Use of mepolizumab significantly reduced the need for maintenance oral corticosteroids in adults with severe asthma, based on data from more than 800 individuals.

Many patients with severe asthma require bursts of systemic corticosteroids (SCS) or maintenance oral corticosteroids (mOCS) for disease control, but these strategies are associated with side effects that can increase the disease burden, wrote Charles Pilette, MD, of Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Brussels, and colleagues.

Previous studies have shown that the humanized, monoclonal anti-interleukin (IL)–5 antibody mepolizumab, which is approved for the treatment of severe asthma, reduced use of SCS and has shown effectiveness in less homogeneous populations, but robust, real-world data on the occurrence and magnitude of these effects are lacking, the researchers said.

In a study known as REALITI-A, the researchers enrolled 822 adults with asthma diagnoses from 82 centers in Europe, Canada, and the United States who initiated mepolizumab at a subcutaneous dose of 100 mg. The study endpoints included daily use of oral corticosteroids at baseline and 1 year, percentage reduction in oral corticosteroid use from baseline, patients discontinuing oral corticosteroids; the primary outcome was the rate of clinically significant exacerbations (CSEs). CSEs were defined as the need for OCS for at least 3 days/parenteral administration, and/or an emergency department or hospital admission before and after treatment. The mean age of the participants was 54 years, 63% were women, and 60% were never-smokers. The mean asthma duration was 19.7 years.

A total of 319 patients (39%), used mOCS at baseline, and dose information was available for 298.

Real-world outcomes

At 1 year, the median mOCS dose in the study population was reduced by 75%, and 64% reduced their mOCS dose by at least 50% from baseline.

In addition, the proportion of patients who discontinued daily mOCS increased from 29% during week 25-28 to 43% during week 53-56.

Overall, 80% of patients remained on mepolizumab at 1 year. Lack of efficacy and patient decision were the top two reasons for discontinuation (6% and 4%, respectively).

The primary outcome of rate of CSE decreased by a clinically significant rate ratio of 0.29 (P < .001).

“The requirement for SCS bursts was also reduced, as observed by a decreased rate of CSEs,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. The results were consistent for patients receiving lower (less than 10 mg/day) or higher (10 mg/day or more) mOCS doses at baseline, they said. No unexpected safety signals were noted during the study period.

“Furthermore, mepolizumab was associated with significant decreases in the rate of exacerbations requiring hospitalizations, or those requiring hospitalization or an ER visit, improved symptom control, and lower work productivity and activity impairment,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the observational design, lack of mepolizumab comparator, and open-label data capture, the researchers noted. However, the results were consistent with similar studies, and support the use of mepolizumab as part of the standard of care for clinically effective disease control in severe asthma patients, they concluded.

The study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline. Lead author Dr. Pilette disclosed fees for advisory boards, speaker meetings, and 42 research grants from GSK, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Novartis, Teva, and ALK-Abello.

Use of mepolizumab significantly reduced the need for maintenance oral corticosteroids in adults with severe asthma, based on data from more than 800 individuals.

Many patients with severe asthma require bursts of systemic corticosteroids (SCS) or maintenance oral corticosteroids (mOCS) for disease control, but these strategies are associated with side effects that can increase the disease burden, wrote Charles Pilette, MD, of Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Brussels, and colleagues.

Previous studies have shown that the humanized, monoclonal anti-interleukin (IL)–5 antibody mepolizumab, which is approved for the treatment of severe asthma, reduced use of SCS and has shown effectiveness in less homogeneous populations, but robust, real-world data on the occurrence and magnitude of these effects are lacking, the researchers said.

In a study known as REALITI-A, the researchers enrolled 822 adults with asthma diagnoses from 82 centers in Europe, Canada, and the United States who initiated mepolizumab at a subcutaneous dose of 100 mg. The study endpoints included daily use of oral corticosteroids at baseline and 1 year, percentage reduction in oral corticosteroid use from baseline, patients discontinuing oral corticosteroids; the primary outcome was the rate of clinically significant exacerbations (CSEs). CSEs were defined as the need for OCS for at least 3 days/parenteral administration, and/or an emergency department or hospital admission before and after treatment. The mean age of the participants was 54 years, 63% were women, and 60% were never-smokers. The mean asthma duration was 19.7 years.

A total of 319 patients (39%), used mOCS at baseline, and dose information was available for 298.

Real-world outcomes

At 1 year, the median mOCS dose in the study population was reduced by 75%, and 64% reduced their mOCS dose by at least 50% from baseline.

In addition, the proportion of patients who discontinued daily mOCS increased from 29% during week 25-28 to 43% during week 53-56.

Overall, 80% of patients remained on mepolizumab at 1 year. Lack of efficacy and patient decision were the top two reasons for discontinuation (6% and 4%, respectively).

The primary outcome of rate of CSE decreased by a clinically significant rate ratio of 0.29 (P < .001).

“The requirement for SCS bursts was also reduced, as observed by a decreased rate of CSEs,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. The results were consistent for patients receiving lower (less than 10 mg/day) or higher (10 mg/day or more) mOCS doses at baseline, they said. No unexpected safety signals were noted during the study period.

“Furthermore, mepolizumab was associated with significant decreases in the rate of exacerbations requiring hospitalizations, or those requiring hospitalization or an ER visit, improved symptom control, and lower work productivity and activity impairment,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the observational design, lack of mepolizumab comparator, and open-label data capture, the researchers noted. However, the results were consistent with similar studies, and support the use of mepolizumab as part of the standard of care for clinically effective disease control in severe asthma patients, they concluded.

The study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline. Lead author Dr. Pilette disclosed fees for advisory boards, speaker meetings, and 42 research grants from GSK, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Novartis, Teva, and ALK-Abello.

Use of mepolizumab significantly reduced the need for maintenance oral corticosteroids in adults with severe asthma, based on data from more than 800 individuals.

Many patients with severe asthma require bursts of systemic corticosteroids (SCS) or maintenance oral corticosteroids (mOCS) for disease control, but these strategies are associated with side effects that can increase the disease burden, wrote Charles Pilette, MD, of Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Brussels, and colleagues.

Previous studies have shown that the humanized, monoclonal anti-interleukin (IL)–5 antibody mepolizumab, which is approved for the treatment of severe asthma, reduced use of SCS and has shown effectiveness in less homogeneous populations, but robust, real-world data on the occurrence and magnitude of these effects are lacking, the researchers said.

In a study known as REALITI-A, the researchers enrolled 822 adults with asthma diagnoses from 82 centers in Europe, Canada, and the United States who initiated mepolizumab at a subcutaneous dose of 100 mg. The study endpoints included daily use of oral corticosteroids at baseline and 1 year, percentage reduction in oral corticosteroid use from baseline, patients discontinuing oral corticosteroids; the primary outcome was the rate of clinically significant exacerbations (CSEs). CSEs were defined as the need for OCS for at least 3 days/parenteral administration, and/or an emergency department or hospital admission before and after treatment. The mean age of the participants was 54 years, 63% were women, and 60% were never-smokers. The mean asthma duration was 19.7 years.

A total of 319 patients (39%), used mOCS at baseline, and dose information was available for 298.

Real-world outcomes

At 1 year, the median mOCS dose in the study population was reduced by 75%, and 64% reduced their mOCS dose by at least 50% from baseline.

In addition, the proportion of patients who discontinued daily mOCS increased from 29% during week 25-28 to 43% during week 53-56.

Overall, 80% of patients remained on mepolizumab at 1 year. Lack of efficacy and patient decision were the top two reasons for discontinuation (6% and 4%, respectively).

The primary outcome of rate of CSE decreased by a clinically significant rate ratio of 0.29 (P < .001).

“The requirement for SCS bursts was also reduced, as observed by a decreased rate of CSEs,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. The results were consistent for patients receiving lower (less than 10 mg/day) or higher (10 mg/day or more) mOCS doses at baseline, they said. No unexpected safety signals were noted during the study period.

“Furthermore, mepolizumab was associated with significant decreases in the rate of exacerbations requiring hospitalizations, or those requiring hospitalization or an ER visit, improved symptom control, and lower work productivity and activity impairment,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the observational design, lack of mepolizumab comparator, and open-label data capture, the researchers noted. However, the results were consistent with similar studies, and support the use of mepolizumab as part of the standard of care for clinically effective disease control in severe asthma patients, they concluded.

The study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline. Lead author Dr. Pilette disclosed fees for advisory boards, speaker meetings, and 42 research grants from GSK, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Novartis, Teva, and ALK-Abello.

The clinical benefit of fulvestrant as a second-line treatment after tumor progression with CDK4/6i-based therapy has been discouraging, highlighting an unmet need for a better SERD in this space.¹ Multiple oral SERD are currently in trials. The EMERALD trial is a phase 3 study that randomly assigned 477 patients with ER+/HER2- mBC in a 1:1 ratio to elacestrant, an oral SERD, vs standard of care (SOC) endocrine therapy (ET). Enrolled patients had received one to two prior ET and one or less chemotherapy treatments in the metastatic disease settings. All patients had prior treatment with a CDK4/6i. Fulvestrant-naive patients were required to have fulvestrant as the SOC ET. In contrast, patients previously treated with fulvestrant received an AI, the selection of which was based on prior AI therapy. Primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) in all patients and in patients with detectable ESR1 mutation. The median PFS in the elacestrant arm was 2.8 months vs 1.9 months in the control arm [hazard ratio (HR) 0.70; 95% CI 0.55-0.88; P = .002]. The 6-month PFS was 34% vs 20% in all patients and 41% vs 19% in patients with detectable ESR1 mutation, favoring the elacestrant arm. In the subgroup analysis among patients who received fulvestrant in the control arm, the 6-month PFS was 34% vs 21% in all patients and 41% vs 19% in patients with ESR1 mutation. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events developed in 27% patients in the elacestrant arm compared with 20% in the SOC arm. More patients in the elacestrant arm developed nausea, vomiting, and liver function abnormalities compared with patients in the SOC arm.

This is the first phase 3 trial demonstrating statistically significant prolongation of PFS associated with an oral SERD compared with SOC ET in patients with ER+/HER2- mBC who had prior treatment with a CDK4/6i. A new drug application has been submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration based on this data. If approved, elacestrant may be favored over fulvestrant as the standard ET for ER+/HER2- mBC after progression on a CDK4/6i-based therapy.

