User login
The next blood pressure breakthrough: temporary tattoos
As scientists work on wearable technology that promises to revolutionize health care, researchers from the University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M University, College Station, are reporting a big win in the pursuit of one highly popular target: a noninvasive solution for continuous blood pressure monitoring at home.
Not only that, but this development comes in the surprising form of a temporary tattoo. That’s right: Just like the kind that children like to wear.
the researchers report in their new study.
“With this new technology, we are going to have an opportunity to understand how our blood pressure fluctuates during the day. We will be able to quantify how stress is impacting us,” says Roozbeh Jafari, PhD, a professor of biomedical engineering, electrical engineering, and computer science at Texas A&M, College Station, and a coauthor of the study.
Revealing the whole picture, not just dots
At-home blood pressure monitors have been around for many years now. They work just like the blood pressure machines doctors use at their office: You place your arm inside a cuff, press a button, feel a squeeze on your arm, and get a reading.
While results from this method are accurate, they are also just a moment in time. Our blood pressure can vary greatly throughout the day – especially among people who have labile hypertension, where blood pressure changes from one extreme to the other. So, looking at point-in-time readings is a bit like focusing on a few dots inside of a pointillism painting – one might miss the bigger picture.
Doctors may also find continuous monitoring useful for getting rid of false readings from “white coat syndrome.” Basically, this means a person’s blood pressure rises due to the anxiety of being in a doctor’s office but is not true hypertension.
Bottom line: The ability to monitor a person’s blood pressure continuously for hours or even days can provide clearer, and more accurate, insights into a person’s health.
How do health monitoring tattoos work?
Electronic tattoos for health monitoring are not completely new. John A. Rogers, PhD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, first put forth the idea of monitoring through temporary tattoos 12 years ago. Some concepts, such as UV monitoring tattoos, had already been adopted by scientists and put on the market. But the existing models weren’t suitable for monitoring blood pressure, according to Deji Akinwande, PhD, a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Texas at Austin and another coauthor of the study.
“[UV monitoring tattoos] are very thick,” he says. “They create too much movement when used to measure blood pressure because they slide around.”
So, the Texas-based research team worked to develop an option that was slimmer and more stable.
“The key ingredient within e-tattoos is graphene,” says Dr. Akinwande.
Graphene is carbon that’s similar to what’s inside your graphite pencil. The material is conductive, meaning it can conduct small electrical currents through the skin. For blood pressure monitoring, graphene promotes bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), which is like the technology used in smart scales that measure body fat.
With e-tattoos, the thin layers of graphene stick to the skin and do not slide around, getting rid of “artifacts,” or bad data. The graphene e-tattoos can be worn on the skin for about a week – or roughly as long as the temporary tattoos kids love.
Once the graphene captures the raw data, a machine learning algorithm interprets the information and provides results in units used for measuring blood pressure: millimeters of mercury (mmHg), commonly referred to as blood pressure “points.”
How accurate are the results? The tests measured blood pressure within 0.2 ± 5.8 mmHg (systolic), 0.2 ± 4.5 mmHg (diastolic), and 0.1 ± 5.3 mmHg (mean arterial pressure). In other words: If this were a basketball player shooting baskets, the great majority of shots taken would be swishes and occasionally a few would hit the rim. That means good accuracy.
When will e-tattoos be available?
The teams of Dr. Jafari and Dr. Akinwande are working on a second generation of their e-tattoo that they expect to be available in the next 5 years.
The upgrade they envision will be smaller and compatible with smartwatches and phones that use Bluetooth technology and near-field communication (NFC) to transfer data and give it power. With these updates, e-tattoos for continuous blood pressure monitoring will be ready for clinical trials and mainstream use soon after.
“Everyone can benefit from knowing their blood pressure recordings,” Dr. Akinwande says. “It is not just for people at risk for hypertension but for others to proactively monitor their health, for stress and other factors.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
As scientists work on wearable technology that promises to revolutionize health care, researchers from the University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M University, College Station, are reporting a big win in the pursuit of one highly popular target: a noninvasive solution for continuous blood pressure monitoring at home.
Not only that, but this development comes in the surprising form of a temporary tattoo. That’s right: Just like the kind that children like to wear.
the researchers report in their new study.
“With this new technology, we are going to have an opportunity to understand how our blood pressure fluctuates during the day. We will be able to quantify how stress is impacting us,” says Roozbeh Jafari, PhD, a professor of biomedical engineering, electrical engineering, and computer science at Texas A&M, College Station, and a coauthor of the study.
Revealing the whole picture, not just dots
At-home blood pressure monitors have been around for many years now. They work just like the blood pressure machines doctors use at their office: You place your arm inside a cuff, press a button, feel a squeeze on your arm, and get a reading.
While results from this method are accurate, they are also just a moment in time. Our blood pressure can vary greatly throughout the day – especially among people who have labile hypertension, where blood pressure changes from one extreme to the other. So, looking at point-in-time readings is a bit like focusing on a few dots inside of a pointillism painting – one might miss the bigger picture.
Doctors may also find continuous monitoring useful for getting rid of false readings from “white coat syndrome.” Basically, this means a person’s blood pressure rises due to the anxiety of being in a doctor’s office but is not true hypertension.
Bottom line: The ability to monitor a person’s blood pressure continuously for hours or even days can provide clearer, and more accurate, insights into a person’s health.
How do health monitoring tattoos work?
Electronic tattoos for health monitoring are not completely new. John A. Rogers, PhD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, first put forth the idea of monitoring through temporary tattoos 12 years ago. Some concepts, such as UV monitoring tattoos, had already been adopted by scientists and put on the market. But the existing models weren’t suitable for monitoring blood pressure, according to Deji Akinwande, PhD, a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Texas at Austin and another coauthor of the study.
“[UV monitoring tattoos] are very thick,” he says. “They create too much movement when used to measure blood pressure because they slide around.”
So, the Texas-based research team worked to develop an option that was slimmer and more stable.
“The key ingredient within e-tattoos is graphene,” says Dr. Akinwande.
Graphene is carbon that’s similar to what’s inside your graphite pencil. The material is conductive, meaning it can conduct small electrical currents through the skin. For blood pressure monitoring, graphene promotes bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), which is like the technology used in smart scales that measure body fat.
With e-tattoos, the thin layers of graphene stick to the skin and do not slide around, getting rid of “artifacts,” or bad data. The graphene e-tattoos can be worn on the skin for about a week – or roughly as long as the temporary tattoos kids love.
Once the graphene captures the raw data, a machine learning algorithm interprets the information and provides results in units used for measuring blood pressure: millimeters of mercury (mmHg), commonly referred to as blood pressure “points.”
How accurate are the results? The tests measured blood pressure within 0.2 ± 5.8 mmHg (systolic), 0.2 ± 4.5 mmHg (diastolic), and 0.1 ± 5.3 mmHg (mean arterial pressure). In other words: If this were a basketball player shooting baskets, the great majority of shots taken would be swishes and occasionally a few would hit the rim. That means good accuracy.
When will e-tattoos be available?
The teams of Dr. Jafari and Dr. Akinwande are working on a second generation of their e-tattoo that they expect to be available in the next 5 years.
The upgrade they envision will be smaller and compatible with smartwatches and phones that use Bluetooth technology and near-field communication (NFC) to transfer data and give it power. With these updates, e-tattoos for continuous blood pressure monitoring will be ready for clinical trials and mainstream use soon after.
“Everyone can benefit from knowing their blood pressure recordings,” Dr. Akinwande says. “It is not just for people at risk for hypertension but for others to proactively monitor their health, for stress and other factors.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
As scientists work on wearable technology that promises to revolutionize health care, researchers from the University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M University, College Station, are reporting a big win in the pursuit of one highly popular target: a noninvasive solution for continuous blood pressure monitoring at home.
Not only that, but this development comes in the surprising form of a temporary tattoo. That’s right: Just like the kind that children like to wear.
the researchers report in their new study.
“With this new technology, we are going to have an opportunity to understand how our blood pressure fluctuates during the day. We will be able to quantify how stress is impacting us,” says Roozbeh Jafari, PhD, a professor of biomedical engineering, electrical engineering, and computer science at Texas A&M, College Station, and a coauthor of the study.
Revealing the whole picture, not just dots
At-home blood pressure monitors have been around for many years now. They work just like the blood pressure machines doctors use at their office: You place your arm inside a cuff, press a button, feel a squeeze on your arm, and get a reading.
While results from this method are accurate, they are also just a moment in time. Our blood pressure can vary greatly throughout the day – especially among people who have labile hypertension, where blood pressure changes from one extreme to the other. So, looking at point-in-time readings is a bit like focusing on a few dots inside of a pointillism painting – one might miss the bigger picture.
Doctors may also find continuous monitoring useful for getting rid of false readings from “white coat syndrome.” Basically, this means a person’s blood pressure rises due to the anxiety of being in a doctor’s office but is not true hypertension.
Bottom line: The ability to monitor a person’s blood pressure continuously for hours or even days can provide clearer, and more accurate, insights into a person’s health.
How do health monitoring tattoos work?
Electronic tattoos for health monitoring are not completely new. John A. Rogers, PhD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, first put forth the idea of monitoring through temporary tattoos 12 years ago. Some concepts, such as UV monitoring tattoos, had already been adopted by scientists and put on the market. But the existing models weren’t suitable for monitoring blood pressure, according to Deji Akinwande, PhD, a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Texas at Austin and another coauthor of the study.
“[UV monitoring tattoos] are very thick,” he says. “They create too much movement when used to measure blood pressure because they slide around.”
So, the Texas-based research team worked to develop an option that was slimmer and more stable.
“The key ingredient within e-tattoos is graphene,” says Dr. Akinwande.
Graphene is carbon that’s similar to what’s inside your graphite pencil. The material is conductive, meaning it can conduct small electrical currents through the skin. For blood pressure monitoring, graphene promotes bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), which is like the technology used in smart scales that measure body fat.
With e-tattoos, the thin layers of graphene stick to the skin and do not slide around, getting rid of “artifacts,” or bad data. The graphene e-tattoos can be worn on the skin for about a week – or roughly as long as the temporary tattoos kids love.
Once the graphene captures the raw data, a machine learning algorithm interprets the information and provides results in units used for measuring blood pressure: millimeters of mercury (mmHg), commonly referred to as blood pressure “points.”
How accurate are the results? The tests measured blood pressure within 0.2 ± 5.8 mmHg (systolic), 0.2 ± 4.5 mmHg (diastolic), and 0.1 ± 5.3 mmHg (mean arterial pressure). In other words: If this were a basketball player shooting baskets, the great majority of shots taken would be swishes and occasionally a few would hit the rim. That means good accuracy.
When will e-tattoos be available?
The teams of Dr. Jafari and Dr. Akinwande are working on a second generation of their e-tattoo that they expect to be available in the next 5 years.
The upgrade they envision will be smaller and compatible with smartwatches and phones that use Bluetooth technology and near-field communication (NFC) to transfer data and give it power. With these updates, e-tattoos for continuous blood pressure monitoring will be ready for clinical trials and mainstream use soon after.
“Everyone can benefit from knowing their blood pressure recordings,” Dr. Akinwande says. “It is not just for people at risk for hypertension but for others to proactively monitor their health, for stress and other factors.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Novel liquid biopsy may identify NASH, fibrosis
A novel liquid biopsy test, which uses two circulating proteins, appears to be effective for diagnosing two major liver conditions, according to a new study published in Gut.
The test could allow clinicians to determine the staging of both liver fibrosis and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, wrote the researchers led by Giulia Angelini, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow focused on nonalcoholic fatty liver disease pathophysiology at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Rome.
“The diagnosis of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) currently relies on invasive liver biopsy,” they wrote. “There is, therefore, an urgent need to find noninvasive biomarkers for NASH diagnosis, disease progression, and intervention response monitoring.”
The research team sought to identify a biomarker and algorithm able to predict the presence and severity of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) or liver fibrosis. The study evaluated two proteins found in circulating monocytes, which are a type of white blood cell: PLIN2 as a predictor of histological NASH and RAB14 levels as a predictor of liver fibrosis.
