability confirmed at 12 weeks.

Prevention and management of infusion-related reactions was with oral antihistamine and dexamethasone, administered 30 to 60 minutes before each intravenous dose of ublituximab or placebo, as well as reductions in infusion flow rates and discretionary acetaminophen.

Results for the primary endpoint in ULTIMATE I showed the adjusted annualized relapse rate over a period of 96 weeks was 0.08 in the ublituximab group and 0.19 in the teriflunomide group (rate ratio, 0.41; P < .001). Corresponding rates for ULTIMATE II were 0.09 and 0.18 (rate ratio, 0.51; P = .002).

The mean number of lesions in both ublituximab arms of the trials was 0.02 and 0.01 compared with 0.49 and 0.25 in the teriflunomide arms (rate ratios 0.03 and 0.04 respectively; P < .001 for both).
 

Similar disability worsening in both groups

A pooled analysis of the two trials showed worsening disability in 5.2% of the ublituximab group, and 5.9% of the teriflunomide group (hazard ratio, 0.84; P = 0.51). “In both trials, teriflunomide was associated with a numerically lower rate of worsening of disability than that reported in previous studies with this drug, but no conclusions can be drawn from these comparisons,” noted the authors.

Infusion-related reactions occurred in 47.7% of the participants in the ublituximab group, consisting mainly of mild to moderate pyrexia, headache, chills, and influenza-like illness. “The reactions may have been related to cytokine release from immune cells (B and NK cells) on interaction of the Fc antibody domain with Fc gamma receptors on effector cells,” they suggested.

Although no opportunistic infections occurred, a higher frequency of infections, including serious infections, was observed with ublituximab (5.0%) than with teriflunomide (2.9%).

While the ULTIMATE trials showed no difference between ublituximab and teriflunomide in confirmed worsening of disability, only a small percentage of participants in either arm showed deterioration, Dr. Coyle remarked. “In a relatively short trial (96 weeks), in a relapsing population on active treatment, this result was not surprising … If the study was bigger, or longer it would increase the chances of seeing a progressive slow worsening component to affect the EDSS [Expanded Disability Status Scale],” she added.
 

Equivalent efficacy

Ultimately, “it appears likely” that ublituximab is “equivalent in efficacy” to the earlier anti-CD20 agents ocrelizumab and ofatumumab, Dr. Coyle said. While all three agents target B-cells, “ublituximab targets a novel CD20 binding site, and is bioengineered to have a particularly potent antibody dependent cell cytotoxicity lysis mechanism,” she added. “It has been touted to ultimately allow a short infusion of 1 hour.”

Although the serious infection rate is slightly higher with ublituximab (5.0% vs. 2.5% for ofatumumab, and 1.3% for ocrelizumab), “it is still low,” and infusion-related reactions are also higher with ublituximab, she added (47.7% vs. 20.2% and 34.3%, respectively). She suggested factors that might influence which treatment is chosen for a given patient might include cost, convenience, whether it is more or less likely to cause low IgG, interference with vaccination, or influence on cancer or COVID risk.

The trials were supported by TG Therapeutics.

Dr. Coyle has received consulting fees from Accordant, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Horizon, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, and Viela Bio and grant funding from Actelion, Alkermes, Bristol Myers Squibb, CorEvitas LLD, Genentech/Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, MedDay, NINDS, and Novartis.

Patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) treated with intravenous ublituximab had fewer relapses and brain lesions compared with those treated with oral teriflunomide, although both therapies resulted in similar rates of worsening disability, according to results of the two identical phase 3 ULTIMATE I and II trials.

“In these two 96-week trials involving participants with MS, annualized relapse rates were lower with intravenous ublituximab than with oral teriflunomide. Ublituximab was associated with infusion-related reactions. Larger and longer trials are required to determine the efficacy and safety of ublituximab in patients with relapsing MS, including comparison with other disease-modifying treatments such as existing anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies,” noted lead author Lawrence Steinman, MD, professor of neurology and neurological sciences, pediatrics, and genetics at Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues.