Patients with breast cancer brain metastasis (BrM) have a poor prognosis. Systemic therapies with good central nervous system (CNS) permeability and strong activity against BrM are much needed. An exploratory subset of the phase 3 BEACON trial demonstrated improvement in overall survival (OS) with etirinotecan pegol, a long-acting polymer conjugate of irinotecan, compared with physicians' choice chemotherapy in patients with mBC with treated and stable BrMs.²

Based on this data, a large phase 3 study (the ATTAIN study) was conducted. Patients with mBC with treated and stable BrM (n = 178) were randomly assigned to receive etirinotecan pegol vs physicians' choice of chemotherapy (eribulin, ixabepilone, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, paclitaxel, docetaxel, or nab-paclitaxel). The primary endpoint of OS was similar in both groups (etirinotecan pegol 7.8 months; chemotherapy 7.5 months; HR 0.90; 95% CI 0.61-1.33; P = .60). Median PFS for mBC with CNS metastases (etirinotecan pegol vs chemotherapy) were 3.9 vs 3.3 months (HR 0.59; 95% CI 0.33-1.05; P = .07) and for non-CNS metastases were 2.8 vs 1.9 months (HR 0.72; 95% CI 0.45-1.16; P = .18). Adverse events were grade 3 or 4 in 57% patients receiving etirinotecan pegol compared with 64% receiving SOC chemotherapy.

This trial failed to meet its primary endpoint. The possible explanations proposed by the investigators are a protocol amendment that reduced the power of the trial to 80%, some key differences in the patient population in the ATTAIN trial compared with the BEACON trial, and the possibility of the BEACON trial exploratory analysis result being a false positive. The OS of around 7 months highlights the unmet need for better systemic therapy for patients with BrM breast cancer, especially those with HER2- breast cancer.

Additional References

1. Lindeman GJ, Fernando TM, Bowen R, et al. VERONICA: Randomized phase II study of fulvestrant and venetoclax in ER-positive metastatic breast cancer post-CDK4/6 inhibitors – Efficacy, safety, and biomarker results. Clin Cancer Res. 2022 (June 21). Doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-3811
    
2. Cortés J, Rugo HS, Awada A, et al. Prolonged survival in patients with breast cancer and a history of brain metastases: Results of a preplanned subgroup analysis from the randomized phase III BEACON trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;165:329-341. Doi: 10.1007/s10549-017-4304-7

The clinical benefit of fulvestrant as a second-line treatment after tumor progression with CDK4/6i-based therapy has been discouraging, highlighting an unmet need for a better SERD in this space.¹ Multiple oral SERD are currently in trials. The EMERALD trial is a phase 3 study that randomly assigned 477 patients with ER+/HER2- mBC in a 1:1 ratio to elacestrant, an oral SERD, vs standard of care (SOC) endocrine therapy (ET). Enrolled patients had received one to two prior ET and one or less chemotherapy treatments in the metastatic disease settings. All patients had prior treatment with a CDK4/6i. Fulvestrant-naive patients were required to have fulvestrant as the SOC ET. In contrast, patients previously treated with fulvestrant received an AI, the selection of which was based on prior AI therapy. Primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) in all patients and in patients with detectable ESR1 mutation. The median PFS in the elacestrant arm was 2.8 months vs 1.9 months in the control arm [hazard ratio (HR) 0.70; 95% CI 0.55-0.88; P = .002]. The 6-month PFS was 34% vs 20% in all patients and 41% vs 19% in patients with detectable ESR1 mutation, favoring the elacestrant arm. In the subgroup analysis among patients who received fulvestrant in the control arm, the 6-month PFS was 34% vs 21% in all patients and 41% vs 19% in patients with ESR1 mutation. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events developed in 27% patients in the elacestrant arm compared with 20% in the SOC arm. More patients in the elacestrant arm developed nausea, vomiting, and liver function abnormalities compared with patients in the SOC arm.

This is the first phase 3 trial demonstrating statistically significant prolongation of PFS associated with an oral SERD compared with SOC ET in patients with ER+/HER2- mBC who had prior treatment with a CDK4/6i. A new drug application has been submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration based on this data. If approved, elacestrant may be favored over fulvestrant as the standard ET for ER+/HER2- mBC after progression on a CDK4/6i-based therapy.

Patients with breast cancer brain metastasis (BrM) have a poor prognosis. Systemic therapies with good central nervous system (CNS) permeability and strong activity against BrM are much needed. An exploratory subset of the phase 3 BEACON trial demonstrated improvement in overall survival (OS) with etirinotecan pegol, a long-acting polymer conjugate of irinotecan, compared with physicians' choice chemotherapy in patients with mBC with treated and stable BrMs.²

Based on this data, a large phase 3 study (the ATTAIN study) was conducted. Patients with mBC with treated and stable BrM (n = 178) were randomly assigned to receive etirinotecan pegol vs physicians' choice of chemotherapy (eribulin, ixabepilone, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, paclitaxel, docetaxel, or nab-paclitaxel). The primary endpoint of OS was similar in both groups (etirinotecan pegol 7.8 months; chemotherapy 7.5 months; HR 0.90; 95% CI 0.61-1.33; P = .60). Median PFS for mBC with CNS metastases (etirinotecan pegol vs chemotherapy) were 3.9 vs 3.3 months (HR 0.59; 95% CI 0.33-1.05; P = .07) and for non-CNS metastases were 2.8 vs 1.9 months (HR 0.72; 95% CI 0.45-1.16; P = .18). Adverse events were grade 3 or 4 in 57% patients receiving etirinotecan pegol compared with 64% receiving SOC chemotherapy.

This trial failed to meet its primary endpoint. The possible explanations proposed by the investigators are a protocol amendment that reduced the power of the trial to 80%, some key differences in the patient population in the ATTAIN trial compared with the BEACON trial, and the possibility of the BEACON trial exploratory analysis result being a false positive. The OS of around 7 months highlights the unmet need for better systemic therapy for patients with BrM breast cancer, especially those with HER2- breast cancer.

Additional References

1. Lindeman GJ, Fernando TM, Bowen R, et al. VERONICA: Randomized phase II study of fulvestrant and venetoclax in ER-positive metastatic breast cancer post-CDK4/6 inhibitors – Efficacy, safety, and biomarker results. Clin Cancer Res. 2022 (June 21). Doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-3811
    
2. Cortés J, Rugo HS, Awada A, et al. Prolonged survival in patients with breast cancer and a history of brain metastases: Results of a preplanned subgroup analysis from the randomized phase III BEACON trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;165:329-341. Doi: 10.1007/s10549-017-4304-7

The clinical benefit of fulvestrant as a second-line treatment after tumor progression with CDK4/6i-based therapy has been discouraging, highlighting an unmet need for a better SERD in this space.¹ Multiple oral SERD are currently in trials. The EMERALD trial is a phase 3 study that randomly assigned 477 patients with ER+/HER2- mBC in a 1:1 ratio to elacestrant, an oral SERD, vs standard of care (SOC) endocrine therapy (ET). Enrolled patients had received one to two prior ET and one or less chemotherapy treatments in the metastatic disease settings. All patients had prior treatment with a CDK4/6i. Fulvestrant-naive patients were required to have fulvestrant as the SOC ET. In contrast, patients previously treated with fulvestrant received an AI, the selection of which was based on prior AI therapy. Primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) in all patients and in patients with detectable ESR1 mutation. The median PFS in the elacestrant arm was 2.8 months vs 1.9 months in the control arm [hazard ratio (HR) 0.70; 95% CI 0.55-0.88; P = .002]. The 6-month PFS was 34% vs 20% in all patients and 41% vs 19% in patients with detectable ESR1 mutation, favoring the elacestrant arm. In the subgroup analysis among patients who received fulvestrant in the control arm, the 6-month PFS was 34% vs 21% in all patients and 41% vs 19% in patients with ESR1 mutation. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events developed in 27% patients in the elacestrant arm compared with 20% in the SOC arm. More patients in the elacestrant arm developed nausea, vomiting, and liver function abnormalities compared with patients in the SOC arm.

This is the first phase 3 trial demonstrating statistically significant prolongation of PFS associated with an oral SERD compared with SOC ET in patients with ER+/HER2- mBC who had prior treatment with a CDK4/6i. A new drug application has been submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration based on this data. If approved, elacestrant may be favored over fulvestrant as the standard ET for ER+/HER2- mBC after progression on a CDK4/6i-based therapy.

Patients with breast cancer brain metastasis (BrM) have a poor prognosis. Systemic therapies with good central nervous system (CNS) permeability and strong activity against BrM are much needed. An exploratory subset of the phase 3 BEACON trial demonstrated improvement in overall survival (OS) with etirinotecan pegol, a long-acting polymer conjugate of irinotecan, compared with physicians' choice chemotherapy in patients with mBC with treated and stable BrMs.²

Based on this data, a large phase 3 study (the ATTAIN study) was conducted. Patients with mBC with treated and stable BrM (n = 178) were randomly assigned to receive etirinotecan pegol vs physicians' choice of chemotherapy (eribulin, ixabepilone, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, paclitaxel, docetaxel, or nab-paclitaxel). The primary endpoint of OS was similar in both groups (etirinotecan pegol 7.8 months; chemotherapy 7.5 months; HR 0.90; 95% CI 0.61-1.33; P = .60). Median PFS for mBC with CNS metastases (etirinotecan pegol vs chemotherapy) were 3.9 vs 3.3 months (HR 0.59; 95% CI 0.33-1.05; P = .07) and for non-CNS metastases were 2.8 vs 1.9 months (HR 0.72; 95% CI 0.45-1.16; P = .18). Adverse events were grade 3 or 4 in 57% patients receiving etirinotecan pegol compared with 64% receiving SOC chemotherapy.

This trial failed to meet its primary endpoint. The possible explanations proposed by the investigators are a protocol amendment that reduced the power of the trial to 80%, some key differences in the patient population in the ATTAIN trial compared with the BEACON trial, and the possibility of the BEACON trial exploratory analysis result being a false positive. The OS of around 7 months highlights the unmet need for better systemic therapy for patients with BrM breast cancer, especially those with HER2- breast cancer.