The multicenter study included 250 patients, with 100 subjects in the discovery cohort from the Bariatric Surgery Versus Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis trial, or BRAVES, and 150 subjects in the validation cohort from the Liquid Biopsy for NASH and Liver Fibrosis trial, or LIBRA. The patients had histologically proven nonalcoholic fatty liver disease or NASH with or without fibrosis.
After careful molecular analysis, the research team used neural network classifiers to predict the presence of NASH and NASH stages. The analysis for the prediction of the presence of NASH produced an accuracy of 93% in the discovery cohort and 92% in the validation cohort. Sensitivity and specificity were 95% and 90% in the discovery group and 88% and 100% in the validation group, respectively. The research team also used a neural network analysis to predict the stages of NASH, which showed an accuracy of 85% in the discovery group and 85.2% in the validation cohort.
RAB14 was used to predict liver fibrosis with a logistic model that included waist circumference, age, plasma glucose, high-density lipoprotein, and alanine aminotransferase. In the discovery group, accuracy was 99.2%, sensitivity was 100%, and specificity was 95.8%. In the validation group, accuracy was 97.6%, sensitivity was 99%, and specificity was 89.6%.
When RAB14 was used as the only variable in the model, the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity in the discovery cohort were 86.4%, 96%, and 45.8%, respectively. In the validation cohort, they were 92.4%, 96.9%, and 34.5%, respectively. In both cohorts, half of the subjects without fibrosis were erroneously predicted as having fibrosis, but the diagnosis of fibrosis was correctly predicted in nearly all subjects.
A limitation of the study is that only White subjects were enrolled, which limits the generalizability to other racial/ethnic groups, the investigators wrote, although they don’t expect differences would be seen in other groups.
“PLIN2 and RAB14 may permit diagnosis of NASH and/or liver fibrosis with a simple blood test,” they wrote. “Our biomarkers can be used in community and population studies permitting to investigate the real prevalence of NASH and liver fibrosis. Moreover, since it requires only blood sampling, they are potentially valuable tools for population-based and prevention studies in children.”
A step forward
“Obesity is a silent pandemic with an expected prevalence rate that will exceed 50% globally by 2030, of which 25% of the adults have fatty liver and approximately 6.5% with NASH, a progressive form of fatty liver,” said Kalyan Ram Bhamidimarri, MD, chief of hepatology and associate professor of clinical medicine at the University of Miami, who was not involved in the research. “Liver biopsy is the current clinical standard to diagnose NASH, but relying on an invasive procedure like liver biopsy that is fraught with several risks in a consistently growing volume of individuals with obesity is unsustainable.
“So, there is an unmet need to diagnose NASH without invasive procedures such as liver biopsy,” he said. He pointed out that many of the alternatives to liver biopsy, such as liver stiffness measurements and scoring systems, pose their own difficulties.
On the other hand, he noted that “blood-based tests that correlate well with liver biopsy, the so-called wet biomarkers or liquid liver biopsy, are easier to perform, accessed widely, and could be tested frequently to assess efficacy of therapies.”
The study was funded by Elucidating Pathways of Steatohepatitis (EPOS Horizon 2020), Stratification of Obese Phenotypes to Optimize Future Obesity Therapy (SOPHIA IMI), Metadeq Inc., and support from the Transcampus Initiative. The study authors declared various competing interests, including some who serve as an advisor or stock option holder for Metadeq Limited. Dr. Bhamidimarri reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
A novel liquid biopsy test, which uses two circulating proteins, appears to be effective for diagnosing two major liver conditions, according to a new study published in Gut.
The test could allow clinicians to determine the staging of both liver fibrosis and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, wrote the researchers led by Giulia Angelini, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow focused on nonalcoholic fatty liver disease pathophysiology at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Rome.
“The diagnosis of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) currently relies on invasive liver biopsy,” they wrote. “There is, therefore, an urgent need to find noninvasive biomarkers for NASH diagnosis, disease progression, and intervention response monitoring.”
The research team sought to identify a biomarker and algorithm able to predict the presence and severity of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) or liver fibrosis. The study evaluated two proteins found in circulating monocytes, which are a type of white blood cell: PLIN2 as a predictor of histological NASH and RAB14 levels as a predictor of liver fibrosis.
The multicenter study included 250 patients, with 100 subjects in the discovery cohort from the Bariatric Surgery Versus Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis trial, or BRAVES, and 150 subjects in the validation cohort from the Liquid Biopsy for NASH and Liver Fibrosis trial, or LIBRA. The patients had histologically proven nonalcoholic fatty liver disease or NASH with or without fibrosis.
After careful molecular analysis, the research team used neural network classifiers to predict the presence of NASH and NASH stages. The analysis for the prediction of the presence of NASH produced an accuracy of 93% in the discovery cohort and 92% in the validation cohort. Sensitivity and specificity were 95% and 90% in the discovery group and 88% and 100% in the validation group, respectively. The research team also used a neural network analysis to predict the stages of NASH, which showed an accuracy of 85% in the discovery group and 85.2% in the validation cohort.
RAB14 was used to predict liver fibrosis with a logistic model that included waist circumference, age, plasma glucose, high-density lipoprotein, and alanine aminotransferase. In the discovery group, accuracy was 99.2%, sensitivity was 100%, and specificity was 95.8%. In the validation group, accuracy was 97.6%, sensitivity was 99%, and specificity was 89.6%.
When RAB14 was used as the only variable in the model, the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity in the discovery cohort were 86.4%, 96%, and 45.8%, respectively. In the validation cohort, they were 92.4%, 96.9%, and 34.5%, respectively. In both cohorts, half of the subjects without fibrosis were erroneously predicted as having fibrosis, but the diagnosis of fibrosis was correctly predicted in nearly all subjects.
A limitation of the study is that only White subjects were enrolled, which limits the generalizability to other racial/ethnic groups, the investigators wrote, although they don’t expect differences would be seen in other groups.
“PLIN2 and RAB14 may permit diagnosis of NASH and/or liver fibrosis with a simple blood test,” they wrote. “Our biomarkers can be used in community and population studies permitting to investigate the real prevalence of NASH and liver fibrosis. Moreover, since it requires only blood sampling, they are potentially valuable tools for population-based and prevention studies in children.”
A step forward
“Obesity is a silent pandemic with an expected prevalence rate that will exceed 50% globally by 2030, of which 25% of the adults have fatty liver and approximately 6.5% with NASH, a progressive form of fatty liver,” said Kalyan Ram Bhamidimarri, MD, chief of hepatology and associate professor of clinical medicine at the University of Miami, who was not involved in the research. “Liver biopsy is the current clinical standard to diagnose NASH, but relying on an invasive procedure like liver biopsy that is fraught with several risks in a consistently growing volume of individuals with obesity is unsustainable.
“So, there is an unmet need to diagnose NASH without invasive procedures such as liver biopsy,” he said. He pointed out that many of the alternatives to liver biopsy, such as liver stiffness measurements and scoring systems, pose their own difficulties.
On the other hand, he noted that “blood-based tests that correlate well with liver biopsy, the so-called wet biomarkers or liquid liver biopsy, are easier to perform, accessed widely, and could be tested frequently to assess efficacy of therapies.”
The study was funded by Elucidating Pathways of Steatohepatitis (EPOS Horizon 2020), Stratification of Obese Phenotypes to Optimize Future Obesity Therapy (SOPHIA IMI), Metadeq Inc., and support from the Transcampus Initiative. The study authors declared various competing interests, including some who serve as an advisor or stock option holder for Metadeq Limited. Dr. Bhamidimarri reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
A novel liquid biopsy test, which uses two circulating proteins, appears to be effective for diagnosing two major liver conditions, according to a new study published in Gut.
The test could allow clinicians to determine the staging of both liver fibrosis and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, wrote the researchers led by Giulia Angelini, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow focused on nonalcoholic fatty liver disease pathophysiology at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Rome.
“The diagnosis of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) currently relies on invasive liver biopsy,” they wrote. “There is, therefore, an urgent need to find noninvasive biomarkers for NASH diagnosis, disease progression, and intervention response monitoring.”
The research team sought to identify a biomarker and algorithm able to predict the presence and severity of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) or liver fibrosis. The study evaluated two proteins found in circulating monocytes, which are a type of white blood cell: PLIN2 as a predictor of histological NASH and RAB14 levels as a predictor of liver fibrosis.
The multicenter study included 250 patients, with 100 subjects in the discovery cohort from the Bariatric Surgery Versus Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis trial, or BRAVES, and 150 subjects in the validation cohort from the Liquid Biopsy for NASH and Liver Fibrosis trial, or LIBRA. The patients had histologically proven nonalcoholic fatty liver disease or NASH with or without fibrosis.
After careful molecular analysis, the research team used neural network classifiers to predict the presence of NASH and NASH stages. The analysis for the prediction of the presence of NASH produced an accuracy of 93% in the discovery cohort and 92% in the validation cohort. Sensitivity and specificity were 95% and 90% in the discovery group and 88% and 100% in the validation group, respectively. The research team also used a neural network analysis to predict the stages of NASH, which showed an accuracy of 85% in the discovery group and 85.2% in the validation cohort.
RAB14 was used to predict liver fibrosis with a logistic model that included waist circumference, age, plasma glucose, high-density lipoprotein, and alanine aminotransferase. In the discovery group, accuracy was 99.2%, sensitivity was 100%, and specificity was 95.8%. In the validation group, accuracy was 97.6%, sensitivity was 99%, and specificity was 89.6%.
When RAB14 was used as the only variable in the model, the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity in the discovery cohort were 86.4%, 96%, and 45.8%, respectively. In the validation cohort, they were 92.4%, 96.9%, and 34.5%, respectively. In both cohorts, half of the subjects without fibrosis were erroneously predicted as having fibrosis, but the diagnosis of fibrosis was correctly predicted in nearly all subjects.
A limitation of the study is that only White subjects were enrolled, which limits the generalizability to other racial/ethnic groups, the investigators wrote, although they don’t expect differences would be seen in other groups.
“PLIN2 and RAB14 may permit diagnosis of NASH and/or liver fibrosis with a simple blood test,” they wrote. “Our biomarkers can be used in community and population studies permitting to investigate the real prevalence of NASH and liver fibrosis. Moreover, since it requires only blood sampling, they are potentially valuable tools for population-based and prevention studies in children.”
A step forward
“Obesity is a silent pandemic with an expected prevalence rate that will exceed 50% globally by 2030, of which 25% of the adults have fatty liver and approximately 6.5% with NASH, a progressive form of fatty liver,” said Kalyan Ram Bhamidimarri, MD, chief of hepatology and associate professor of clinical medicine at the University of Miami, who was not involved in the research. “Liver biopsy is the current clinical standard to diagnose NASH, but relying on an invasive procedure like liver biopsy that is fraught with several risks in a consistently growing volume of individuals with obesity is unsustainable.
“So, there is an unmet need to diagnose NASH without invasive procedures such as liver biopsy,” he said. He pointed out that many of the alternatives to liver biopsy, such as liver stiffness measurements and scoring systems, pose their own difficulties.
On the other hand, he noted that “blood-based tests that correlate well with liver biopsy, the so-called wet biomarkers or liquid liver biopsy, are easier to perform, accessed widely, and could be tested frequently to assess efficacy of therapies.”
The study was funded by Elucidating Pathways of Steatohepatitis (EPOS Horizon 2020), Stratification of Obese Phenotypes to Optimize Future Obesity Therapy (SOPHIA IMI), Metadeq Inc., and support from the Transcampus Initiative. The study authors declared various competing interests, including some who serve as an advisor or stock option holder for Metadeq Limited. Dr. Bhamidimarri reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
FROM GUT
SCLC Treatment
Two distinct phenotypes of COVID-related myocarditis emerge
Researchers from France have identified two distinct phenotypes of fulminant COVID-19–related myocarditis in adults, with different clinical presentations, immunologic profiles, and outcomes.
Differentiation between the two bioclinical entities is important to understand for patient management and further pathophysiological studies, they said.
The first phenotype occurs early (within a few days) in acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, with active viral replication (polymerase chain reaction positive) in adults who meet criteria for multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-A+).
In this early phenotype, there is “limited systemic inflammation without skin and mucosal involvement, but myocardial dysfunction is fulminant and frequently associated with large pericardial effusions. These cases more often require extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO],” Guy Gorochov, MD, PhD, Sorbonne University, Paris, said in an interview.