Two trials

The double-blind, double-dummy ULTIMATE I and II trials enrolled 549 and 545 participants respectively, with a median follow-up of 95 weeks. Subjects, aged between 18 and 55 years, were randomized to receive either oral placebo and intravenous ublituximab (150 mg on day 1, followed by 450 mg on day 15 and at weeks 24, 48, and 72), or oral teriflunomide (14 mg once daily) and intravenous placebo. The primary endpoint was the annualized relapse rate, defined as the number of confirmed MS relapses per participant-year, with a range of secondary end points including number of lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) by 96 weeks, and worsening of disability confirmed at 12 weeks.

Prevention and management of infusion-related reactions was with oral antihistamine and dexamethasone, administered 30 to 60 minutes before each intravenous dose of ublituximab or placebo, as well as reductions in infusion flow rates and discretionary acetaminophen.

Results for the primary endpoint in ULTIMATE I showed the adjusted annualized relapse rate over a period of 96 weeks was 0.08 in the ublituximab group and 0.19 in the teriflunomide group (rate ratio, 0.41; P < .001). Corresponding rates for ULTIMATE II were 0.09 and 0.18 (rate ratio, 0.51; P = .002).

The mean number of lesions in both ublituximab arms of the trials was 0.02 and 0.01 compared with 0.49 and 0.25 in the teriflunomide arms (rate ratios 0.03 and 0.04 respectively; P < .001 for both).
 

Similar disability worsening in both groups

A pooled analysis of the two trials showed worsening disability in 5.2% of the ublituximab group, and 5.9% of the teriflunomide group (hazard ratio, 0.84; P = 0.51). “In both trials, teriflunomide was associated with a numerically lower rate of worsening of disability than that reported in previous studies with this drug, but no conclusions can be drawn from these comparisons,” noted the authors.

Infusion-related reactions occurred in 47.7% of the participants in the ublituximab group, consisting mainly of mild to moderate pyrexia, headache, chills, and influenza-like illness. “The reactions may have been related to cytokine release from immune cells (B and NK cells) on interaction of the Fc antibody domain with Fc gamma receptors on effector cells,” they suggested.

Although no opportunistic infections occurred, a higher frequency of infections, including serious infections, was observed with ublituximab (5.0%) than with teriflunomide (2.9%).

While the ULTIMATE trials showed no difference between ublituximab and teriflunomide in confirmed worsening of disability, only a small percentage of participants in either arm showed deterioration, Dr. Coyle remarked. “In a relatively short trial (96 weeks), in a relapsing population on active treatment, this result was not surprising … If the study was bigger, or longer it would increase the chances of seeing a progressive slow worsening component to affect the EDSS [Expanded Disability Status Scale],” she added.
 

Equivalent efficacy

Ultimately, “it appears likely” that ublituximab is “equivalent in efficacy” to the earlier anti-CD20 agents ocrelizumab and ofatumumab, Dr. Coyle said. While all three agents target B-cells, “ublituximab targets a novel CD20 binding site, and is bioengineered to have a particularly potent antibody dependent cell cytotoxicity lysis mechanism,” she added. “It has been touted to ultimately allow a short infusion of 1 hour.”

Although the serious infection rate is slightly higher with ublituximab (5.0% vs. 2.5% for ofatumumab, and 1.3% for ocrelizumab), “it is still low,” and infusion-related reactions are also higher with ublituximab, she added (47.7% vs. 20.2% and 34.3%, respectively). She suggested factors that might influence which treatment is chosen for a given patient might include cost, convenience, whether it is more or less likely to cause low IgG, interference with vaccination, or influence on cancer or COVID risk.

The trials were supported by TG Therapeutics.

Dr. Coyle has received consulting fees from Accordant, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Horizon, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, and Viela Bio and grant funding from Actelion, Alkermes, Bristol Myers Squibb, CorEvitas LLD, Genentech/Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, MedDay, NINDS, and Novartis.

Patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) treated with intravenous ublituximab had fewer relapses and brain lesions compared with those treated with oral teriflunomide, although both therapies resulted in similar rates of worsening disability, according to results of the two identical phase 3 ULTIMATE I and II trials.

“In these two 96-week trials involving participants with MS, annualized relapse rates were lower with intravenous ublituximab than with oral teriflunomide. Ublituximab was associated with infusion-related reactions. Larger and longer trials are required to determine the efficacy and safety of ublituximab in patients with relapsing MS, including comparison with other disease-modifying treatments such as existing anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies,” noted lead author Lawrence Steinman, MD, professor of neurology and neurological sciences, pediatrics, and genetics at Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues.