Additional References

1. Lindeman GJ, Fernando TM, Bowen R, et al. VERONICA: Randomized phase II study of fulvestrant and venetoclax in ER-positive metastatic breast cancer post-CDK4/6 inhibitors – Efficacy, safety, and biomarker results. Clin Cancer Res. 2022 (June 21). Doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-3811
    
2. Cortés J, Rugo HS, Awada A, et al. Prolonged survival in patients with breast cancer and a history of brain metastases: Results of a preplanned subgroup analysis from the randomized phase III BEACON trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;165:329-341. Doi: 10.1007/s10549-017-4304-7

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

It’s important to remember and to think about the first time when patients with obesity come to see us: What have they faced? What have been their struggles? What shame and blame and bias have they faced?

One of the first things that I do when a patient comes to see me is invite them to share their weight journey with me. I ask them to tell me about their struggles, about what’s worked and what hasn’t worked, what they would like, and what their health goals are.

As they share their stories, I look for the opportunity to share with them that obesity is not their fault, but that it’s biology driving their body to carry extra weight and their body is super smart. Neither their body nor their brain want them to starve.

Our bodies evolved during a time where there was food scarcity and the potential of famine. We have a complex system that was designed to make sure that we always held on to extra weight, specifically extra fat, because that’s how we store energy. In the current obesogenic environment, what happens is our bodies carry extra weight, or specifically, extra fat.

Again, I say to them, this is biology. Your body’s doing exactly what it was designed to do. Your body’s very smart, but now we have to figure out how to help your body want to carry less fat because it is impacting your health. This is not your fault. Having obesity is not your fault any more than having diabetes or hypertension is anyone’s fault. Now it’s time for all of us to use highly effective tools that target the pathophysiology of obesity.

When a patient comes to me for weight management or to help them treat their obesity, I listen to them, and I look for clues as to what might help that specific patient. Every patient deserves to have individualized treatment. One medicine may be right for one person, another medicine may be right for another, and surgery may be right for another patient. I really try to listen and hear what that patient is telling me.

What we as providers really need is tools – different options – to be able to provide for our patients and basically present them with different options, and then guide them toward the best therapy for them. Whether it’s semaglutide or tirzepatide potentially in the future, these types of medications are excellent options for our patients. They’re highly effective tools with safe profiles.

A question that I often get from providers or patients is, “Well, Doctor, I’ve lost the weight now. How long should I take this medicine? Can I stop it now?”

Then, we have a conversation, and we actually usually have this conversation even before we start the medicine. Basically, we talk about the fact that obesity is a chronic disease. There’s no cure for obesity. Because it’s a chronic disease, we need to treat it like we would treat any other chronic disease.

The example that I often use is, if you have a patient who has hypertension and you start them on an antihypertensive medication, what happens? Their blood pressure goes down. It improves. Now, if their blood pressure is improved with a specific antihypertensive, would you stop that medicine? What would happen if you stopped that antihypertensive? Well, their blood pressure would go up, and we wouldn’t be surprised.

In the same way, if you have a patient who has obesity and you start that patient on an antiobesity medication, and their weight decreases, and their body fat mass at that point decreases, what would happen if you stop that medicine? They lost the weight, but you stop the medicine. Well, their weight gain comes back. They regain the weight.

We should not be surprised that weight gain occurs when we stop the treatment. That really underscores the fact that treatment needs to be continued. If a patient is started on an antiobesity medication and they lose weight, that medication needs to be continued to maintain that weight loss.

Basically, we eat food and our body responds by releasing these hormones. The hormones are made in our gut and in our pancreas and these hormones inform our brain. Are we hungry? Are we full? Where are we with our homeostatic set point of fat mass? Based on that, our brain is like the sensor or the thermostat.

Obesity is a chronic, treatable disease. We should treat obesity as we treat any other chronic disease, with effective and safe approaches that target underlying disease mechanisms. These results in the SURMOUNT-1 trial underscore that tirzepatide may be doing just that. Remarkably, 9 in 10 individuals with obesity lost weight while taking tirzepatide. These results are impressive. They’re an important step forward in potentially expanding effective therapeutic options for people with obesity.

Dr. Jastreboff is an associate professor of medicine and pediatrics at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and director of weight management and obesity prevention at Yale Stress Center. She reported conducting trials with Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Rhythm Pharmaceuticals; serving on scientific advisory boards for Ely Lilly, Intellihealth, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Rhythm Pharmaceuticals, and WW; and consulting for Boehringer Ingelheim and Scholar Rock.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

It’s important to remember and to think about the first time when patients with obesity come to see us: What have they faced? What have been their struggles? What shame and blame and bias have they faced?

One of the first things that I do when a patient comes to see me is invite them to share their weight journey with me. I ask them to tell me about their struggles, about what’s worked and what hasn’t worked, what they would like, and what their health goals are.

As they share their stories, I look for the opportunity to share with them that obesity is not their fault, but that it’s biology driving their body to carry extra weight and their body is super smart. Neither their body nor their brain want them to starve.

Our bodies evolved during a time where there was food scarcity and the potential of famine. We have a complex system that was designed to make sure that we always held on to extra weight, specifically extra fat, because that’s how we store energy. In the current obesogenic environment, what happens is our bodies carry extra weight, or specifically, extra fat.

Again, I say to them, this is biology. Your body’s doing exactly what it was designed to do. Your body’s very smart, but now we have to figure out how to help your body want to carry less fat because it is impacting your health. This is not your fault. Having obesity is not your fault any more than having diabetes or hypertension is anyone’s fault. Now it’s time for all of us to use highly effective tools that target the pathophysiology of obesity.

When a patient comes to me for weight management or to help them treat their obesity, I listen to them, and I look for clues as to what might help that specific patient. Every patient deserves to have individualized treatment. One medicine may be right for one person, another medicine may be right for another, and surgery may be right for another patient. I really try to listen and hear what that patient is telling me.

What we as providers really need is tools – different options – to be able to provide for our patients and basically present them with different options, and then guide them toward the best therapy for them. Whether it’s semaglutide or tirzepatide potentially in the future, these types of medications are excellent options for our patients. They’re highly effective tools with safe profiles.

A question that I often get from providers or patients is, “Well, Doctor, I’ve lost the weight now. How long should I take this medicine? Can I stop it now?”

Then, we have a conversation, and we actually usually have this conversation even before we start the medicine. Basically, we talk about the fact that obesity is a chronic disease. There’s no cure for obesity. Because it’s a chronic disease, we need to treat it like we would treat any other chronic disease.

The example that I often use is, if you have a patient who has hypertension and you start them on an antihypertensive medication, what happens? Their blood pressure goes down. It improves. Now, if their blood pressure is improved with a specific antihypertensive, would you stop that medicine? What would happen if you stopped that antihypertensive? Well, their blood pressure would go up, and we wouldn’t be surprised.

In the same way, if you have a patient who has obesity and you start that patient on an antiobesity medication, and their weight decreases, and their body fat mass at that point decreases, what would happen if you stop that medicine? They lost the weight, but you stop the medicine. Well, their weight gain comes back. They regain the weight.

We should not be surprised that weight gain occurs when we stop the treatment. That really underscores the fact that treatment needs to be continued. If a patient is started on an antiobesity medication and they lose weight, that medication needs to be continued to maintain that weight loss.

Basically, we eat food and our body responds by releasing these hormones. The hormones are made in our gut and in our pancreas and these hormones inform our brain. Are we hungry? Are we full? Where are we with our homeostatic set point of fat mass? Based on that, our brain is like the sensor or the thermostat.

Obesity is a chronic, treatable disease. We should treat obesity as we treat any other chronic disease, with effective and safe approaches that target underlying disease mechanisms. These results in the SURMOUNT-1 trial underscore that tirzepatide may be doing just that. Remarkably, 9 in 10 individuals with obesity lost weight while taking tirzepatide. These results are impressive. They’re an important step forward in potentially expanding effective therapeutic options for people with obesity.

Dr. Jastreboff is an associate professor of medicine and pediatrics at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and director of weight management and obesity prevention at Yale Stress Center. She reported conducting trials with Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Rhythm Pharmaceuticals; serving on scientific advisory boards for Ely Lilly, Intellihealth, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Rhythm Pharmaceuticals, and WW; and consulting for Boehringer Ingelheim and Scholar Rock.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

It’s important to remember and to think about the first time when patients with obesity come to see us: What have they faced? What have been their struggles? What shame and blame and bias have they faced?

One of the first things that I do when a patient comes to see me is invite them to share their weight journey with me. I ask them to tell me about their struggles, about what’s worked and what hasn’t worked, what they would like, and what their health goals are.

As they share their stories, I look for the opportunity to share with them that obesity is not their fault, but that it’s biology driving their body to carry extra weight and their body is super smart. Neither their body nor their brain want them to starve.

Our bodies evolved during a time where there was food scarcity and the potential of famine. We have a complex system that was designed to make sure that we always held on to extra weight, specifically extra fat, because that’s how we store energy. In the current obesogenic environment, what happens is our bodies carry extra weight, or specifically, extra fat.

Again, I say to them, this is biology. Your body’s doing exactly what it was designed to do. Your body’s very smart, but now we have to figure out how to help your body want to carry less fat because it is impacting your health. This is not your fault. Having obesity is not your fault any more than having diabetes or hypertension is anyone’s fault. Now it’s time for all of us to use highly effective tools that target the pathophysiology of obesity.

When a patient comes to me for weight management or to help them treat their obesity, I listen to them, and I look for clues as to what might help that specific patient. Every patient deserves to have individualized treatment. One medicine may be right for one person, another medicine may be right for another, and surgery may be right for another patient. I really try to listen and hear what that patient is telling me.

What we as providers really need is tools – different options – to be able to provide for our patients and basically present them with different options, and then guide them toward the best therapy for them. Whether it’s semaglutide or tirzepatide potentially in the future, these types of medications are excellent options for our patients. They’re highly effective tools with safe profiles.

A question that I often get from providers or patients is, “Well, Doctor, I’ve lost the weight now. How long should I take this medicine? Can I stop it now?”

Then, we have a conversation, and we actually usually have this conversation even before we start the medicine. Basically, we talk about the fact that obesity is a chronic disease. There’s no cure for obesity. Because it’s a chronic disease, we need to treat it like we would treat any other chronic disease.