The second is a delayed, postinfectious, immune-driven phenotype that occurs in adults who fail to meet the criteria for MIS-A (MIS-A–).
This phenotype occurs weeks after SARS-CoV-2 infection, usually beyond detectable active viral replication (PCR–) in the context of specific immune response and severe systemic inflammation with skin and mucosal involvement. Myocardial dysfunction is more progressive and rarely associated with large pericardial effusions, Dr. Gorochov explained.
The study was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Evolving understanding
The findings are based on a retrospective analysis of 38 patients without a history of COVID-19 vaccination who were admitted to the intensive care unit from March 2020 to June 2021 for suspected fulminant COVID-19 myocarditis.
Patients were confirmed to have SARS-CoV-2 infection by PCR and/or by serologic testing. As noted in other studies, the patients were predominantly young men (66%; median age, 27.5 years). Twenty-five (66%) patients were MIS-A+ and 13 (34%) were MIS-A–.
In general, the MIS-A– patients were sicker and had worse outcomes.
Specifically, compared with the MIS-A+ patients, MIS-A– patients had a shorter time between the onset of COVID-19 symptoms and the development of myocarditis, a shorter time to ICU admission, and more severe presentations assessed using lower left ventricular ejection fraction and sequential organ failure assessment scores.
MIS-A– patients also had higher lactate levels, were more likely to need venoarterial ECMO (92% vs 16%), had higher ICU mortality (31% vs. 4%), and a had lower probability of survival at 3 months (68% vs. 96%), compared with their MIS-A+ peers.
Immunologic differences
The immunologic profiles of these two distinct clinical phenotypes also differed.
In MIS-A– early-type COVID-19 myocarditis, RNA polymerase III autoantibodies are frequently positive and serum levels of antiviral interferon-alpha and granulocyte-attracting interleukin-8 are elevated.
In contrast, in MIS-A+ delayed-type COVID-19 myocarditis, RNA polymerase III autoantibodies are negative and serum levels of IL-17 and IL-22 are highly elevated.
“We suggest that IL-17 and IL-22 are novel criteria that should help to assess in adults the recently recognized MIS-A,” Dr. Gorochov told this news organization. “It should be tested whether IL-17 and IL-22 are also elevated in children with MIS-C.”
The researchers also observed “extremely” high serum IL-10 levels in both patient groups. This has been previously associated with severe myocardial injury and an increase in the risk for death in severe COVID-19 patients.
The researchers said the phenotypic clustering of patients with fulminant COVID-19–related myocarditis “seems relevant” for their management.
MIS-A– cases, owing to the high risk for evolution toward refractory cardiogenic shock, should be “urgently” referred to a center with venoarterial ECMO and closely monitored to prevent a “too-late” cannulation, especially under cardiopulmonary resuscitation, known to be associated with poor outcomes, they advised.
They noted that the five patients who died in their series had late venoarterial ECMO implantation, while undergoing multiple organ failures or resuscitation.
Conversely, the risk for evolution to refractory cardiogenic shock is lower in MIS-A+ cases. However, identifying MIS-A+ cases is “all the more important given that numerous data support the efficacy of corticosteroids and/or intravenous immunoglobulins in MIS-C,” Dr. Gorochov and colleagues wrote.
The authors of a linked editorial said the French team should be “commended on their work in furthering our understanding of fulminant myocarditis related to COVID-19 infection.”
Ajith Nair, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, and Anita Deswal, MD, MPH, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, both in Houston, noted that fulminant myocarditis is rare and can result from either of two mechanisms: viral tropism or an immune-mediated mechanism.
“It remains to be seen whether using antiviral therapy versus immunomodulatory therapy on the basis of clinical and cytokine profiles will yield benefits,” they wrote.
“Fulminant myocarditis invariably requires hemodynamic support and carries a high mortality risk if it is recognized late. However, the long-term prognosis in patients who survive the critical period is favorable, with recovery of myocardial function,” they added.
“This study highlights the ever-shifting understanding of the pathophysiology and therapeutic approaches to fulminant myocarditis,” Dr. Nair and Dr. Deswal concluded.
This research was supported in part by the Foundation of France, French National Research Agency, Sorbonne University, and Clinical Research Hospital. The researchers have filed a patent application based on these results. Dr. Nair and Dr. Deswal have no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Researchers from France have identified two distinct phenotypes of fulminant COVID-19–related myocarditis in adults, with different clinical presentations, immunologic profiles, and outcomes.
Differentiation between the two bioclinical entities is important to understand for patient management and further pathophysiological studies, they said.
The first phenotype occurs early (within a few days) in acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, with active viral replication (polymerase chain reaction positive) in adults who meet criteria for multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-A+).
In this early phenotype, there is “limited systemic inflammation without skin and mucosal involvement, but myocardial dysfunction is fulminant and frequently associated with large pericardial effusions. These cases more often require extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO],” Guy Gorochov, MD, PhD, Sorbonne University, Paris, said in an interview.
The second is a delayed, postinfectious, immune-driven phenotype that occurs in adults who fail to meet the criteria for MIS-A (MIS-A–).
This phenotype occurs weeks after SARS-CoV-2 infection, usually beyond detectable active viral replication (PCR–) in the context of specific immune response and severe systemic inflammation with skin and mucosal involvement. Myocardial dysfunction is more progressive and rarely associated with large pericardial effusions, Dr. Gorochov explained.
The study was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Evolving understanding
The findings are based on a retrospective analysis of 38 patients without a history of COVID-19 vaccination who were admitted to the intensive care unit from March 2020 to June 2021 for suspected fulminant COVID-19 myocarditis.
Patients were confirmed to have SARS-CoV-2 infection by PCR and/or by serologic testing. As noted in other studies, the patients were predominantly young men (66%; median age, 27.5 years). Twenty-five (66%) patients were MIS-A+ and 13 (34%) were MIS-A–.
In general, the MIS-A– patients were sicker and had worse outcomes.
Specifically, compared with the MIS-A+ patients, MIS-A– patients had a shorter time between the onset of COVID-19 symptoms and the development of myocarditis, a shorter time to ICU admission, and more severe presentations assessed using lower left ventricular ejection fraction and sequential organ failure assessment scores.
MIS-A– patients also had higher lactate levels, were more likely to need venoarterial ECMO (92% vs 16%), had higher ICU mortality (31% vs. 4%), and a had lower probability of survival at 3 months (68% vs. 96%), compared with their MIS-A+ peers.
Immunologic differences
The immunologic profiles of these two distinct clinical phenotypes also differed.
In MIS-A– early-type COVID-19 myocarditis, RNA polymerase III autoantibodies are frequently positive and serum levels of antiviral interferon-alpha and granulocyte-attracting interleukin-8 are elevated.
In contrast, in MIS-A+ delayed-type COVID-19 myocarditis, RNA polymerase III autoantibodies are negative and serum levels of IL-17 and IL-22 are highly elevated.
“We suggest that IL-17 and IL-22 are novel criteria that should help to assess in adults the recently recognized MIS-A,” Dr. Gorochov told this news organization. “It should be tested whether IL-17 and IL-22 are also elevated in children with MIS-C.”
The researchers also observed “extremely” high serum IL-10 levels in both patient groups. This has been previously associated with severe myocardial injury and an increase in the risk for death in severe COVID-19 patients.
The researchers said the phenotypic clustering of patients with fulminant COVID-19–related myocarditis “seems relevant” for their management.
MIS-A– cases, owing to the high risk for evolution toward refractory cardiogenic shock, should be “urgently” referred to a center with venoarterial ECMO and closely monitored to prevent a “too-late” cannulation, especially under cardiopulmonary resuscitation, known to be associated with poor outcomes, they advised.
They noted that the five patients who died in their series had late venoarterial ECMO implantation, while undergoing multiple organ failures or resuscitation.
Conversely, the risk for evolution to refractory cardiogenic shock is lower in MIS-A+ cases. However, identifying MIS-A+ cases is “all the more important given that numerous data support the efficacy of corticosteroids and/or intravenous immunoglobulins in MIS-C,” Dr. Gorochov and colleagues wrote.
The authors of a linked editorial said the French team should be “commended on their work in furthering our understanding of fulminant myocarditis related to COVID-19 infection.”
Ajith Nair, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, and Anita Deswal, MD, MPH, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, both in Houston, noted that fulminant myocarditis is rare and can result from either of two mechanisms: viral tropism or an immune-mediated mechanism.
“It remains to be seen whether using antiviral therapy versus immunomodulatory therapy on the basis of clinical and cytokine profiles will yield benefits,” they wrote.
“Fulminant myocarditis invariably requires hemodynamic support and carries a high mortality risk if it is recognized late. However, the long-term prognosis in patients who survive the critical period is favorable, with recovery of myocardial function,” they added.
“This study highlights the ever-shifting understanding of the pathophysiology and therapeutic approaches to fulminant myocarditis,” Dr. Nair and Dr. Deswal concluded.
This research was supported in part by the Foundation of France, French National Research Agency, Sorbonne University, and Clinical Research Hospital. The researchers have filed a patent application based on these results. Dr. Nair and Dr. Deswal have no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Researchers from France have identified two distinct phenotypes of fulminant COVID-19–related myocarditis in adults, with different clinical presentations, immunologic profiles, and outcomes.
Differentiation between the two bioclinical entities is important to understand for patient management and further pathophysiological studies, they said.
The first phenotype occurs early (within a few days) in acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, with active viral replication (polymerase chain reaction positive) in adults who meet criteria for multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-A+).
In this early phenotype, there is “limited systemic inflammation without skin and mucosal involvement, but myocardial dysfunction is fulminant and frequently associated with large pericardial effusions. These cases more often require extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO],” Guy Gorochov, MD, PhD, Sorbonne University, Paris, said in an interview.
The second is a delayed, postinfectious, immune-driven phenotype that occurs in adults who fail to meet the criteria for MIS-A (MIS-A–).
This phenotype occurs weeks after SARS-CoV-2 infection, usually beyond detectable active viral replication (PCR–) in the context of specific immune response and severe systemic inflammation with skin and mucosal involvement. Myocardial dysfunction is more progressive and rarely associated with large pericardial effusions, Dr. Gorochov explained.
The study was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Evolving understanding
The findings are based on a retrospective analysis of 38 patients without a history of COVID-19 vaccination who were admitted to the intensive care unit from March 2020 to June 2021 for suspected fulminant COVID-19 myocarditis.
Patients were confirmed to have SARS-CoV-2 infection by PCR and/or by serologic testing. As noted in other studies, the patients were predominantly young men (66%; median age, 27.5 years). Twenty-five (66%) patients were MIS-A+ and 13 (34%) were MIS-A–.
In general, the MIS-A– patients were sicker and had worse outcomes.
Specifically, compared with the MIS-A+ patients, MIS-A– patients had a shorter time between the onset of COVID-19 symptoms and the development of myocarditis, a shorter time to ICU admission, and more severe presentations assessed using lower left ventricular ejection fraction and sequential organ failure assessment scores.
MIS-A– patients also had higher lactate levels, were more likely to need venoarterial ECMO (92% vs 16%), had higher ICU mortality (31% vs. 4%), and a had lower probability of survival at 3 months (68% vs. 96%), compared with their MIS-A+ peers.
Immunologic differences
The immunologic profiles of these two distinct clinical phenotypes also differed.
In MIS-A– early-type COVID-19 myocarditis, RNA polymerase III autoantibodies are frequently positive and serum levels of antiviral interferon-alpha and granulocyte-attracting interleukin-8 are elevated.
In contrast, in MIS-A+ delayed-type COVID-19 myocarditis, RNA polymerase III autoantibodies are negative and serum levels of IL-17 and IL-22 are highly elevated.
“We suggest that IL-17 and IL-22 are novel criteria that should help to assess in adults the recently recognized MIS-A,” Dr. Gorochov told this news organization. “It should be tested whether IL-17 and IL-22 are also elevated in children with MIS-C.”
The researchers also observed “extremely” high serum IL-10 levels in both patient groups. This has been previously associated with severe myocardial injury and an increase in the risk for death in severe COVID-19 patients.
The researchers said the phenotypic clustering of patients with fulminant COVID-19–related myocarditis “seems relevant” for their management.