Two trials

The double-blind, double-dummy ULTIMATE I and II trials enrolled 549 and 545 participants respectively, with a median follow-up of 95 weeks. Subjects, aged between 18 and 55 years, were randomized to receive either oral placebo and intravenous ublituximab (150 mg on day 1, followed by 450 mg on day 15 and at weeks 24, 48, and 72), or oral teriflunomide (14 mg once daily) and intravenous placebo. The primary endpoint was the annualized relapse rate, defined as the number of confirmed MS relapses per participant-year, with a range of secondary end points including number of lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) by 96 weeks, and worsening of disability confirmed at 12 weeks.

Prevention and management of infusion-related reactions was with oral antihistamine and dexamethasone, administered 30 to 60 minutes before each intravenous dose of ublituximab or placebo, as well as reductions in infusion flow rates and discretionary acetaminophen.

Results for the primary endpoint in ULTIMATE I showed the adjusted annualized relapse rate over a period of 96 weeks was 0.08 in the ublituximab group and 0.19 in the teriflunomide group (rate ratio, 0.41; P < .001). Corresponding rates for ULTIMATE II were 0.09 and 0.18 (rate ratio, 0.51; P = .002).

The mean number of lesions in both ublituximab arms of the trials was 0.02 and 0.01 compared with 0.49 and 0.25 in the teriflunomide arms (rate ratios 0.03 and 0.04 respectively; P < .001 for both).
 

Similar disability worsening in both groups

A pooled analysis of the two trials showed worsening disability in 5.2% of the ublituximab group, and 5.9% of the teriflunomide group (hazard ratio, 0.84; P = 0.51). “In both trials, teriflunomide was associated with a numerically lower rate of worsening of disability than that reported in previous studies with this drug, but no conclusions can be drawn from these comparisons,” noted the authors.

Infusion-related reactions occurred in 47.7% of the participants in the ublituximab group, consisting mainly of mild to moderate pyrexia, headache, chills, and influenza-like illness. “The reactions may have been related to cytokine release from immune cells (B and NK cells) on interaction of the Fc antibody domain with Fc gamma receptors on effector cells,” they suggested.

Although no opportunistic infections occurred, a higher frequency of infections, including serious infections, was observed with ublituximab (5.0%) than with teriflunomide (2.9%).

While the ULTIMATE trials showed no difference between ublituximab and teriflunomide in confirmed worsening of disability, only a small percentage of participants in either arm showed deterioration, Dr. Coyle remarked. “In a relatively short trial (96 weeks), in a relapsing population on active treatment, this result was not surprising … If the study was bigger, or longer it would increase the chances of seeing a progressive slow worsening component to affect the EDSS [Expanded Disability Status Scale],” she added.
 

Equivalent efficacy

Ultimately, “it appears likely” that ublituximab is “equivalent in efficacy” to the earlier anti-CD20 agents ocrelizumab and ofatumumab, Dr. Coyle said. While all three agents target B-cells, “ublituximab targets a novel CD20 binding site, and is bioengineered to have a particularly potent antibody dependent cell cytotoxicity lysis mechanism,” she added. “It has been touted to ultimately allow a short infusion of 1 hour.”

Although the serious infection rate is slightly higher with ublituximab (5.0% vs. 2.5% for ofatumumab, and 1.3% for ocrelizumab), “it is still low,” and infusion-related reactions are also higher with ublituximab, she added (47.7% vs. 20.2% and 34.3%, respectively). She suggested factors that might influence which treatment is chosen for a given patient might include cost, convenience, whether it is more or less likely to cause low IgG, interference with vaccination, or influence on cancer or COVID risk.

The trials were supported by TG Therapeutics.

Dr. Coyle has received consulting fees from Accordant, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Horizon, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, and Viela Bio and grant funding from Actelion, Alkermes, Bristol Myers Squibb, CorEvitas LLD, Genentech/Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, MedDay, NINDS, and Novartis.

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

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

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

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

Is it SSSS or SJS?

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

kiliweb/Open Food Facts/CC BY-SA 3.0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is it SSSS or SJS?

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

kiliweb/Open Food Facts/CC BY-SA 3.0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is it SSSS or SJS?

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

kiliweb/Open Food Facts/CC BY-SA 3.0

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

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

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

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