The example that I often use is, if you have a patient who has hypertension and you start them on an antihypertensive medication, what happens? Their blood pressure goes down. It improves. Now, if their blood pressure is improved with a specific antihypertensive, would you stop that medicine? What would happen if you stopped that antihypertensive? Well, their blood pressure would go up, and we wouldn’t be surprised.

In the same way, if you have a patient who has obesity and you start that patient on an antiobesity medication, and their weight decreases, and their body fat mass at that point decreases, what would happen if you stop that medicine? They lost the weight, but you stop the medicine. Well, their weight gain comes back. They regain the weight.

We should not be surprised that weight gain occurs when we stop the treatment. That really underscores the fact that treatment needs to be continued. If a patient is started on an antiobesity medication and they lose weight, that medication needs to be continued to maintain that weight loss.

Basically, we eat food and our body responds by releasing these hormones. The hormones are made in our gut and in our pancreas and these hormones inform our brain. Are we hungry? Are we full? Where are we with our homeostatic set point of fat mass? Based on that, our brain is like the sensor or the thermostat.

Obesity is a chronic, treatable disease. We should treat obesity as we treat any other chronic disease, with effective and safe approaches that target underlying disease mechanisms. These results in the SURMOUNT-1 trial underscore that tirzepatide may be doing just that. Remarkably, 9 in 10 individuals with obesity lost weight while taking tirzepatide. These results are impressive. They’re an important step forward in potentially expanding effective therapeutic options for people with obesity.

Dr. Jastreboff is an associate professor of medicine and pediatrics at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and director of weight management and obesity prevention at Yale Stress Center. She reported conducting trials with Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Rhythm Pharmaceuticals; serving on scientific advisory boards for Ely Lilly, Intellihealth, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Rhythm Pharmaceuticals, and WW; and consulting for Boehringer Ingelheim and Scholar Rock.

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

Hospitals in low-income and rural areas of the United States are much less likely to adopt stroke certification than hospitals in high-income and urban communities, a new study shows.

Further, other results showed that, after adjustment for population and hospital size, access to stroke-certified hospitals is significantly lower in Black, racially segregated communities.

The study was published online  in JAMA Neurology.

Noting that stroke-certified hospitals provide higher-quality stroke care, the authors, led by Yu-Chu Shen, PhD, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, Calif., conclude that: “Our findings suggest that structural inequities in stroke care may be an important consideration in eliminating stroke disparities for vulnerable populations.”

©Aaron Kohr/Thinkstock.com

She said there is a tendency to think this is a result of some sort of bias on the part of health care professionals. “We wanted to look deep down in the system and whether the built environment of health care supply and geographic distribution of services contributed to access and treatment inequities.”

The study combined a dataset of hospital stroke certification from all general acute nonfederal hospitals in the continental United States from January 2009 to December 2019. National, hospital, and census data were used to identify historically underserved communities by racial and ethnic composition, income distribution, and rurality.

A total of 4,984 hospitals were assessed. Results showed that over the 11-year study period, the number of hospitals with stroke certification grew from 961 (19%) to 1,763 (36%).

Without controlling for population and hospital size, hospitals in predominantly Black, racially segregated areas were 1.67-fold more likely to adopt stroke care of any level than those in predominantly non-Black, racially segregated areas (hazard ratio, 1.67; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-1.97).

However, after adjustment for population and hospital size, the likelihood of adopting stroke care among hospitals serving Black, racially segregated communities was significantly lower than among those serving non-Black, racially segregated communities (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62-0.89).

“In other words, on a per-capita basis, a hospital serving a predominantly Black, racially segregated community was 26% less likely to adopt stroke certification of any level than a hospital in a predominantly non-Black, racially segregated community,” the authors state.

In terms of socioeconomic factors, hospitals serving low-income, economically integrated (HR, 0.23) and low-income, economically segregated (HR, 0.29) areas were far less likely to adopt any level of stroke care certification than hospitals serving high-income areas, regardless of income segregation.

Rural hospitals were also much less likely to adopt any level of stroke care than urban hospitals (HR, 0.10).

“Our results suggest that it might be necessary to incentivize hospitals operating in underserved communities to seek stroke certification or to entice hospitals with higher propensity to adopt stroke care to operate in such communities so access at the per-patient level becomes more equitable,” the authors say.

This project was supported by the Pilot Project Award from the National Bureau of Economic Research Center for Aging and Health Research, funded by the National Institute on Aging and by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health. Dr. Shen and Dr. Hsia have received grants from the National Institute of Aging and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

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

Hospitals in low-income and rural areas of the United States are much less likely to adopt stroke certification than hospitals in high-income and urban communities, a new study shows.

Further, other results showed that, after adjustment for population and hospital size, access to stroke-certified hospitals is significantly lower in Black, racially segregated communities.

The study was published online  in JAMA Neurology.

Noting that stroke-certified hospitals provide higher-quality stroke care, the authors, led by Yu-Chu Shen, PhD, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, Calif., conclude that: “Our findings suggest that structural inequities in stroke care may be an important consideration in eliminating stroke disparities for vulnerable populations.”

©Aaron Kohr/Thinkstock.com

She said there is a tendency to think this is a result of some sort of bias on the part of health care professionals. “We wanted to look deep down in the system and whether the built environment of health care supply and geographic distribution of services contributed to access and treatment inequities.”

The study combined a dataset of hospital stroke certification from all general acute nonfederal hospitals in the continental United States from January 2009 to December 2019. National, hospital, and census data were used to identify historically underserved communities by racial and ethnic composition, income distribution, and rurality.

A total of 4,984 hospitals were assessed. Results showed that over the 11-year study period, the number of hospitals with stroke certification grew from 961 (19%) to 1,763 (36%).

Without controlling for population and hospital size, hospitals in predominantly Black, racially segregated areas were 1.67-fold more likely to adopt stroke care of any level than those in predominantly non-Black, racially segregated areas (hazard ratio, 1.67; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-1.97).

However, after adjustment for population and hospital size, the likelihood of adopting stroke care among hospitals serving Black, racially segregated communities was significantly lower than among those serving non-Black, racially segregated communities (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62-0.89).

“In other words, on a per-capita basis, a hospital serving a predominantly Black, racially segregated community was 26% less likely to adopt stroke certification of any level than a hospital in a predominantly non-Black, racially segregated community,” the authors state.

In terms of socioeconomic factors, hospitals serving low-income, economically integrated (HR, 0.23) and low-income, economically segregated (HR, 0.29) areas were far less likely to adopt any level of stroke care certification than hospitals serving high-income areas, regardless of income segregation.

Rural hospitals were also much less likely to adopt any level of stroke care than urban hospitals (HR, 0.10).

“Our results suggest that it might be necessary to incentivize hospitals operating in underserved communities to seek stroke certification or to entice hospitals with higher propensity to adopt stroke care to operate in such communities so access at the per-patient level becomes more equitable,” the authors say.

This project was supported by the Pilot Project Award from the National Bureau of Economic Research Center for Aging and Health Research, funded by the National Institute on Aging and by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health. Dr. Shen and Dr. Hsia have received grants from the National Institute of Aging and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

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

Hospitals in low-income and rural areas of the United States are much less likely to adopt stroke certification than hospitals in high-income and urban communities, a new study shows.

Further, other results showed that, after adjustment for population and hospital size, access to stroke-certified hospitals is significantly lower in Black, racially segregated communities.

The study was published online  in JAMA Neurology.

Noting that stroke-certified hospitals provide higher-quality stroke care, the authors, led by Yu-Chu Shen, PhD, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, Calif., conclude that: “Our findings suggest that structural inequities in stroke care may be an important consideration in eliminating stroke disparities for vulnerable populations.”

©Aaron Kohr/Thinkstock.com

She said there is a tendency to think this is a result of some sort of bias on the part of health care professionals. “We wanted to look deep down in the system and whether the built environment of health care supply and geographic distribution of services contributed to access and treatment inequities.”

The study combined a dataset of hospital stroke certification from all general acute nonfederal hospitals in the continental United States from January 2009 to December 2019. National, hospital, and census data were used to identify historically underserved communities by racial and ethnic composition, income distribution, and rurality.

A total of 4,984 hospitals were assessed. Results showed that over the 11-year study period, the number of hospitals with stroke certification grew from 961 (19%) to 1,763 (36%).

Without controlling for population and hospital size, hospitals in predominantly Black, racially segregated areas were 1.67-fold more likely to adopt stroke care of any level than those in predominantly non-Black, racially segregated areas (hazard ratio, 1.67; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-1.97).

However, after adjustment for population and hospital size, the likelihood of adopting stroke care among hospitals serving Black, racially segregated communities was significantly lower than among those serving non-Black, racially segregated communities (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62-0.89).

“In other words, on a per-capita basis, a hospital serving a predominantly Black, racially segregated community was 26% less likely to adopt stroke certification of any level than a hospital in a predominantly non-Black, racially segregated community,” the authors state.

In terms of socioeconomic factors, hospitals serving low-income, economically integrated (HR, 0.23) and low-income, economically segregated (HR, 0.29) areas were far less likely to adopt any level of stroke care certification than hospitals serving high-income areas, regardless of income segregation.

Rural hospitals were also much less likely to adopt any level of stroke care than urban hospitals (HR, 0.10).

“Our results suggest that it might be necessary to incentivize hospitals operating in underserved communities to seek stroke certification or to entice hospitals with higher propensity to adopt stroke care to operate in such communities so access at the per-patient level becomes more equitable,” the authors say.

This project was supported by the Pilot Project Award from the National Bureau of Economic Research Center for Aging and Health Research, funded by the National Institute on Aging and by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health. Dr. Shen and Dr. Hsia have received grants from the National Institute of Aging and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

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

“I love practicing medicine.”

The speaker was one of my patients. A distinguished, friendly, gentleman in his mid-to-late 70s, here to see me for a minor problem. He still practices medicine part time.

Since his neurologic issue was simple, we spent a fair amount of the time chatting. We’d both seen changes in medicine over time, he more than I, obviously.

Some good, some bad. Fancier toys, better drugs, more paperwork (even if it’s not all on paper anymore).

But we both still like what we do, and have no plans to give it up anytime soon.

Some doctors end up hating their jobs and leave the field. I understand that, and I don’t blame them. It’s not an easy one.

But I still enjoy the job. I look forward to seeing patients each day, turning over their cases, trying to figure them out, and doing what I can to help people.