MIS-A– cases, owing to the high risk for evolution toward refractory cardiogenic shock, should be “urgently” referred to a center with venoarterial ECMO and closely monitored to prevent a “too-late” cannulation, especially under cardiopulmonary resuscitation, known to be associated with poor outcomes, they advised.
They noted that the five patients who died in their series had late venoarterial ECMO implantation, while undergoing multiple organ failures or resuscitation.
Conversely, the risk for evolution to refractory cardiogenic shock is lower in MIS-A+ cases. However, identifying MIS-A+ cases is “all the more important given that numerous data support the efficacy of corticosteroids and/or intravenous immunoglobulins in MIS-C,” Dr. Gorochov and colleagues wrote.
The authors of a linked editorial said the French team should be “commended on their work in furthering our understanding of fulminant myocarditis related to COVID-19 infection.”
Ajith Nair, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, and Anita Deswal, MD, MPH, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, both in Houston, noted that fulminant myocarditis is rare and can result from either of two mechanisms: viral tropism or an immune-mediated mechanism.
“It remains to be seen whether using antiviral therapy versus immunomodulatory therapy on the basis of clinical and cytokine profiles will yield benefits,” they wrote.
“Fulminant myocarditis invariably requires hemodynamic support and carries a high mortality risk if it is recognized late. However, the long-term prognosis in patients who survive the critical period is favorable, with recovery of myocardial function,” they added.
“This study highlights the ever-shifting understanding of the pathophysiology and therapeutic approaches to fulminant myocarditis,” Dr. Nair and Dr. Deswal concluded.
This research was supported in part by the Foundation of France, French National Research Agency, Sorbonne University, and Clinical Research Hospital. The researchers have filed a patent application based on these results. Dr. Nair and Dr. Deswal have no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
Psoriatic Arthritis Medications
Questionnaire for patients with psoriasis might identify risk of axial involvement
Preliminary findings are encouraging
NEW YORK – A questionnaire-based screening tool appears to accelerate the time to diagnosis of axial involvement in patients presenting with psoriasis but no clinical signs of joint pain, according to a study called ATTRACT that was presented at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.
The risk of a delayed diagnosis of an axial component in patients with psoriasis, meaning a delay in the underlying diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), is substantial, according to Devis Benfaremo, MD, of the department of clinical and molecular science at Marche Polytechnic University, Ancona, Italy.
There is “no consensus for the best strategy to achieve early detection of joint disease” in patients presenting with psoriasis, but Dr. Benfaremo pointed out that missing axial involvement is a particular problem because it is far more likely than swollen joints to be missed on clinical examination.
While about one in three patients with psoriasis have or will develop psoriatic arthritis, according to the National Psoriasis Foundation, delays in diagnosis are common, according to Dr. Benfaremo. In patients with undiagnosed PsA characterized by axial involvement alone, subtle symptoms can be overlooked or attributed to other causes.
There are several screening questionnaires to detect joint symptoms in patients presenting with psoriasis, such as the five-question Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool, but the questionnaire tested in the ATTRACT trial is focused on detecting axial involvement specifically. It was characterized as the first to do so.
In the ongoing ATTRACT study, 253 patients with psoriasis but no history of PsA or axial disease have been enrolled so far. In the study, patients are screened for PsA based on a patient-completed yes-or-no questionnaire, which takes only a few minutes to complete.
“It is a validated questionnaire for axial [spondyloarthritis], but we have adopted it for detection of psoriasis patients with PsA,” Dr. Benfaremo explained.
The questionnaire for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) was initially evaluated and validated by Fabian Proft, MD, head of the clinical trials unit at Charité Hospital, Berlin. In addition to a patient self-completed questionnaire, Dr. Proft and coinvestigators have also created a related questionnaire to be administered by physicians.
In the ATTRACT study, patients completed the questionnaire on an electronic device in the waiting room. Positive answers to specific questions about symptoms, which addressed back pain and joint function as well as joint symptoms, divided patients into three groups:
- Group A patients did not respond positively to any of the symptom questions that would prompt suspicion of axial disease. These represented about one-third of those screened so far.
- Group B patients were those who answered positively to at least two questions that related to a high suspicion of axial involvement. These represented 45% of patients.
- The remaining patients were placed in Group C, a category of intermediate risk based on positive responses to some, but not all, questions relating to axial symptoms.
Those in group B are being referred to rheumatology. Patients in group C are given “conditional” eligibility based on the presence of additional risk factors.
AxSpA screening tool ‘makes sense’ for potential use in PsA
The primary outcome of the ATTRACT trial is early identification of axial PsA. Correctly identifying patients with or without peripheral joint involvement is one of several secondary outcomes. The identification of patients who fulfill Assessment Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS) criteria for axSpA is another secondary outcome.
Of the 114 patients placed in group B and analyzed so far, 87 have completed an assessment by a rheumatologist with laboratory analyses and imaging, as well as a clinical examination.
Of those 87 assessed by a rheumatologist, 17 did not have either axial or peripheral inflammation. Another 19 were diagnosed with axial disease, including 14 who met ASAS criteria. A total of 10 were classified as having PsA with peripheral inflammation, according to Classification for Psoriatic Arthritis criteria, and 41 are still being considered for a diagnosis of axial or peripheral PsA on the basis of further workup.
“Among the patients with axial PsA, only 10% had elevated C-reactive protein levels,” according to Dr. Benfaremo, echoing previous evidence that inflammatory biomarkers by themselves have limited value for identifying psoriasis patients at high risk of joint involvement.
The findings are preliminary, but Dr. Benfaremo reported that the questionnaire is showing promise for the routine stratification of patients who should be considered for a rheumatology consultation.
If further analyses validate the clinical utility of these stratifications, there is the potential for a substantial acceleration to the diagnosis of PsA.
When contacted to comment about this work, Dr. Proft said that there is an important need for new strategies reduce delay in the diagnosis of PsA among patients presenting with psoriasis. He thinks the screening tool he developed for axSpA “makes sense” as a potential tool in PsA.
“If validated, this could be a very useful for earlier identification of PsA,” Dr. Proft said. He reiterated the importance of focusing on axial involvement.
“Previous screening tools have focused on symptoms of PsA more generally, but inflammation in the peripheral joints is something that you can easily see in most patients,” he said.
In addition to the patient-completed questionnaire and the physician-administered questionnaire, Dr. Proft has also evaluated an online self-referral tool for patients.
“If we can diagnose PsA earlier in the course of disease, we can start treatment earlier, prevent or delay joint damage, and potentially improve outcomes for patients,” Dr. Proft said. He considers this an important direction of research.
Dr. Benfaremo and Dr. Proft reported no potential conflicts of interest.
Preliminary findings are encouraging
Preliminary findings are encouraging
NEW YORK – A questionnaire-based screening tool appears to accelerate the time to diagnosis of axial involvement in patients presenting with psoriasis but no clinical signs of joint pain, according to a study called ATTRACT that was presented at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.
The risk of a delayed diagnosis of an axial component in patients with psoriasis, meaning a delay in the underlying diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), is substantial, according to Devis Benfaremo, MD, of the department of clinical and molecular science at Marche Polytechnic University, Ancona, Italy.
There is “no consensus for the best strategy to achieve early detection of joint disease” in patients presenting with psoriasis, but Dr. Benfaremo pointed out that missing axial involvement is a particular problem because it is far more likely than swollen joints to be missed on clinical examination.
While about one in three patients with psoriasis have or will develop psoriatic arthritis, according to the National Psoriasis Foundation, delays in diagnosis are common, according to Dr. Benfaremo. In patients with undiagnosed PsA characterized by axial involvement alone, subtle symptoms can be overlooked or attributed to other causes.
There are several screening questionnaires to detect joint symptoms in patients presenting with psoriasis, such as the five-question Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool, but the questionnaire tested in the ATTRACT trial is focused on detecting axial involvement specifically. It was characterized as the first to do so.
In the ongoing ATTRACT study, 253 patients with psoriasis but no history of PsA or axial disease have been enrolled so far. In the study, patients are screened for PsA based on a patient-completed yes-or-no questionnaire, which takes only a few minutes to complete.
“It is a validated questionnaire for axial [spondyloarthritis], but we have adopted it for detection of psoriasis patients with PsA,” Dr. Benfaremo explained.
The questionnaire for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) was initially evaluated and validated by Fabian Proft, MD, head of the clinical trials unit at Charité Hospital, Berlin. In addition to a patient self-completed questionnaire, Dr. Proft and coinvestigators have also created a related questionnaire to be administered by physicians.
In the ATTRACT study, patients completed the questionnaire on an electronic device in the waiting room. Positive answers to specific questions about symptoms, which addressed back pain and joint function as well as joint symptoms, divided patients into three groups:
- Group A patients did not respond positively to any of the symptom questions that would prompt suspicion of axial disease. These represented about one-third of those screened so far.
- Group B patients were those who answered positively to at least two questions that related to a high suspicion of axial involvement. These represented 45% of patients.
- The remaining patients were placed in Group C, a category of intermediate risk based on positive responses to some, but not all, questions relating to axial symptoms.
Those in group B are being referred to rheumatology. Patients in group C are given “conditional” eligibility based on the presence of additional risk factors.
AxSpA screening tool ‘makes sense’ for potential use in PsA
The primary outcome of the ATTRACT trial is early identification of axial PsA. Correctly identifying patients with or without peripheral joint involvement is one of several secondary outcomes. The identification of patients who fulfill Assessment Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS) criteria for axSpA is another secondary outcome.
Of the 114 patients placed in group B and analyzed so far, 87 have completed an assessment by a rheumatologist with laboratory analyses and imaging, as well as a clinical examination.
Of those 87 assessed by a rheumatologist, 17 did not have either axial or peripheral inflammation. Another 19 were diagnosed with axial disease, including 14 who met ASAS criteria. A total of 10 were classified as having PsA with peripheral inflammation, according to Classification for Psoriatic Arthritis criteria, and 41 are still being considered for a diagnosis of axial or peripheral PsA on the basis of further workup.
“Among the patients with axial PsA, only 10% had elevated C-reactive protein levels,” according to Dr. Benfaremo, echoing previous evidence that inflammatory biomarkers by themselves have limited value for identifying psoriasis patients at high risk of joint involvement.
The findings are preliminary, but Dr. Benfaremo reported that the questionnaire is showing promise for the routine stratification of patients who should be considered for a rheumatology consultation.
If further analyses validate the clinical utility of these stratifications, there is the potential for a substantial acceleration to the diagnosis of PsA.
When contacted to comment about this work, Dr. Proft said that there is an important need for new strategies reduce delay in the diagnosis of PsA among patients presenting with psoriasis. He thinks the screening tool he developed for axSpA “makes sense” as a potential tool in PsA.
“If validated, this could be a very useful for earlier identification of PsA,” Dr. Proft said. He reiterated the importance of focusing on axial involvement.
“Previous screening tools have focused on symptoms of PsA more generally, but inflammation in the peripheral joints is something that you can easily see in most patients,” he said.
In addition to the patient-completed questionnaire and the physician-administered questionnaire, Dr. Proft has also evaluated an online self-referral tool for patients.
“If we can diagnose PsA earlier in the course of disease, we can start treatment earlier, prevent or delay joint damage, and potentially improve outcomes for patients,” Dr. Proft said. He considers this an important direction of research.
Dr. Benfaremo and Dr. Proft reported no potential conflicts of interest.
NEW YORK – A questionnaire-based screening tool appears to accelerate the time to diagnosis of axial involvement in patients presenting with psoriasis but no clinical signs of joint pain, according to a study called ATTRACT that was presented at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.
The risk of a delayed diagnosis of an axial component in patients with psoriasis, meaning a delay in the underlying diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), is substantial, according to Devis Benfaremo, MD, of the department of clinical and molecular science at Marche Polytechnic University, Ancona, Italy.
There is “no consensus for the best strategy to achieve early detection of joint disease” in patients presenting with psoriasis, but Dr. Benfaremo pointed out that missing axial involvement is a particular problem because it is far more likely than swollen joints to be missed on clinical examination.
While about one in three patients with psoriasis have or will develop psoriatic arthritis, according to the National Psoriasis Foundation, delays in diagnosis are common, according to Dr. Benfaremo. In patients with undiagnosed PsA characterized by axial involvement alone, subtle symptoms can be overlooked or attributed to other causes.
There are several screening questionnaires to detect joint symptoms in patients presenting with psoriasis, such as the five-question Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool, but the questionnaire tested in the ATTRACT trial is focused on detecting axial involvement specifically. It was characterized as the first to do so.
In the ongoing ATTRACT study, 253 patients with psoriasis but no history of PsA or axial disease have been enrolled so far. In the study, patients are screened for PsA based on a patient-completed yes-or-no questionnaire, which takes only a few minutes to complete.
“It is a validated questionnaire for axial [spondyloarthritis], but we have adopted it for detection of psoriasis patients with PsA,” Dr. Benfaremo explained.
The questionnaire for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) was initially evaluated and validated by Fabian Proft, MD, head of the clinical trials unit at Charité Hospital, Berlin. In addition to a patient self-completed questionnaire, Dr. Proft and coinvestigators have also created a related questionnaire to be administered by physicians.
In the ATTRACT study, patients completed the questionnaire on an electronic device in the waiting room. Positive answers to specific questions about symptoms, which addressed back pain and joint function as well as joint symptoms, divided patients into three groups:
- Group A patients did not respond positively to any of the symptom questions that would prompt suspicion of axial disease. These represented about one-third of those screened so far.
- Group B patients were those who answered positively to at least two questions that related to a high suspicion of axial involvement. These represented 45% of patients.
- The remaining patients were placed in Group C, a category of intermediate risk based on positive responses to some, but not all, questions relating to axial symptoms.
Those in group B are being referred to rheumatology. Patients in group C are given “conditional” eligibility based on the presence of additional risk factors.
AxSpA screening tool ‘makes sense’ for potential use in PsA
The primary outcome of the ATTRACT trial is early identification of axial PsA. Correctly identifying patients with or without peripheral joint involvement is one of several secondary outcomes. The identification of patients who fulfill Assessment Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS) criteria for axSpA is another secondary outcome.
Of the 114 patients placed in group B and analyzed so far, 87 have completed an assessment by a rheumatologist with laboratory analyses and imaging, as well as a clinical examination.
Of those 87 assessed by a rheumatologist, 17 did not have either axial or peripheral inflammation. Another 19 were diagnosed with axial disease, including 14 who met ASAS criteria. A total of 10 were classified as having PsA with peripheral inflammation, according to Classification for Psoriatic Arthritis criteria, and 41 are still being considered for a diagnosis of axial or peripheral PsA on the basis of further workup.
“Among the patients with axial PsA, only 10% had elevated C-reactive protein levels,” according to Dr. Benfaremo, echoing previous evidence that inflammatory biomarkers by themselves have limited value for identifying psoriasis patients at high risk of joint involvement.
The findings are preliminary, but Dr. Benfaremo reported that the questionnaire is showing promise for the routine stratification of patients who should be considered for a rheumatology consultation.
If further analyses validate the clinical utility of these stratifications, there is the potential for a substantial acceleration to the diagnosis of PsA.
When contacted to comment about this work, Dr. Proft said that there is an important need for new strategies reduce delay in the diagnosis of PsA among patients presenting with psoriasis. He thinks the screening tool he developed for axSpA “makes sense” as a potential tool in PsA.
“If validated, this could be a very useful for earlier identification of PsA,” Dr. Proft said. He reiterated the importance of focusing on axial involvement.
“Previous screening tools have focused on symptoms of PsA more generally, but inflammation in the peripheral joints is something that you can easily see in most patients,” he said.
In addition to the patient-completed questionnaire and the physician-administered questionnaire, Dr. Proft has also evaluated an online self-referral tool for patients.
“If we can diagnose PsA earlier in the course of disease, we can start treatment earlier, prevent or delay joint damage, and potentially improve outcomes for patients,” Dr. Proft said. He considers this an important direction of research.
Dr. Benfaremo and Dr. Proft reported no potential conflicts of interest.
AT GRAPPA 2022
Monkeypox: Large study highlights new symptoms
Single ulcers, anal lesions, and mouth sores are all unique symptoms of the current monkeypox outbreak, according to the largest international monkeypox case series to date. These findings underscore the need to broaden case definitions for the disease, researchers say.
“While we expected various skin problems and rashes, we also found that 1 in 10 people had only a single skin lesion in the genital area, and 15% had anal and/or rectal pain,” John Thornhill, MD, PhD, the lead author of the research, said in a press release. Dr. Thornhill is a consultant physician in sexual health and HIV and a clinical senior lecturer at Barts NHS Health Trust and Queen Mary University of London. “These different presentations highlight that monkeypox infections could be missed or easily confused with common sexually transmitted infections such as syphilis or herpes,” he said.
Since April 2022, more than 15,000 cases of monkeypox have been reported in 66 countries where the virus was previously not known to be present. The virus, a less severe cousin of smallpox, is endemic to areas of central and west Africa.
In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers reported clinical details and outcomes of 528 monkeypox infections across 16 countries. All the cases were diagnosed between April 27 and June 24, 2022. Ninety-five percent of the cases were suspected to have been transmitted through sexual activity, 98% of patients identified as gay or bisexual men, and 75% of the patients were White. The median age of patients in this case series was 38 years, and 90% of infections occurred in Europe. Forty-one percent of patients were HIV-positive, and 96% of these individuals were receiving antiretroviral therapy. Among patients whose HIV status was negative or unknown, 57% reported using preexposure prophylaxis against HIV. About 3 in 10 (29%) individuals tested positive for concurrent sexually transmitted infections.
Nearly three out of four patients (73%) had anogenital lesions, and 41% had mucosal lesions. Fifty-four patients had one genital lesion, and 64% had fewer than 10 lesions in total. Fever (62%), swollen lymph nodes (56%), lethargy (41%), and myalgia (31%) were commonly reported symptoms prior to the development of the rash. Seventy patients (13%) required hospitalization, most commonly for severe anorectal pain and soft-tissue superinfection. Just 5% of patients received monkeypox-specific treatment: intravenous or topical cidofovir (2%), tecovirimat (2%), and vaccinia immune globulin (<1%).
The study “importantly reinforces our current understanding that the overwhelming majority of cases have been sexually associated, predominantly in men who have sex with men,” Jeffrey Klausner, MD, PhD, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview with this news organization. He was not involved with the research. “Anyone can get monkeypox, but it is most effectively spread through what we call dense networks – where there is a frequent, close personal contact,” he said. “It just happens that gay men and other men who have sex with men have some of those networks.”
The fact that most lesions are present in the genital and anal region – which is unique to this outbreak – points to transmission of the infection during intimate contact, he noted. Still, there is not enough evidence to suggest that monkeypox is spread through sexual transmission. While most semen samples in the study tested positive for monkeypox viral DNA, it is not known whether there is enough virus present to cause transmission, Dr. Thornhill said. He noted that more research is needed.
Dr. Klausner also emphasized the importance of developing new tests to diagnose monkeypox earlier to prevent spread. The lab test for monkeypox requires a swab from a lesion, but this study showed that most patients had notable symptoms prior to developing the standard rash or lesions, he said. Reliable tests using saliva or throat swabs could help detect infections faster, he noted. Patients are thought to be most contagious when they develop lesions, Dr. Klausner said, so diagnosing patients before this stage would allow them to be isolated sooner.
The California-based lab company Flow Health announced a saliva-based PCR test for monkeypox on July 9, although the Food and Drug Administration cautioned that test results from other sample types beside lesion swabs may be inaccurate. “The FDA is not aware of clinical data supporting the use of other sample types, such as blood or saliva, for monkeypox virus testing,” the agency said in a statement on July 15. “Testing samples not taken from a lesion may lead to false test results.”
Dr. Klausner reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Single ulcers, anal lesions, and mouth sores are all unique symptoms of the current monkeypox outbreak, according to the largest international monkeypox case series to date. These findings underscore the need to broaden case definitions for the disease, researchers say.
“While we expected various skin problems and rashes, we also found that 1 in 10 people had only a single skin lesion in the genital area, and 15% had anal and/or rectal pain,” John Thornhill, MD, PhD, the lead author of the research, said in a press release. Dr. Thornhill is a consultant physician in sexual health and HIV and a clinical senior lecturer at Barts NHS Health Trust and Queen Mary University of London. “These different presentations highlight that monkeypox infections could be missed or easily confused with common sexually transmitted infections such as syphilis or herpes,” he said.
Since April 2022, more than 15,000 cases of monkeypox have been reported in 66 countries where the virus was previously not known to be present. The virus, a less severe cousin of smallpox, is endemic to areas of central and west Africa.
In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers reported clinical details and outcomes of 528 monkeypox infections across 16 countries. All the cases were diagnosed between April 27 and June 24, 2022. Ninety-five percent of the cases were suspected to have been transmitted through sexual activity, 98% of patients identified as gay or bisexual men, and 75% of the patients were White. The median age of patients in this case series was 38 years, and 90% of infections occurred in Europe. Forty-one percent of patients were HIV-positive, and 96% of these individuals were receiving antiretroviral therapy. Among patients whose HIV status was negative or unknown, 57% reported using preexposure prophylaxis against HIV. About 3 in 10 (29%) individuals tested positive for concurrent sexually transmitted infections.
Nearly three out of four patients (73%) had anogenital lesions, and 41% had mucosal lesions. Fifty-four patients had one genital lesion, and 64% had fewer than 10 lesions in total. Fever (62%), swollen lymph nodes (56%), lethargy (41%), and myalgia (31%) were commonly reported symptoms prior to the development of the rash. Seventy patients (13%) required hospitalization, most commonly for severe anorectal pain and soft-tissue superinfection. Just 5% of patients received monkeypox-specific treatment: intravenous or topical cidofovir (2%), tecovirimat (2%), and vaccinia immune globulin (<1%).
The study “importantly reinforces our current understanding that the overwhelming majority of cases have been sexually associated, predominantly in men who have sex with men,” Jeffrey Klausner, MD, PhD, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview with this news organization. He was not involved with the research. “Anyone can get monkeypox, but it is most effectively spread through what we call dense networks – where there is a frequent, close personal contact,” he said. “It just happens that gay men and other men who have sex with men have some of those networks.”
The fact that most lesions are present in the genital and anal region – which is unique to this outbreak – points to transmission of the infection during intimate contact, he noted. Still, there is not enough evidence to suggest that monkeypox is spread through sexual transmission. While most semen samples in the study tested positive for monkeypox viral DNA, it is not known whether there is enough virus present to cause transmission, Dr. Thornhill said. He noted that more research is needed.
Dr. Klausner also emphasized the importance of developing new tests to diagnose monkeypox earlier to prevent spread. The lab test for monkeypox requires a swab from a lesion, but this study showed that most patients had notable symptoms prior to developing the standard rash or lesions, he said. Reliable tests using saliva or throat swabs could help detect infections faster, he noted. Patients are thought to be most contagious when they develop lesions, Dr. Klausner said, so diagnosing patients before this stage would allow them to be isolated sooner.
The California-based lab company Flow Health announced a saliva-based PCR test for monkeypox on July 9, although the Food and Drug Administration cautioned that test results from other sample types beside lesion swabs may be inaccurate. “The FDA is not aware of clinical data supporting the use of other sample types, such as blood or saliva, for monkeypox virus testing,” the agency said in a statement on July 15. “Testing samples not taken from a lesion may lead to false test results.”
Dr. Klausner reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Single ulcers, anal lesions, and mouth sores are all unique symptoms of the current monkeypox outbreak, according to the largest international monkeypox case series to date. These findings underscore the need to broaden case definitions for the disease, researchers say.
“While we expected various skin problems and rashes, we also found that 1 in 10 people had only a single skin lesion in the genital area, and 15% had anal and/or rectal pain,” John Thornhill, MD, PhD, the lead author of the research, said in a press release. Dr. Thornhill is a consultant physician in sexual health and HIV and a clinical senior lecturer at Barts NHS Health Trust and Queen Mary University of London. “These different presentations highlight that monkeypox infections could be missed or easily confused with common sexually transmitted infections such as syphilis or herpes,” he said.
Since April 2022, more than 15,000 cases of monkeypox have been reported in 66 countries where the virus was previously not known to be present. The virus, a less severe cousin of smallpox, is endemic to areas of central and west Africa.