After almost 30 years as a doctor the job becomes a part of your personality, one that’s as important as many other aspects of what makes us who we are.

I see that it is similar with attorneys. Maybe it’s part of the time and commitment you put into getting to a job that makes it hard to walk away as you get older. Or maybe (probably more likely) it’s some intrinsic part of the personality that drove you to get there.

I’m roughly two-thirds of the way through my career, but still don’t have any plans to close down. Granted, that’s practical – I have kids in college, a mortgage, and office overhead. My colleague across the desk can stop practicing whenever he wants, but gets satisfaction, validation, and enjoyment from doing the same job. At this point in his life that’s more important than the money.

I hope to someday feel that same way. I don’t want to always work the 80-90 hours a week I do now, but I can’t imagine not doing this, either.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

“I love practicing medicine.”

The speaker was one of my patients. A distinguished, friendly, gentleman in his mid-to-late 70s, here to see me for a minor problem. He still practices medicine part time.

Since his neurologic issue was simple, we spent a fair amount of the time chatting. We’d both seen changes in medicine over time, he more than I, obviously.

Some good, some bad. Fancier toys, better drugs, more paperwork (even if it’s not all on paper anymore).

But we both still like what we do, and have no plans to give it up anytime soon.

Some doctors end up hating their jobs and leave the field. I understand that, and I don’t blame them. It’s not an easy one.

But I still enjoy the job. I look forward to seeing patients each day, turning over their cases, trying to figure them out, and doing what I can to help people.

After almost 30 years as a doctor the job becomes a part of your personality, one that’s as important as many other aspects of what makes us who we are.

I see that it is similar with attorneys. Maybe it’s part of the time and commitment you put into getting to a job that makes it hard to walk away as you get older. Or maybe (probably more likely) it’s some intrinsic part of the personality that drove you to get there.

I’m roughly two-thirds of the way through my career, but still don’t have any plans to close down. Granted, that’s practical – I have kids in college, a mortgage, and office overhead. My colleague across the desk can stop practicing whenever he wants, but gets satisfaction, validation, and enjoyment from doing the same job. At this point in his life that’s more important than the money.

I hope to someday feel that same way. I don’t want to always work the 80-90 hours a week I do now, but I can’t imagine not doing this, either.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

“I love practicing medicine.”

The speaker was one of my patients. A distinguished, friendly, gentleman in his mid-to-late 70s, here to see me for a minor problem. He still practices medicine part time.

Since his neurologic issue was simple, we spent a fair amount of the time chatting. We’d both seen changes in medicine over time, he more than I, obviously.

Some good, some bad. Fancier toys, better drugs, more paperwork (even if it’s not all on paper anymore).

But we both still like what we do, and have no plans to give it up anytime soon.

Some doctors end up hating their jobs and leave the field. I understand that, and I don’t blame them. It’s not an easy one.

But I still enjoy the job. I look forward to seeing patients each day, turning over their cases, trying to figure them out, and doing what I can to help people.

After almost 30 years as a doctor the job becomes a part of your personality, one that’s as important as many other aspects of what makes us who we are.

I see that it is similar with attorneys. Maybe it’s part of the time and commitment you put into getting to a job that makes it hard to walk away as you get older. Or maybe (probably more likely) it’s some intrinsic part of the personality that drove you to get there.

I’m roughly two-thirds of the way through my career, but still don’t have any plans to close down. Granted, that’s practical – I have kids in college, a mortgage, and office overhead. My colleague across the desk can stop practicing whenever he wants, but gets satisfaction, validation, and enjoyment from doing the same job. At this point in his life that’s more important than the money.

I hope to someday feel that same way. I don’t want to always work the 80-90 hours a week I do now, but I can’t imagine not doing this, either.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Air pollution levels mediated the impact of temperature on oxygen saturation in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) based on data from 117 individuals.

COPD is attributed to environmental factors including air pollution, and air pollution has been linked to increased risk of hospitalization and mortality because of acute COPD exacerbation, wrote Huan Minh Tran, PhD, of Taipei (Taiwan) Medical University and colleagues. However, the effects of air pollution on climate-associated health outcomes in COPD have not been explored, they said.

In a study published in Science of The Total Environment the researchers identified 117 adult COPD patients at a single center in Taiwan. They measured lung function, 6-minute walking distance, oxygen desaturation, white blood cell count, and percent emphysema (defined as low attenuation area [LAA]) and linked them to 0- to 1-year, 0- to 3-year, and 0- to 5-year lags in exposures to relative humidity (RH), temperature, and air pollution. The mean age of the participants was 72.9 years; 93% were men.

Pollution was defined in terms of fine particulate matter (PM2.5).

Overall, an increase in RH by 1% was associated with increases in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), eosinophils, and lymphocytes.

A 1% increase in RH also was associated with a decrease in the total-lobe LAA.

As for temperature, an increase of 1° C was associated with decreased oxygen desaturation and with decreases in right-, left-, and upper-lobe LAA values.

When the researchers examined the impact of pollution, they found that a 1 mcg/m³ increase in PM2.5 was associated with a decrease in the FEV₁ as well as with an increase in oxygen desaturation. A 1 mcg/m³ increase in PM10 and PM2.5 was associated with increases in the total-, right-, left, and upper-lobe LAA; increases in lower-lobe LAA were associated with an increase in PM2.5 only.

“This is reasonable because PM2.5 can travel and deposit in distal parts of the lung, while PM10 is preferably deposited in the larger airways of the upper lung regions,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.

A one part per billion increase in nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) was associated with decreased FEV₁ and increased upper-lobe LAA.

“We observed that NO₂ fully mediated the association between RH and FEV₁, while PM2.5 fully mediated associations of temperature with oxygen saturation and emphysema severity in COPD patients,” the researchers added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the relatively small and homogeneous male, Taiwanese population, which may limit generalizability, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the lack of control for factors such as body mass index, occupational exposure, comorbidities, medication use, and indoor air pollution, they said.

However, the results suggest that air pollution could have an effect on the established associations between climate and adverse health outcomes in COPD, and more research is needed. Climate change–related air pollution is an important public health issue, especially with regards to respiratory disease,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Air pollution levels mediated the impact of temperature on oxygen saturation in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) based on data from 117 individuals.

COPD is attributed to environmental factors including air pollution, and air pollution has been linked to increased risk of hospitalization and mortality because of acute COPD exacerbation, wrote Huan Minh Tran, PhD, of Taipei (Taiwan) Medical University and colleagues. However, the effects of air pollution on climate-associated health outcomes in COPD have not been explored, they said.

In a study published in Science of The Total Environment the researchers identified 117 adult COPD patients at a single center in Taiwan. They measured lung function, 6-minute walking distance, oxygen desaturation, white blood cell count, and percent emphysema (defined as low attenuation area [LAA]) and linked them to 0- to 1-year, 0- to 3-year, and 0- to 5-year lags in exposures to relative humidity (RH), temperature, and air pollution. The mean age of the participants was 72.9 years; 93% were men.

Pollution was defined in terms of fine particulate matter (PM2.5).

Overall, an increase in RH by 1% was associated with increases in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), eosinophils, and lymphocytes.

A 1% increase in RH also was associated with a decrease in the total-lobe LAA.

As for temperature, an increase of 1° C was associated with decreased oxygen desaturation and with decreases in right-, left-, and upper-lobe LAA values.

When the researchers examined the impact of pollution, they found that a 1 mcg/m³ increase in PM2.5 was associated with a decrease in the FEV₁ as well as with an increase in oxygen desaturation. A 1 mcg/m³ increase in PM10 and PM2.5 was associated with increases in the total-, right-, left, and upper-lobe LAA; increases in lower-lobe LAA were associated with an increase in PM2.5 only.

“This is reasonable because PM2.5 can travel and deposit in distal parts of the lung, while PM10 is preferably deposited in the larger airways of the upper lung regions,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.

A one part per billion increase in nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) was associated with decreased FEV₁ and increased upper-lobe LAA.

“We observed that NO₂ fully mediated the association between RH and FEV₁, while PM2.5 fully mediated associations of temperature with oxygen saturation and emphysema severity in COPD patients,” the researchers added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the relatively small and homogeneous male, Taiwanese population, which may limit generalizability, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the lack of control for factors such as body mass index, occupational exposure, comorbidities, medication use, and indoor air pollution, they said.

However, the results suggest that air pollution could have an effect on the established associations between climate and adverse health outcomes in COPD, and more research is needed. Climate change–related air pollution is an important public health issue, especially with regards to respiratory disease,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Air pollution levels mediated the impact of temperature on oxygen saturation in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) based on data from 117 individuals.

COPD is attributed to environmental factors including air pollution, and air pollution has been linked to increased risk of hospitalization and mortality because of acute COPD exacerbation, wrote Huan Minh Tran, PhD, of Taipei (Taiwan) Medical University and colleagues. However, the effects of air pollution on climate-associated health outcomes in COPD have not been explored, they said.

In a study published in Science of The Total Environment the researchers identified 117 adult COPD patients at a single center in Taiwan. They measured lung function, 6-minute walking distance, oxygen desaturation, white blood cell count, and percent emphysema (defined as low attenuation area [LAA]) and linked them to 0- to 1-year, 0- to 3-year, and 0- to 5-year lags in exposures to relative humidity (RH), temperature, and air pollution. The mean age of the participants was 72.9 years; 93% were men.

Pollution was defined in terms of fine particulate matter (PM2.5).

Overall, an increase in RH by 1% was associated with increases in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), eosinophils, and lymphocytes.

A 1% increase in RH also was associated with a decrease in the total-lobe LAA.

As for temperature, an increase of 1° C was associated with decreased oxygen desaturation and with decreases in right-, left-, and upper-lobe LAA values.

When the researchers examined the impact of pollution, they found that a 1 mcg/m³ increase in PM2.5 was associated with a decrease in the FEV₁ as well as with an increase in oxygen desaturation. A 1 mcg/m³ increase in PM10 and PM2.5 was associated with increases in the total-, right-, left, and upper-lobe LAA; increases in lower-lobe LAA were associated with an increase in PM2.5 only.

“This is reasonable because PM2.5 can travel and deposit in distal parts of the lung, while PM10 is preferably deposited in the larger airways of the upper lung regions,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.

A one part per billion increase in nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) was associated with decreased FEV₁ and increased upper-lobe LAA.

“We observed that NO₂ fully mediated the association between RH and FEV₁, while PM2.5 fully mediated associations of temperature with oxygen saturation and emphysema severity in COPD patients,” the researchers added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the relatively small and homogeneous male, Taiwanese population, which may limit generalizability, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the lack of control for factors such as body mass index, occupational exposure, comorbidities, medication use, and indoor air pollution, they said.

However, the results suggest that air pollution could have an effect on the established associations between climate and adverse health outcomes in COPD, and more research is needed. Climate change–related air pollution is an important public health issue, especially with regards to respiratory disease,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Skin manifestations of COVID-19 were among the topics presented in several sessions at the 49th Congress of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. Specialists agreed that fewer skin changes associated with this virus have been seen with the latest variants of SARS-CoV-2. They highlighted the results of the most remarkable research on this topic that were presented in this forum.

In the study, which was carried out by Spanish dermatologists with the support of the AEDV, researchers analyzed skin reactions associated with the COVID-19 vaccine.

Study author Cristina Galván, MD, a dermatologist at the University Hospital of Móstoles, Madrid, said, “This is the first study that analyzes a significant number of cases assessed by dermatologists and illustrated with clinical images of the dermatological manifestations caused as a reaction to these vaccines.”

The study was carried out during the first months of COVID-19 vaccination, Dr. Galván told this news organization. It was proposed as a continuation of a COVID skin study that was published in the British Journal of Dermatology. That study documented the first classification of skin lesions associated with COVID-19. Dr. Galván is the lead author of the latter study.

“The objectives of this study were to characterize and classify skin reactions after vaccination, identify their chronology, and analyze the associations with a series of antecedents: dermatological and allergic diseases, previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and skin reactions associated with COVID-19,” said Dr. Galván. The study was a team effort, she added.

“It was conducted between Feb. 15 and May 12, 2021, and information was gathered on 405 reactions that appeared during the 21 days after any dose of the COVID-19 vaccines approved at that time in Spain: the Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, and University of Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccines,” she added.

Dr. Galván explained that the study shows very clear patterns and investigators reached conclusions that match those of other groups that have investigated this topic. “Six reaction patterns were described according to their frequency. The first is the ‘COVID-19 arm,’ which consists of a local reaction at the injection site and occurs almost exclusively in women and in 70% of cases after inoculation with the Moderna serum. It is a manifestation that resolves well and does not always recur in subsequent doses. More than half are of delayed onset: biopsied patients show signs of a delayed hypersensitivity reaction. In line with all the publications in this regard, it was found that this reaction is not a reason to skip or delay a dose.”
 

Herpes zoster reactivation

The second pattern is urticarial, which, according to the specialist, occurs with equal frequency after the administration of all vaccines and is well controlled with antihistamines. “This is a very nonspecific pattern, which does not prevent it from still being frequent. It was not associated with drug intake.

“The morbilliform pattern is more frequent after the Pfizer/BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines. It affects the trunk and extremities, and up to a quarter of the cases required systemic corticosteroids. The papulovesicular and pityriasis rosea–like patterns are equally frequent in all vaccines. The latter is found in a younger age group. Finally, there is the purpuric pattern, more localized in the extremities and more frequent after the Pfizer/BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines. On biopsy, this pattern showed small-vessel vasculitis.”

Less frequently, reactivations or de novo onset of different dermatologic diseases were found. “Varicella-zoster virus reactivations were observed with a frequency of 13.8%, being more common after the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine,” said Dr. Galván. “Other studies have corroborated this increase in herpes zoster, although it has been seen that the absolute number is low, so the benefits of the vaccine outweigh this eventual complication. At the same time and along the same lines, vaccination against herpes zoster is recommended for those over 50 years of age.”

Another fact revealed by the study is that these reactions were not significantly more severe in people with dermatologic diseases, those with previous infection, or those with skin manifestation associated with COVID-19.

Dr. Galván highlighted that, except for the COVID-19 arm, these patterns were among those associated with the disease, “which supports [the idea] that it does not demonstrate that the host’s immune reaction to the infection was playing a role.”
 

Women and young people

“As for pseudoperniosis, it is poorly represented in our series: 0.7% compared to 2% in the American registry. Although neither the SARS-CoV-2–pseudoperniosis association nor its pathophysiology is clear, the idea is that if this manifestation is related to the host’s immune response during infection, pseudoperniosis after vaccination could also be linked to the immune response to the vaccine,” said Dr. Galván.

Many of these reactions are more intense in women. “Before starting to use these vaccines, we already knew that messenger RNA vaccines (a powerful activator of innate immunity) induce frequent reactions, that adjuvants and excipients (polyethylene glycol and polysorbate) also generate them, and that other factors influence reactogenicity, among those of us of the same age and sex, reactions being more frequent in younger people and in women,” said Dr. Galván. “This may be one of the reasons why the COVID-19 arm is so much more prevalent in the female population and that 80% of all reactions that were collected were in women.”

In relation to the fact that manifestations differed, depending on the type of inoculated serum, Dr. Galván said, “Some reactions are just as common after any of the vaccines. However, others are not, as is the case with the COVID-19 arm for the Moderna vaccine or reactivations of the herpes virus, more frequent after the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine.

“Undoubtedly, behind these differences are particularities in the immune reaction caused by each of the vaccines and their composition, including the excipients,” she said.

Regarding the fact that these reactions were the same throughout the vaccine regimen or that they varied in intensity, depending on the dose, Dr. Galván said, “In our study, as in those carried out by other groups, there were no significant differences in terms of frequency after the first and second doses. One thing to keep in mind is that, due to the temporary design of our study and the time at which it was conducted, it was not possible to collect reactions after second doses of AstraZeneca.

“Manifestations have generally been mild and well controlled. Many of them did not recur after the second dose, and the vast majority did not prevent completion of the vaccination scheme, but we must not lose sight of the fact that 20% of these manifestations were assessed by the dermatologist as serious or very serious,” Dr. Galván added.

Regarding the next steps planned for this line of research, Dr. Galván commented, “We are awaiting the evolution of the reported cases and the reactions that may arise, although for now, our group does not have any open studies. The most important thing now is to be alert and report the data observed in the pharmacovigilance systems, in open registries, and in scientific literature to generate evidence.”

Dr. Galván has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Skin manifestations of COVID-19 were among the topics presented in several sessions at the 49th Congress of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. Specialists agreed that fewer skin changes associated with this virus have been seen with the latest variants of SARS-CoV-2. They highlighted the results of the most remarkable research on this topic that were presented in this forum.

In the study, which was carried out by Spanish dermatologists with the support of the AEDV, researchers analyzed skin reactions associated with the COVID-19 vaccine.

Study author Cristina Galván, MD, a dermatologist at the University Hospital of Móstoles, Madrid, said, “This is the first study that analyzes a significant number of cases assessed by dermatologists and illustrated with clinical images of the dermatological manifestations caused as a reaction to these vaccines.”

The study was carried out during the first months of COVID-19 vaccination, Dr. Galván told this news organization. It was proposed as a continuation of a COVID skin study that was published in the British Journal of Dermatology. That study documented the first classification of skin lesions associated with COVID-19. Dr. Galván is the lead author of the latter study.

“The objectives of this study were to characterize and classify skin reactions after vaccination, identify their chronology, and analyze the associations with a series of antecedents: dermatological and allergic diseases, previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and skin reactions associated with COVID-19,” said Dr. Galván. The study was a team effort, she added.

“It was conducted between Feb. 15 and May 12, 2021, and information was gathered on 405 reactions that appeared during the 21 days after any dose of the COVID-19 vaccines approved at that time in Spain: the Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, and University of Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccines,” she added.

Dr. Galván explained that the study shows very clear patterns and investigators reached conclusions that match those of other groups that have investigated this topic. “Six reaction patterns were described according to their frequency. The first is the ‘COVID-19 arm,’ which consists of a local reaction at the injection site and occurs almost exclusively in women and in 70% of cases after inoculation with the Moderna serum. It is a manifestation that resolves well and does not always recur in subsequent doses. More than half are of delayed onset: biopsied patients show signs of a delayed hypersensitivity reaction. In line with all the publications in this regard, it was found that this reaction is not a reason to skip or delay a dose.”
 

Herpes zoster reactivation

The second pattern is urticarial, which, according to the specialist, occurs with equal frequency after the administration of all vaccines and is well controlled with antihistamines. “This is a very nonspecific pattern, which does not prevent it from still being frequent. It was not associated with drug intake.

“The morbilliform pattern is more frequent after the Pfizer/BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines. It affects the trunk and extremities, and up to a quarter of the cases required systemic corticosteroids. The papulovesicular and pityriasis rosea–like patterns are equally frequent in all vaccines. The latter is found in a younger age group. Finally, there is the purpuric pattern, more localized in the extremities and more frequent after the Pfizer/BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines. On biopsy, this pattern showed small-vessel vasculitis.”

Less frequently, reactivations or de novo onset of different dermatologic diseases were found. “Varicella-zoster virus reactivations were observed with a frequency of 13.8%, being more common after the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine,” said Dr. Galván. “Other studies have corroborated this increase in herpes zoster, although it has been seen that the absolute number is low, so the benefits of the vaccine outweigh this eventual complication. At the same time and along the same lines, vaccination against herpes zoster is recommended for those over 50 years of age.”

Another fact revealed by the study is that these reactions were not significantly more severe in people with dermatologic diseases, those with previous infection, or those with skin manifestation associated with COVID-19.

Dr. Galván highlighted that, except for the COVID-19 arm, these patterns were among those associated with the disease, “which supports [the idea] that it does not demonstrate that the host’s immune reaction to the infection was playing a role.”
 

Women and young people

“As for pseudoperniosis, it is poorly represented in our series: 0.7% compared to 2% in the American registry. Although neither the SARS-CoV-2–pseudoperniosis association nor its pathophysiology is clear, the idea is that if this manifestation is related to the host’s immune response during infection, pseudoperniosis after vaccination could also be linked to the immune response to the vaccine,” said Dr. Galván.

Many of these reactions are more intense in women. “Before starting to use these vaccines, we already knew that messenger RNA vaccines (a powerful activator of innate immunity) induce frequent reactions, that adjuvants and excipients (polyethylene glycol and polysorbate) also generate them, and that other factors influence reactogenicity, among those of us of the same age and sex, reactions being more frequent in younger people and in women,” said Dr. Galván. “This may be one of the reasons why the COVID-19 arm is so much more prevalent in the female population and that 80% of all reactions that were collected were in women.”