In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers reported clinical details and outcomes of 528 monkeypox infections across 16 countries. All the cases were diagnosed between April 27 and June 24, 2022. Ninety-five percent of the cases were suspected to have been transmitted through sexual activity, 98% of patients identified as gay or bisexual men, and 75% of the patients were White. The median age of patients in this case series was 38 years, and 90% of infections occurred in Europe. Forty-one percent of patients were HIV-positive, and 96% of these individuals were receiving antiretroviral therapy. Among patients whose HIV status was negative or unknown, 57% reported using preexposure prophylaxis against HIV. About 3 in 10 (29%) individuals tested positive for concurrent sexually transmitted infections.
Nearly three out of four patients (73%) had anogenital lesions, and 41% had mucosal lesions. Fifty-four patients had one genital lesion, and 64% had fewer than 10 lesions in total. Fever (62%), swollen lymph nodes (56%), lethargy (41%), and myalgia (31%) were commonly reported symptoms prior to the development of the rash. Seventy patients (13%) required hospitalization, most commonly for severe anorectal pain and soft-tissue superinfection. Just 5% of patients received monkeypox-specific treatment: intravenous or topical cidofovir (2%), tecovirimat (2%), and vaccinia immune globulin (<1%).
The study “importantly reinforces our current understanding that the overwhelming majority of cases have been sexually associated, predominantly in men who have sex with men,” Jeffrey Klausner, MD, PhD, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview with this news organization. He was not involved with the research. “Anyone can get monkeypox, but it is most effectively spread through what we call dense networks – where there is a frequent, close personal contact,” he said. “It just happens that gay men and other men who have sex with men have some of those networks.”
The fact that most lesions are present in the genital and anal region – which is unique to this outbreak – points to transmission of the infection during intimate contact, he noted. Still, there is not enough evidence to suggest that monkeypox is spread through sexual transmission. While most semen samples in the study tested positive for monkeypox viral DNA, it is not known whether there is enough virus present to cause transmission, Dr. Thornhill said. He noted that more research is needed.
Dr. Klausner also emphasized the importance of developing new tests to diagnose monkeypox earlier to prevent spread. The lab test for monkeypox requires a swab from a lesion, but this study showed that most patients had notable symptoms prior to developing the standard rash or lesions, he said. Reliable tests using saliva or throat swabs could help detect infections faster, he noted. Patients are thought to be most contagious when they develop lesions, Dr. Klausner said, so diagnosing patients before this stage would allow them to be isolated sooner.
The California-based lab company Flow Health announced a saliva-based PCR test for monkeypox on July 9, although the Food and Drug Administration cautioned that test results from other sample types beside lesion swabs may be inaccurate. “The FDA is not aware of clinical data supporting the use of other sample types, such as blood or saliva, for monkeypox virus testing,” the agency said in a statement on July 15. “Testing samples not taken from a lesion may lead to false test results.”
Dr. Klausner reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Understanding the neuroscience of narcissism
Editor’s Note: The study covered in this summary was published on ResearchSquare.com as a preprint and has not yet been peer reviewed.
Key takeaway
Why this matters
The cognitive features and phenotypic diversity of narcissism subtypes are partially unknown.
This study integrates both grandiose and vulnerable narcissism into a common framework with cognitive components connected to these traits.
Study design
This study enrolled 478 participants (397 female and 4 did not reveal their gender).
The average age of participants was 35 years (standard deviation, 14.97), with a range of 18-76 years.
A 25-item version of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI), a 40-item self-report measure of narcissism traits, was used to assess the level of authority, grandiose exhibitionism, and entitlement/exploitativeness characteristics of study participants.
The Maladaptive Covert Narcissism Scale, an expanded version of the 23-item self-report Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale, was used to assess the level of hypersensitivity, vulnerability, and entitlement of study participants.
The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, a 10-item self-report scale, was used to assess the level of self-esteem of study participants.
The Young Schema Questionnaire is a 244-item measure of 19 different maladaptive schemas and was used to observe Emotional Deprivation, Vulnerability to Harm and Illness, and Entitlement schemas of study participants.
The Empathizing Quotient is a self-report measure and was used to assess the emotional intelligence of study participants.
Key results
Moderate correlation between grandiose and vulnerable narcissism and the Entitlement schema was observed.
A moderate/strong connection was observed between vulnerable narcissism and the Vulnerability to Harm and Illness schema and a moderate connection with the Emotional Deprivation schema.
No significant correlation was observed between grandiose narcissism and the Emotional Deprivation schema.
A moderate, negative correlation between vulnerable narcissism and emotional skills was observed.
A positive, weak connection between grandiose narcissism and self-esteem; and a negative, moderate connection between vulnerable narcissism and self-esteem were observed.
Gender and age were associated with empathic skills, and age was weakly/moderately connected with self-esteem and vulnerable narcissism.
Limitations
This was a cross-sectional analysis investigating a temporally specific state of personality and cognitive functioning.
The gender ratio was shifted toward women in this study.
Conclusions drawn from connections between observed components are interchangeable and cause/effect connections cannot be discerned.
Disclosures
The study was supported by the National Research, Development, and Innovation Office (Grant No. NRDI–138040) and by the Human Resource Development Operational Program – Comprehensive developments at the University of Pécs for the implementation of intelligent specialization (EFOP-3.6.1-16-2016-00004). First author Dorian Vida’s work was supported by the Collegium Talentum Programme of Hungary. None of the authors disclosed any competing interests.
This is a summary of a preprint research study, “In the mind of Narcissus: the mediating role of emotional regulation in the emergence of distorted cognitions,” written by Dorian Vida from the University of Pécs, Hungary and colleagues on ResearchSquare.com. This study has not yet been peer reviewed. The full text of the study can be found on ResearchSquare.com.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com
Editor’s Note: The study covered in this summary was published on ResearchSquare.com as a preprint and has not yet been peer reviewed.
Key takeaway
Why this matters
The cognitive features and phenotypic diversity of narcissism subtypes are partially unknown.
This study integrates both grandiose and vulnerable narcissism into a common framework with cognitive components connected to these traits.
Study design
This study enrolled 478 participants (397 female and 4 did not reveal their gender).
The average age of participants was 35 years (standard deviation, 14.97), with a range of 18-76 years.
A 25-item version of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI), a 40-item self-report measure of narcissism traits, was used to assess the level of authority, grandiose exhibitionism, and entitlement/exploitativeness characteristics of study participants.
The Maladaptive Covert Narcissism Scale, an expanded version of the 23-item self-report Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale, was used to assess the level of hypersensitivity, vulnerability, and entitlement of study participants.
The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, a 10-item self-report scale, was used to assess the level of self-esteem of study participants.
The Young Schema Questionnaire is a 244-item measure of 19 different maladaptive schemas and was used to observe Emotional Deprivation, Vulnerability to Harm and Illness, and Entitlement schemas of study participants.
The Empathizing Quotient is a self-report measure and was used to assess the emotional intelligence of study participants.
Key results
Moderate correlation between grandiose and vulnerable narcissism and the Entitlement schema was observed.
A moderate/strong connection was observed between vulnerable narcissism and the Vulnerability to Harm and Illness schema and a moderate connection with the Emotional Deprivation schema.
No significant correlation was observed between grandiose narcissism and the Emotional Deprivation schema.
A moderate, negative correlation between vulnerable narcissism and emotional skills was observed.
A positive, weak connection between grandiose narcissism and self-esteem; and a negative, moderate connection between vulnerable narcissism and self-esteem were observed.
Gender and age were associated with empathic skills, and age was weakly/moderately connected with self-esteem and vulnerable narcissism.
Limitations
This was a cross-sectional analysis investigating a temporally specific state of personality and cognitive functioning.
The gender ratio was shifted toward women in this study.
Conclusions drawn from connections between observed components are interchangeable and cause/effect connections cannot be discerned.
Disclosures
The study was supported by the National Research, Development, and Innovation Office (Grant No. NRDI–138040) and by the Human Resource Development Operational Program – Comprehensive developments at the University of Pécs for the implementation of intelligent specialization (EFOP-3.6.1-16-2016-00004). First author Dorian Vida’s work was supported by the Collegium Talentum Programme of Hungary. None of the authors disclosed any competing interests.
This is a summary of a preprint research study, “In the mind of Narcissus: the mediating role of emotional regulation in the emergence of distorted cognitions,” written by Dorian Vida from the University of Pécs, Hungary and colleagues on ResearchSquare.com. This study has not yet been peer reviewed. The full text of the study can be found on ResearchSquare.com.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com
Editor’s Note: The study covered in this summary was published on ResearchSquare.com as a preprint and has not yet been peer reviewed.
Key takeaway
Why this matters
The cognitive features and phenotypic diversity of narcissism subtypes are partially unknown.
This study integrates both grandiose and vulnerable narcissism into a common framework with cognitive components connected to these traits.
Study design
This study enrolled 478 participants (397 female and 4 did not reveal their gender).
The average age of participants was 35 years (standard deviation, 14.97), with a range of 18-76 years.
A 25-item version of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI), a 40-item self-report measure of narcissism traits, was used to assess the level of authority, grandiose exhibitionism, and entitlement/exploitativeness characteristics of study participants.
The Maladaptive Covert Narcissism Scale, an expanded version of the 23-item self-report Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale, was used to assess the level of hypersensitivity, vulnerability, and entitlement of study participants.
The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, a 10-item self-report scale, was used to assess the level of self-esteem of study participants.
The Young Schema Questionnaire is a 244-item measure of 19 different maladaptive schemas and was used to observe Emotional Deprivation, Vulnerability to Harm and Illness, and Entitlement schemas of study participants.
The Empathizing Quotient is a self-report measure and was used to assess the emotional intelligence of study participants.
Key results
Moderate correlation between grandiose and vulnerable narcissism and the Entitlement schema was observed.
A moderate/strong connection was observed between vulnerable narcissism and the Vulnerability to Harm and Illness schema and a moderate connection with the Emotional Deprivation schema.
No significant correlation was observed between grandiose narcissism and the Emotional Deprivation schema.
A moderate, negative correlation between vulnerable narcissism and emotional skills was observed.
A positive, weak connection between grandiose narcissism and self-esteem; and a negative, moderate connection between vulnerable narcissism and self-esteem were observed.
Gender and age were associated with empathic skills, and age was weakly/moderately connected with self-esteem and vulnerable narcissism.
Limitations
This was a cross-sectional analysis investigating a temporally specific state of personality and cognitive functioning.
The gender ratio was shifted toward women in this study.
Conclusions drawn from connections between observed components are interchangeable and cause/effect connections cannot be discerned.
Disclosures
The study was supported by the National Research, Development, and Innovation Office (Grant No. NRDI–138040) and by the Human Resource Development Operational Program – Comprehensive developments at the University of Pécs for the implementation of intelligent specialization (EFOP-3.6.1-16-2016-00004). First author Dorian Vida’s work was supported by the Collegium Talentum Programme of Hungary. None of the authors disclosed any competing interests.
This is a summary of a preprint research study, “In the mind of Narcissus: the mediating role of emotional regulation in the emergence of distorted cognitions,” written by Dorian Vida from the University of Pécs, Hungary and colleagues on ResearchSquare.com. This study has not yet been peer reviewed. The full text of the study can be found on ResearchSquare.com.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com
Hypertension heightens risk for severe COVID-19, even in the fully vaxxed
Adults with hypertension who were vaccinated for COVID-19 with at least one booster were more than twice as likely as vaccinated and boosted individuals without hypertension to be hospitalized for severe COVID-19, according to data from more than 900 individuals.
“We were surprised to learn that many people who were hospitalized with COVID-19 had hypertension and no other risk factors,” said Susan Cheng, MD, MPH, director of the Institute for Research on Healthy Aging in the department of cardiology at the Smidt Heart Institute, Los Angeles, and a senior author of the study. “This is concerning when you consider that almost half of American adults have high blood pressure.”
COVID-19 vaccines demonstrated ability to reduce death and some of the most severe side effects from the infection in the early stages of the pandemic. Although the Omicron surge prompted recommendations for a third mRNA vaccine dose, “a proportion of individuals who received three mRNA vaccine doses still required hospitalization for COVID-19 during the Omicron surge,” and the characteristics associated with severe illness in vaccinated and boosted patients have not been explored, Joseph Ebinger, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, and colleagues wrote.