In relation to the fact that manifestations differed, depending on the type of inoculated serum, Dr. Galván said, “Some reactions are just as common after any of the vaccines. However, others are not, as is the case with the COVID-19 arm for the Moderna vaccine or reactivations of the herpes virus, more frequent after the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine.

“Undoubtedly, behind these differences are particularities in the immune reaction caused by each of the vaccines and their composition, including the excipients,” she said.

Regarding the fact that these reactions were the same throughout the vaccine regimen or that they varied in intensity, depending on the dose, Dr. Galván said, “In our study, as in those carried out by other groups, there were no significant differences in terms of frequency after the first and second doses. One thing to keep in mind is that, due to the temporary design of our study and the time at which it was conducted, it was not possible to collect reactions after second doses of AstraZeneca.

“Manifestations have generally been mild and well controlled. Many of them did not recur after the second dose, and the vast majority did not prevent completion of the vaccination scheme, but we must not lose sight of the fact that 20% of these manifestations were assessed by the dermatologist as serious or very serious,” Dr. Galván added.

Regarding the next steps planned for this line of research, Dr. Galván commented, “We are awaiting the evolution of the reported cases and the reactions that may arise, although for now, our group does not have any open studies. The most important thing now is to be alert and report the data observed in the pharmacovigilance systems, in open registries, and in scientific literature to generate evidence.”

Dr. Galván has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Skin manifestations of COVID-19 were among the topics presented in several sessions at the 49th Congress of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. Specialists agreed that fewer skin changes associated with this virus have been seen with the latest variants of SARS-CoV-2. They highlighted the results of the most remarkable research on this topic that were presented in this forum.

In the study, which was carried out by Spanish dermatologists with the support of the AEDV, researchers analyzed skin reactions associated with the COVID-19 vaccine.

Study author Cristina Galván, MD, a dermatologist at the University Hospital of Móstoles, Madrid, said, “This is the first study that analyzes a significant number of cases assessed by dermatologists and illustrated with clinical images of the dermatological manifestations caused as a reaction to these vaccines.”

The study was carried out during the first months of COVID-19 vaccination, Dr. Galván told this news organization. It was proposed as a continuation of a COVID skin study that was published in the British Journal of Dermatology. That study documented the first classification of skin lesions associated with COVID-19. Dr. Galván is the lead author of the latter study.

“The objectives of this study were to characterize and classify skin reactions after vaccination, identify their chronology, and analyze the associations with a series of antecedents: dermatological and allergic diseases, previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and skin reactions associated with COVID-19,” said Dr. Galván. The study was a team effort, she added.

“It was conducted between Feb. 15 and May 12, 2021, and information was gathered on 405 reactions that appeared during the 21 days after any dose of the COVID-19 vaccines approved at that time in Spain: the Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, and University of Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccines,” she added.

Dr. Galván explained that the study shows very clear patterns and investigators reached conclusions that match those of other groups that have investigated this topic. “Six reaction patterns were described according to their frequency. The first is the ‘COVID-19 arm,’ which consists of a local reaction at the injection site and occurs almost exclusively in women and in 70% of cases after inoculation with the Moderna serum. It is a manifestation that resolves well and does not always recur in subsequent doses. More than half are of delayed onset: biopsied patients show signs of a delayed hypersensitivity reaction. In line with all the publications in this regard, it was found that this reaction is not a reason to skip or delay a dose.”
 

Herpes zoster reactivation

The second pattern is urticarial, which, according to the specialist, occurs with equal frequency after the administration of all vaccines and is well controlled with antihistamines. “This is a very nonspecific pattern, which does not prevent it from still being frequent. It was not associated with drug intake.

“The morbilliform pattern is more frequent after the Pfizer/BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines. It affects the trunk and extremities, and up to a quarter of the cases required systemic corticosteroids. The papulovesicular and pityriasis rosea–like patterns are equally frequent in all vaccines. The latter is found in a younger age group. Finally, there is the purpuric pattern, more localized in the extremities and more frequent after the Pfizer/BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines. On biopsy, this pattern showed small-vessel vasculitis.”

Less frequently, reactivations or de novo onset of different dermatologic diseases were found. “Varicella-zoster virus reactivations were observed with a frequency of 13.8%, being more common after the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine,” said Dr. Galván. “Other studies have corroborated this increase in herpes zoster, although it has been seen that the absolute number is low, so the benefits of the vaccine outweigh this eventual complication. At the same time and along the same lines, vaccination against herpes zoster is recommended for those over 50 years of age.”

Another fact revealed by the study is that these reactions were not significantly more severe in people with dermatologic diseases, those with previous infection, or those with skin manifestation associated with COVID-19.

Dr. Galván highlighted that, except for the COVID-19 arm, these patterns were among those associated with the disease, “which supports [the idea] that it does not demonstrate that the host’s immune reaction to the infection was playing a role.”
 

Women and young people

“As for pseudoperniosis, it is poorly represented in our series: 0.7% compared to 2% in the American registry. Although neither the SARS-CoV-2–pseudoperniosis association nor its pathophysiology is clear, the idea is that if this manifestation is related to the host’s immune response during infection, pseudoperniosis after vaccination could also be linked to the immune response to the vaccine,” said Dr. Galván.

Many of these reactions are more intense in women. “Before starting to use these vaccines, we already knew that messenger RNA vaccines (a powerful activator of innate immunity) induce frequent reactions, that adjuvants and excipients (polyethylene glycol and polysorbate) also generate them, and that other factors influence reactogenicity, among those of us of the same age and sex, reactions being more frequent in younger people and in women,” said Dr. Galván. “This may be one of the reasons why the COVID-19 arm is so much more prevalent in the female population and that 80% of all reactions that were collected were in women.”

In relation to the fact that manifestations differed, depending on the type of inoculated serum, Dr. Galván said, “Some reactions are just as common after any of the vaccines. However, others are not, as is the case with the COVID-19 arm for the Moderna vaccine or reactivations of the herpes virus, more frequent after the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine.

“Undoubtedly, behind these differences are particularities in the immune reaction caused by each of the vaccines and their composition, including the excipients,” she said.

Regarding the fact that these reactions were the same throughout the vaccine regimen or that they varied in intensity, depending on the dose, Dr. Galván said, “In our study, as in those carried out by other groups, there were no significant differences in terms of frequency after the first and second doses. One thing to keep in mind is that, due to the temporary design of our study and the time at which it was conducted, it was not possible to collect reactions after second doses of AstraZeneca.

“Manifestations have generally been mild and well controlled. Many of them did not recur after the second dose, and the vast majority did not prevent completion of the vaccination scheme, but we must not lose sight of the fact that 20% of these manifestations were assessed by the dermatologist as serious or very serious,” Dr. Galván added.

Regarding the next steps planned for this line of research, Dr. Galván commented, “We are awaiting the evolution of the reported cases and the reactions that may arise, although for now, our group does not have any open studies. The most important thing now is to be alert and report the data observed in the pharmacovigilance systems, in open registries, and in scientific literature to generate evidence.”

Dr. Galván has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The monkeypox virus is evolving 6-12 times faster than would be expected, according to a new study.

The virus is thought to have a single origin, the genetic data suggests, and is a likely descendant of the strain involved in the 2017-2018 monkeypox outbreak in Nigeria. It’s not clear if these mutations have aided the transmissibility of the virus among people or have any other clinical implications, João Paulo Gomes, PhD, from Portugal’s National Institute of Health, Lisbon, said in an email.

Since the monkeypox outbreak began in May, nearly 7,000 cases of monkeypox have been reported across 52 countries and territories. As of July 5, there were 560 cases in the United States. So far, there have been no deaths.

Orthopoxviruses – the genus to which monkeypox belongs – are large DNA viruses that usually only gain one or two mutations every year. (For comparison, SARS-CoV-2 gains around two mutations every month.) One would expect 5 to 10 mutations in the 2022 monkeypox virus, compared with the 2017 strain, Dr. Gomes said.

In the study, Dr. Gomes and colleagues analyzed 15 monkeypox DNA sequences made available by Portugal and the National Center for Biotechnology Information, Bethesda, Md., between May 20 and May 27, 2022. The analysis revealed that this most recent strain differed by 50 single-nucleotide polymorphisms, compared with previous strains of the virus in 2017-2018.

“This is far beyond what we would expect, specifically for orthopoxvirus,” Andrew Lover, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst School of Public Health & Health Sciences, told this news organization. He was not involved with the research. “That suggests [the virus] is trying to figure out the best way to deal with a new host species,” he added.

Rodents are thought to be the natural hosts of the monkeypox virus, he explained, and, in 2022, the infection transferred to humans. “Moving into a new species can ‘turbocharge’ mutations as the virus adapts to a new biological environment,” he explained, though it is not clear if the new mutations Dr. Gomes’s team detected help the 2022 virus spread more easily among people.

Researchers also found that the 2022 virus belonged in clade 3 of the virus, which is part of the less-lethal West-African clade. While the West-African clade has a fatality rate of less than 1%, the Central African clade has a fatality rate of over 10%.

The rapid changes in the viral genome could be driven by a family of proteins thought to play a role in antiviral immunity: apolipoprotein B mRNA editing enzyme, catalytic polypeptide-like 3 (APOBEC3). These enzymes can make changes to a viral genome, Dr. Gomes explained, “but sometimes the system is not ‘well regulated,’ and the changes in the genome are not detrimental to the virus.” These APOBEC3-driven mutations have a signature pattern, he said, which was also detected in most of the 50 new mutations Dr. Gomes’s team identified.

However, it is not known if these mutations have clinical implications, Dr. Lover said.

The 2022 monkeypox virus does appear to behave differently than previous strains of the virus, he noted. In the current outbreak, sexual transmission appears to be very common, which is not the case for previous outbreaks, he said. Also, while monkeypox traditionally presents with a rash that can spread to all parts of the body, there have been several instances of patients presenting with just a few “very innocuous lesions,” he added.

Dr. Gomes hopes that specialized lab groups will now be able to tease out whether there is a connection between these identified mutations and changes in the behavior of the virus, including transmissibility.