Previous research has shown an association between high blood pressure an increased risk for developing severe COVID-19 compared to several other chronic health conditions, including kidney disease, type 2 diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and heart failure, the researchers noted.
In a study published in Hypertension, the researchers identified 912 adults who received at least three doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine and were later diagnosed with COVID-19 during the surge in infections from the Omicron variant between December 2021 and April 2022.
A total of 145 of the individuals were hospitalized (16%); of these, 125 (86%) had hypertension.
Patients with hypertension were the most likely to be hospitalized, with an odds ratio of 2.9. In addition to high blood pressure, factors including older age (OR, 1.3), chronic kidney disease (OR, 2.2), prior myocardial infarction or heart failure (OR, 2.2), and longer time since the last vaccination and COVID-19 infection were associated with increased risk of hospitalization in a multivariate analysis.
However, the increased risk of severe illness and hospitalization associated with high blood pressure persisted, with an OR of 2.6, in the absence of comorbid conditions such as type 2 diabetes, kidney disease, and heart failure, the researchers emphasized.
“Although the mechanism for hypertension-associated COVID-19 risk remains unclear, prior studies have identified delayed SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance and prolonged inflammatory response among hypertensive patients, which may contribute to greater disease severity,” they wrote.
The findings were limited by several factors, including the use of data from a single center and lack of information on which Omicron variants and subvariants were behind the infections, the researchers noted.
However, the results highlight the need for more research on how to reduce the risks of severe COVID-19 in vulnerable populations, and on the mechanism for a potential connection between high blood pressure and severe COVID-19, they said.
Given the high prevalence of hypertension worldwide, increased understanding of the hypertension-specific risks and identification of individual and population-level risk reduction strategies will be important to the transition of COVID-19 from pandemic to endemic, they concluded.
Omicron changes the game
“When the pandemic initially started, many conditions were seen to increase risk for more severe COVID illness, and hypertension was one of those factors – and then things changed,” lead author Dr. Ebinger said in an interview. “First, vaccines arrived on the scene and substantially reduced risk of severe COVID for everyone who received them. Second, Omicron arrived and, while more transmissible, this variant has been less likely to cause severe COVID. On the one hand, we have vaccines and boosters that we want to think of as ‘the great equalizer’ when it comes to preexisting conditions. On the other hand, we have a dominant set of SARS-CoV-2 subvariants that seem less virulent in most people.
“Taken together, we have been hoping and even assuming that we have been doing pretty well with minimizing risks. Unfortunately, our study results indicate this is not exactly the case,” he said.
“Although vaccines and boosters appear to have equalized or minimized the risks of severe COVID for some people, this has not happened for others – even in the setting of the milder Omicron variant. Of individuals who were fully vaccinated and boosted, having hypertension increased the odds of needing to be hospitalized after getting infected with Omicron by 2.6-fold, even when accounting for or in the absence of having any major chronic disease that might otherwise predispose to more severe COVID-19 illness,” Dr. Ebinger added.
“So, while the originally seen risks of having obesity or diabetes seem to have been minimized during this current era of pandemic, the risk of having hypertension has persisted. We found this both surprising and concerning, because hypertension is very common and present in over half of people over age 50.”
Surprisingly, “we found that a fair number of people, even after being fully vaccinated plus a having gotten a booster, will not only catch Omicron but get sick enough to need hospital care,” Dr. Ebinger emphasized. “Moreover, it is not just older adults with major comorbid conditions who are vulnerable. Our data show that this can happen to an adult of any age and especially if a person has only hypertension and otherwise no major chronic disease.”
The first takeaway message for clinicians at this time is to raise awareness, Dr. Ebinger stressed in the interview. “We need to raise understanding around the fact that receiving three doses of vaccine may not prevent severe COVID-19 illness in everyone, even when the circulating viral variant is presumed to be causing only mild disease in most people. Moreover, the people who are most at risk are not whom we might think they are. They are not the sickest of the sick. They include people who might not have major conditions such as heart disease or kidney disease, but they do have hypertension.”
Second, “we need more research to understand out why there is this link between hypertension and excess risk for the more severe forms of COVID-19, despite it arising from a supposedly milder variant,” said Dr. Ebinger.
“Third, we need to determine how to reduce these risks, whether through more tailored vaccine regimens or novel therapeutics or a combination approach,” he said.
Looking ahead, “the biological mechanism underpinning the association between hypertension and severe COVID-19 remains underexplored. Future work should focus on understanding the factors linking hypertension to severe COVID-19, as this may elucidate both information on how SARS-CoV-2 effects the body and potential targets for intervention,” Dr. Ebinger added.
The study was supported in part by Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, the Erika J. Glazer Family Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Adults with hypertension who were vaccinated for COVID-19 with at least one booster were more than twice as likely as vaccinated and boosted individuals without hypertension to be hospitalized for severe COVID-19, according to data from more than 900 individuals.
“We were surprised to learn that many people who were hospitalized with COVID-19 had hypertension and no other risk factors,” said Susan Cheng, MD, MPH, director of the Institute for Research on Healthy Aging in the department of cardiology at the Smidt Heart Institute, Los Angeles, and a senior author of the study. “This is concerning when you consider that almost half of American adults have high blood pressure.”
COVID-19 vaccines demonstrated ability to reduce death and some of the most severe side effects from the infection in the early stages of the pandemic. Although the Omicron surge prompted recommendations for a third mRNA vaccine dose, “a proportion of individuals who received three mRNA vaccine doses still required hospitalization for COVID-19 during the Omicron surge,” and the characteristics associated with severe illness in vaccinated and boosted patients have not been explored, Joseph Ebinger, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, and colleagues wrote.
Previous research has shown an association between high blood pressure an increased risk for developing severe COVID-19 compared to several other chronic health conditions, including kidney disease, type 2 diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and heart failure, the researchers noted.
In a study published in Hypertension, the researchers identified 912 adults who received at least three doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine and were later diagnosed with COVID-19 during the surge in infections from the Omicron variant between December 2021 and April 2022.
A total of 145 of the individuals were hospitalized (16%); of these, 125 (86%) had hypertension.
Patients with hypertension were the most likely to be hospitalized, with an odds ratio of 2.9. In addition to high blood pressure, factors including older age (OR, 1.3), chronic kidney disease (OR, 2.2), prior myocardial infarction or heart failure (OR, 2.2), and longer time since the last vaccination and COVID-19 infection were associated with increased risk of hospitalization in a multivariate analysis.
However, the increased risk of severe illness and hospitalization associated with high blood pressure persisted, with an OR of 2.6, in the absence of comorbid conditions such as type 2 diabetes, kidney disease, and heart failure, the researchers emphasized.
“Although the mechanism for hypertension-associated COVID-19 risk remains unclear, prior studies have identified delayed SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance and prolonged inflammatory response among hypertensive patients, which may contribute to greater disease severity,” they wrote.
The findings were limited by several factors, including the use of data from a single center and lack of information on which Omicron variants and subvariants were behind the infections, the researchers noted.
However, the results highlight the need for more research on how to reduce the risks of severe COVID-19 in vulnerable populations, and on the mechanism for a potential connection between high blood pressure and severe COVID-19, they said.
Given the high prevalence of hypertension worldwide, increased understanding of the hypertension-specific risks and identification of individual and population-level risk reduction strategies will be important to the transition of COVID-19 from pandemic to endemic, they concluded.
Omicron changes the game
“When the pandemic initially started, many conditions were seen to increase risk for more severe COVID illness, and hypertension was one of those factors – and then things changed,” lead author Dr. Ebinger said in an interview. “First, vaccines arrived on the scene and substantially reduced risk of severe COVID for everyone who received them. Second, Omicron arrived and, while more transmissible, this variant has been less likely to cause severe COVID. On the one hand, we have vaccines and boosters that we want to think of as ‘the great equalizer’ when it comes to preexisting conditions. On the other hand, we have a dominant set of SARS-CoV-2 subvariants that seem less virulent in most people.
“Taken together, we have been hoping and even assuming that we have been doing pretty well with minimizing risks. Unfortunately, our study results indicate this is not exactly the case,” he said.
“Although vaccines and boosters appear to have equalized or minimized the risks of severe COVID for some people, this has not happened for others – even in the setting of the milder Omicron variant. Of individuals who were fully vaccinated and boosted, having hypertension increased the odds of needing to be hospitalized after getting infected with Omicron by 2.6-fold, even when accounting for or in the absence of having any major chronic disease that might otherwise predispose to more severe COVID-19 illness,” Dr. Ebinger added.
“So, while the originally seen risks of having obesity or diabetes seem to have been minimized during this current era of pandemic, the risk of having hypertension has persisted. We found this both surprising and concerning, because hypertension is very common and present in over half of people over age 50.”
Surprisingly, “we found that a fair number of people, even after being fully vaccinated plus a having gotten a booster, will not only catch Omicron but get sick enough to need hospital care,” Dr. Ebinger emphasized. “Moreover, it is not just older adults with major comorbid conditions who are vulnerable. Our data show that this can happen to an adult of any age and especially if a person has only hypertension and otherwise no major chronic disease.”
The first takeaway message for clinicians at this time is to raise awareness, Dr. Ebinger stressed in the interview. “We need to raise understanding around the fact that receiving three doses of vaccine may not prevent severe COVID-19 illness in everyone, even when the circulating viral variant is presumed to be causing only mild disease in most people. Moreover, the people who are most at risk are not whom we might think they are. They are not the sickest of the sick. They include people who might not have major conditions such as heart disease or kidney disease, but they do have hypertension.”
Second, “we need more research to understand out why there is this link between hypertension and excess risk for the more severe forms of COVID-19, despite it arising from a supposedly milder variant,” said Dr. Ebinger.
“Third, we need to determine how to reduce these risks, whether through more tailored vaccine regimens or novel therapeutics or a combination approach,” he said.
Looking ahead, “the biological mechanism underpinning the association between hypertension and severe COVID-19 remains underexplored. Future work should focus on understanding the factors linking hypertension to severe COVID-19, as this may elucidate both information on how SARS-CoV-2 effects the body and potential targets for intervention,” Dr. Ebinger added.
The study was supported in part by Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, the Erika J. Glazer Family Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Adults with hypertension who were vaccinated for COVID-19 with at least one booster were more than twice as likely as vaccinated and boosted individuals without hypertension to be hospitalized for severe COVID-19, according to data from more than 900 individuals.
“We were surprised to learn that many people who were hospitalized with COVID-19 had hypertension and no other risk factors,” said Susan Cheng, MD, MPH, director of the Institute for Research on Healthy Aging in the department of cardiology at the Smidt Heart Institute, Los Angeles, and a senior author of the study. “This is concerning when you consider that almost half of American adults have high blood pressure.”
COVID-19 vaccines demonstrated ability to reduce death and some of the most severe side effects from the infection in the early stages of the pandemic. Although the Omicron surge prompted recommendations for a third mRNA vaccine dose, “a proportion of individuals who received three mRNA vaccine doses still required hospitalization for COVID-19 during the Omicron surge,” and the characteristics associated with severe illness in vaccinated and boosted patients have not been explored, Joseph Ebinger, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, and colleagues wrote.
Previous research has shown an association between high blood pressure an increased risk for developing severe COVID-19 compared to several other chronic health conditions, including kidney disease, type 2 diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and heart failure, the researchers noted.
In a study published in Hypertension, the researchers identified 912 adults who received at least three doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine and were later diagnosed with COVID-19 during the surge in infections from the Omicron variant between December 2021 and April 2022.
A total of 145 of the individuals were hospitalized (16%); of these, 125 (86%) had hypertension.
Patients with hypertension were the most likely to be hospitalized, with an odds ratio of 2.9. In addition to high blood pressure, factors including older age (OR, 1.3), chronic kidney disease (OR, 2.2), prior myocardial infarction or heart failure (OR, 2.2), and longer time since the last vaccination and COVID-19 infection were associated with increased risk of hospitalization in a multivariate analysis.
However, the increased risk of severe illness and hospitalization associated with high blood pressure persisted, with an OR of 2.6, in the absence of comorbid conditions such as type 2 diabetes, kidney disease, and heart failure, the researchers emphasized.
“Although the mechanism for hypertension-associated COVID-19 risk remains unclear, prior studies have identified delayed SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance and prolonged inflammatory response among hypertensive patients, which may contribute to greater disease severity,” they wrote.
The findings were limited by several factors, including the use of data from a single center and lack of information on which Omicron variants and subvariants were behind the infections, the researchers noted.
However, the results highlight the need for more research on how to reduce the risks of severe COVID-19 in vulnerable populations, and on the mechanism for a potential connection between high blood pressure and severe COVID-19, they said.
Given the high prevalence of hypertension worldwide, increased understanding of the hypertension-specific risks and identification of individual and population-level risk reduction strategies will be important to the transition of COVID-19 from pandemic to endemic, they concluded.
Omicron changes the game
“When the pandemic initially started, many conditions were seen to increase risk for more severe COVID illness, and hypertension was one of those factors – and then things changed,” lead author Dr. Ebinger said in an interview. “First, vaccines arrived on the scene and substantially reduced risk of severe COVID for everyone who received them. Second, Omicron arrived and, while more transmissible, this variant has been less likely to cause severe COVID. On the one hand, we have vaccines and boosters that we want to think of as ‘the great equalizer’ when it comes to preexisting conditions. On the other hand, we have a dominant set of SARS-CoV-2 subvariants that seem less virulent in most people.
“Taken together, we have been hoping and even assuming that we have been doing pretty well with minimizing risks. Unfortunately, our study results indicate this is not exactly the case,” he said.
“Although vaccines and boosters appear to have equalized or minimized the risks of severe COVID for some people, this has not happened for others – even in the setting of the milder Omicron variant. Of individuals who were fully vaccinated and boosted, having hypertension increased the odds of needing to be hospitalized after getting infected with Omicron by 2.6-fold, even when accounting for or in the absence of having any major chronic disease that might otherwise predispose to more severe COVID-19 illness,” Dr. Ebinger added.
“So, while the originally seen risks of having obesity or diabetes seem to have been minimized during this current era of pandemic, the risk of having hypertension has persisted. We found this both surprising and concerning, because hypertension is very common and present in over half of people over age 50.”
Surprisingly, “we found that a fair number of people, even after being fully vaccinated plus a having gotten a booster, will not only catch Omicron but get sick enough to need hospital care,” Dr. Ebinger emphasized. “Moreover, it is not just older adults with major comorbid conditions who are vulnerable. Our data show that this can happen to an adult of any age and especially if a person has only hypertension and otherwise no major chronic disease.”
The first takeaway message for clinicians at this time is to raise awareness, Dr. Ebinger stressed in the interview. “We need to raise understanding around the fact that receiving three doses of vaccine may not prevent severe COVID-19 illness in everyone, even when the circulating viral variant is presumed to be causing only mild disease in most people. Moreover, the people who are most at risk are not whom we might think they are. They are not the sickest of the sick. They include people who might not have major conditions such as heart disease or kidney disease, but they do have hypertension.”
Second, “we need more research to understand out why there is this link between hypertension and excess risk for the more severe forms of COVID-19, despite it arising from a supposedly milder variant,” said Dr. Ebinger.
“Third, we need to determine how to reduce these risks, whether through more tailored vaccine regimens or novel therapeutics or a combination approach,” he said.
Looking ahead, “the biological mechanism underpinning the association between hypertension and severe COVID-19 remains underexplored. Future work should focus on understanding the factors linking hypertension to severe COVID-19, as this may elucidate both information on how SARS-CoV-2 effects the body and potential targets for intervention,” Dr. Ebinger added.
The study was supported in part by Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, the Erika J. Glazer Family Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM HYPERTENSION
A Special Supplement on Hot Topics in Primary Care 2022
Hot Topics in Primary Care 2022 is a resource that explores the newest developments in primary care topics that impact your daily clinical practice.
Click on the link below to access the entire supplement. You can also click on the video panes below to view brief summaries of individual chapters. Titles above the video panes link directly to each article.
- A Paradigm Shift for Asthma Care
- Common Questions on Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Primary Care
- Detecting and Managing ASCVD in Women: A Focus on Statins
- Improving Detection and Management of Anemia in CKD
- OTC Analgesics vs Opioids for Pain Management
- Practical Considerations for Use of Insulin/Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonist Combinations in Older Adults With Type 2 Diabetes
- Practical Screening for Islet Autoantibodies: The Time Has Come
- Reducing Thrombotic Risk From Polyvascular Disease in Primary Care
- Strategies to Improve Outcomes in COPD
- The Evolving Landscape of ASCVD Risk Among Patients With HIV
- The New Face of Preadolescent and Adolescent Acne: Beyond the Guidelines
- The Role of Eggs in Healthy Diets
- Update on the Gut Microbiome for the Primary Care Clinician
- Updates in the Management of Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer Disease
- Use of SGLT-2 Inhibitors for Chronic Kidney Disease in Primary Care
This supplement offers the opportunity to earn a total of 4 continuing medical education (CME) credits. Credit is awarded for successful completion of the evaluation after reading the article. The links can be found within the supplement on the first page of each article where CME credits are offered.
Click here to read Hot Topics in Primary Care 2022
This supplement to The Journal of Family Practice was sponsored by the Primary Care Education Consortium and Primary Care Metabolic Group.
Check out these short video segments, which were prepared by the supplement authors and summarize the individual articles.
The title above each video links to the related article.
A Paradigm Shift for Asthma Care, Njira Lugogo, MD; Neil Skolnik, MD; Yihui Jiang, DO
Common Questions on Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Primary Care, Eden M. Miller, DO
Detecting and Managing ASCVD in Women: A Focus on Statins, Pam Kushner, MD
Improving Detection and Management of Anemia in CKD, Steven Fishbane, MD; Stephen Brunton, MD, FAAFP
OTC Analgesics vs Opioids for Pain Management, Gary M. Ruoff, MD
Practical Screening for Islet Autoantibodies: The Time Has Come, Timothy Reid, MD
Reducing Thrombotic Risk From Polyvascular Disease in Primary Care, Stephen Brunton, MD, FAAFP
Strategies to Improve Outcomes in COPD, Barbara Yawn, MD, MSc, FAAFP
The Evolving Landscape of ASCVD Risk Among Patients With HIV, Carlos Malvestutto, MD, MPH
The Role of Eggs in Healthy Diets, Maria Luz Fernandez, PhD
Update on the Gut Microbiome for the Primary Care Clinician, Eden M. Miller, DO
Updates in the Management of Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer Disease, Gary Small, MD
Use of SGLT-2 Inhibitors for Chronic Kidney Disease in Primary Care, George Bakris, MD
Hot Topics in Primary Care 2022 is a resource that explores the newest developments in primary care topics that impact your daily clinical practice.
Click on the link below to access the entire supplement. You can also click on the video panes below to view brief summaries of individual chapters. Titles above the video panes link directly to each article.
- A Paradigm Shift for Asthma Care
- Common Questions on Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Primary Care
- Detecting and Managing ASCVD in Women: A Focus on Statins
- Improving Detection and Management of Anemia in CKD
- OTC Analgesics vs Opioids for Pain Management
- Practical Considerations for Use of Insulin/Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonist Combinations in Older Adults With Type 2 Diabetes
- Practical Screening for Islet Autoantibodies: The Time Has Come
- Reducing Thrombotic Risk From Polyvascular Disease in Primary Care
- Strategies to Improve Outcomes in COPD
- The Evolving Landscape of ASCVD Risk Among Patients With HIV
- The New Face of Preadolescent and Adolescent Acne: Beyond the Guidelines
- The Role of Eggs in Healthy Diets
- Update on the Gut Microbiome for the Primary Care Clinician
- Updates in the Management of Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer Disease
- Use of SGLT-2 Inhibitors for Chronic Kidney Disease in Primary Care
This supplement offers the opportunity to earn a total of 4 continuing medical education (CME) credits. Credit is awarded for successful completion of the evaluation after reading the article. The links can be found within the supplement on the first page of each article where CME credits are offered.
Click here to read Hot Topics in Primary Care 2022
This supplement to The Journal of Family Practice was sponsored by the Primary Care Education Consortium and Primary Care Metabolic Group.
Check out these short video segments, which were prepared by the supplement authors and summarize the individual articles.
The title above each video links to the related article.
A Paradigm Shift for Asthma Care, Njira Lugogo, MD; Neil Skolnik, MD; Yihui Jiang, DO
Common Questions on Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Primary Care, Eden M. Miller, DO
Detecting and Managing ASCVD in Women: A Focus on Statins, Pam Kushner, MD
Improving Detection and Management of Anemia in CKD, Steven Fishbane, MD; Stephen Brunton, MD, FAAFP
OTC Analgesics vs Opioids for Pain Management, Gary M. Ruoff, MD
Practical Screening for Islet Autoantibodies: The Time Has Come, Timothy Reid, MD
Reducing Thrombotic Risk From Polyvascular Disease in Primary Care, Stephen Brunton, MD, FAAFP
Strategies to Improve Outcomes in COPD, Barbara Yawn, MD, MSc, FAAFP
The Evolving Landscape of ASCVD Risk Among Patients With HIV, Carlos Malvestutto, MD, MPH
The Role of Eggs in Healthy Diets, Maria Luz Fernandez, PhD
Update on the Gut Microbiome for the Primary Care Clinician, Eden M. Miller, DO
Updates in the Management of Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer Disease, Gary Small, MD
Use of SGLT-2 Inhibitors for Chronic Kidney Disease in Primary Care, George Bakris, MD
Hot Topics in Primary Care 2022 is a resource that explores the newest developments in primary care topics that impact your daily clinical practice.
Click on the link below to access the entire supplement. You can also click on the video panes below to view brief summaries of individual chapters. Titles above the video panes link directly to each article.
- A Paradigm Shift for Asthma Care
- Common Questions on Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Primary Care
- Detecting and Managing ASCVD in Women: A Focus on Statins
- Improving Detection and Management of Anemia in CKD
- OTC Analgesics vs Opioids for Pain Management
- Practical Considerations for Use of Insulin/Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonist Combinations in Older Adults With Type 2 Diabetes
- Practical Screening for Islet Autoantibodies: The Time Has Come
- Reducing Thrombotic Risk From Polyvascular Disease in Primary Care
- Strategies to Improve Outcomes in COPD
- The Evolving Landscape of ASCVD Risk Among Patients With HIV
- The New Face of Preadolescent and Adolescent Acne: Beyond the Guidelines
- The Role of Eggs in Healthy Diets
- Update on the Gut Microbiome for the Primary Care Clinician
- Updates in the Management of Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer Disease
- Use of SGLT-2 Inhibitors for Chronic Kidney Disease in Primary Care
This supplement offers the opportunity to earn a total of 4 continuing medical education (CME) credits. Credit is awarded for successful completion of the evaluation after reading the article. The links can be found within the supplement on the first page of each article where CME credits are offered.
Click here to read Hot Topics in Primary Care 2022
This supplement to The Journal of Family Practice was sponsored by the Primary Care Education Consortium and Primary Care Metabolic Group.
Check out these short video segments, which were prepared by the supplement authors and summarize the individual articles.
The title above each video links to the related article.
A Paradigm Shift for Asthma Care, Njira Lugogo, MD; Neil Skolnik, MD; Yihui Jiang, DO
Common Questions on Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Primary Care, Eden M. Miller, DO
Detecting and Managing ASCVD in Women: A Focus on Statins, Pam Kushner, MD
Improving Detection and Management of Anemia in CKD, Steven Fishbane, MD; Stephen Brunton, MD, FAAFP
OTC Analgesics vs Opioids for Pain Management, Gary M. Ruoff, MD
Practical Screening for Islet Autoantibodies: The Time Has Come, Timothy Reid, MD
Reducing Thrombotic Risk From Polyvascular Disease in Primary Care, Stephen Brunton, MD, FAAFP
Strategies to Improve Outcomes in COPD, Barbara Yawn, MD, MSc, FAAFP
The Evolving Landscape of ASCVD Risk Among Patients With HIV, Carlos Malvestutto, MD, MPH
The Role of Eggs in Healthy Diets, Maria Luz Fernandez, PhD
Update on the Gut Microbiome for the Primary Care Clinician, Eden M. Miller, DO
Updates in the Management of Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer Disease, Gary Small, MD
Use of SGLT-2 Inhibitors for Chronic Kidney Disease in Primary Care, George Bakris, MD