While none of the findings in this analysis raises any serious concerns, the study “suggests there [are] definitely gaps in our knowledge about monkeypox,” Dr. Lover said. As for the global health response, he said, “We probably should err on the side of caution. ... There are clearly things that we absolutely don’t understand here, in terms of how quickly mutations are popping up.”

Dr. Gomes and Dr. Lover report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The monkeypox virus is evolving 6-12 times faster than would be expected, according to a new study.

The virus is thought to have a single origin, the genetic data suggests, and is a likely descendant of the strain involved in the 2017-2018 monkeypox outbreak in Nigeria. It’s not clear if these mutations have aided the transmissibility of the virus among people or have any other clinical implications, João Paulo Gomes, PhD, from Portugal’s National Institute of Health, Lisbon, said in an email.

Since the monkeypox outbreak began in May, nearly 7,000 cases of monkeypox have been reported across 52 countries and territories. As of July 5, there were 560 cases in the United States. So far, there have been no deaths.

Orthopoxviruses – the genus to which monkeypox belongs – are large DNA viruses that usually only gain one or two mutations every year. (For comparison, SARS-CoV-2 gains around two mutations every month.) One would expect 5 to 10 mutations in the 2022 monkeypox virus, compared with the 2017 strain, Dr. Gomes said.

In the study, Dr. Gomes and colleagues analyzed 15 monkeypox DNA sequences made available by Portugal and the National Center for Biotechnology Information, Bethesda, Md., between May 20 and May 27, 2022. The analysis revealed that this most recent strain differed by 50 single-nucleotide polymorphisms, compared with previous strains of the virus in 2017-2018.

“This is far beyond what we would expect, specifically for orthopoxvirus,” Andrew Lover, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst School of Public Health & Health Sciences, told this news organization. He was not involved with the research. “That suggests [the virus] is trying to figure out the best way to deal with a new host species,” he added.

Rodents are thought to be the natural hosts of the monkeypox virus, he explained, and, in 2022, the infection transferred to humans. “Moving into a new species can ‘turbocharge’ mutations as the virus adapts to a new biological environment,” he explained, though it is not clear if the new mutations Dr. Gomes’s team detected help the 2022 virus spread more easily among people.

Researchers also found that the 2022 virus belonged in clade 3 of the virus, which is part of the less-lethal West-African clade. While the West-African clade has a fatality rate of less than 1%, the Central African clade has a fatality rate of over 10%.

The rapid changes in the viral genome could be driven by a family of proteins thought to play a role in antiviral immunity: apolipoprotein B mRNA editing enzyme, catalytic polypeptide-like 3 (APOBEC3). These enzymes can make changes to a viral genome, Dr. Gomes explained, “but sometimes the system is not ‘well regulated,’ and the changes in the genome are not detrimental to the virus.” These APOBEC3-driven mutations have a signature pattern, he said, which was also detected in most of the 50 new mutations Dr. Gomes’s team identified.

However, it is not known if these mutations have clinical implications, Dr. Lover said.

The 2022 monkeypox virus does appear to behave differently than previous strains of the virus, he noted. In the current outbreak, sexual transmission appears to be very common, which is not the case for previous outbreaks, he said. Also, while monkeypox traditionally presents with a rash that can spread to all parts of the body, there have been several instances of patients presenting with just a few “very innocuous lesions,” he added.

Dr. Gomes hopes that specialized lab groups will now be able to tease out whether there is a connection between these identified mutations and changes in the behavior of the virus, including transmissibility.

While none of the findings in this analysis raises any serious concerns, the study “suggests there [are] definitely gaps in our knowledge about monkeypox,” Dr. Lover said. As for the global health response, he said, “We probably should err on the side of caution. ... There are clearly things that we absolutely don’t understand here, in terms of how quickly mutations are popping up.”

Dr. Gomes and Dr. Lover report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The monkeypox virus is evolving 6-12 times faster than would be expected, according to a new study.

The virus is thought to have a single origin, the genetic data suggests, and is a likely descendant of the strain involved in the 2017-2018 monkeypox outbreak in Nigeria. It’s not clear if these mutations have aided the transmissibility of the virus among people or have any other clinical implications, João Paulo Gomes, PhD, from Portugal’s National Institute of Health, Lisbon, said in an email.

Since the monkeypox outbreak began in May, nearly 7,000 cases of monkeypox have been reported across 52 countries and territories. As of July 5, there were 560 cases in the United States. So far, there have been no deaths.

Orthopoxviruses – the genus to which monkeypox belongs – are large DNA viruses that usually only gain one or two mutations every year. (For comparison, SARS-CoV-2 gains around two mutations every month.) One would expect 5 to 10 mutations in the 2022 monkeypox virus, compared with the 2017 strain, Dr. Gomes said.

In the study, Dr. Gomes and colleagues analyzed 15 monkeypox DNA sequences made available by Portugal and the National Center for Biotechnology Information, Bethesda, Md., between May 20 and May 27, 2022. The analysis revealed that this most recent strain differed by 50 single-nucleotide polymorphisms, compared with previous strains of the virus in 2017-2018.

“This is far beyond what we would expect, specifically for orthopoxvirus,” Andrew Lover, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst School of Public Health & Health Sciences, told this news organization. He was not involved with the research. “That suggests [the virus] is trying to figure out the best way to deal with a new host species,” he added.

Rodents are thought to be the natural hosts of the monkeypox virus, he explained, and, in 2022, the infection transferred to humans. “Moving into a new species can ‘turbocharge’ mutations as the virus adapts to a new biological environment,” he explained, though it is not clear if the new mutations Dr. Gomes’s team detected help the 2022 virus spread more easily among people.

Researchers also found that the 2022 virus belonged in clade 3 of the virus, which is part of the less-lethal West-African clade. While the West-African clade has a fatality rate of less than 1%, the Central African clade has a fatality rate of over 10%.

The rapid changes in the viral genome could be driven by a family of proteins thought to play a role in antiviral immunity: apolipoprotein B mRNA editing enzyme, catalytic polypeptide-like 3 (APOBEC3). These enzymes can make changes to a viral genome, Dr. Gomes explained, “but sometimes the system is not ‘well regulated,’ and the changes in the genome are not detrimental to the virus.” These APOBEC3-driven mutations have a signature pattern, he said, which was also detected in most of the 50 new mutations Dr. Gomes’s team identified.

However, it is not known if these mutations have clinical implications, Dr. Lover said.

The 2022 monkeypox virus does appear to behave differently than previous strains of the virus, he noted. In the current outbreak, sexual transmission appears to be very common, which is not the case for previous outbreaks, he said. Also, while monkeypox traditionally presents with a rash that can spread to all parts of the body, there have been several instances of patients presenting with just a few “very innocuous lesions,” he added.

Dr. Gomes hopes that specialized lab groups will now be able to tease out whether there is a connection between these identified mutations and changes in the behavior of the virus, including transmissibility.

While none of the findings in this analysis raises any serious concerns, the study “suggests there [are] definitely gaps in our knowledge about monkeypox,” Dr. Lover said. As for the global health response, he said, “We probably should err on the side of caution. ... There are clearly things that we absolutely don’t understand here, in terms of how quickly mutations are popping up.”

Dr. Gomes and Dr. Lover report no relevant financial relationships.

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

To the Editor:

A 57-year-old woman presented to an outpatient clinic with severe pruritus and burning of the skin as well as subjective fevers and chills. She had been discharged from a psychiatric hospital for attempted suicide 1 day prior. There were no recent changes in the medication regimen, which consisted of linaclotide, fluoxetine, lorazepam, and gabapentin. While admitted, the patient was started on the atypical antipsychotic cariprazine. Within 24 hours of the first dose, she developed severe facial erythema that progressed to diffuse erythema over more than 60% of the body surface area. The attending psychiatrist promptly discontinued cariprazine. During the next 24 hours, there were no reports of fever, leukocytosis, or signs of systemic organ involvement. Given the patient’s mental and medical stability, she was discharged with instructions to follow up with the outpatient dermatology clinic.

At the current presentation, physical examination revealed innumerable 1- to 4-mm pustules coalescing to lakes of pus on an erythematous base over more than 60% of the body surface area (Figure 1). The mucous membranes were clear of lesions, the Nikolsky sign was negative, and the patient’s temperature was 99.6 °F in the office. Complete blood cell count and complete metabolic panel results were within reference range.

A 4-mm abdominal punch biopsy showed subcorneal neutrophilic pustules, papillary dermal edema, and superficial dermal lymphohistiocytic inflammation with numerous neutrophils, eosinophils, and extravasated red blood cells, consistent with acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP)(Figure 2). The patient was started on wet wraps with triamcinolone cream 0.1%.

Two days later, physical examination revealed the erythema noted on initial examination had notably decreased, and the patient no longer reported burning or pruritus. One week after initial presentation to the clinic, the patient’s rash had resolved, and only a few small areas of desquamation remained.

Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis is a severe cutaneous adverse reaction characterized by the development of numerous nonfollicular sterile pustules on an edematous and erythematous base. In almost 90% of reported cases, the cause is related to use of antibiotics, antifungals, antimalarials, or diltiazem (a calcium channel blocker). This rare cutaneous reaction occurs in 1 to 5 patients per million per year¹; it carries a 1% to 2% mortality rate with proper supportive treatment.

The clinical symptoms of AGEP typically present 24 to 48 hours after drug initiation with the rapid development of dozens to thousands of 1- to 4-mm pustules, typically localized to the flexor surfaces and face. In the setting of AGEP, acute onset of fever and leukocytosis typically occur at the time of the cutaneous eruption. These features were absent in this patient. The eruption usually starts on the face and then migrates to the trunk and extremities, sparing the palms and soles. Systemic involvement most commonly presents as hepatic, renal, or pulmonary insufficiency, which has been seen in 20% of cases.²

The immunologic response associated with the reaction has been studied in vitro. Drug-specific CD8 T cells use perforin/granzyme B and Fas ligand mechanisms to induce apoptosis of the keratinocytes within the epidermis, leading to vesicle formation.³ During the very first stages of formation, vesicles mainly comprise CD8 T cells and keratinocytes. These cells then begin producing CXC-18, a potent neutrophil chemokine, leading to extensive chemotaxis of neutrophils into vesicles, which then rapidly transform to pustules.³ This rapid transformation leads to the lakes of pustules, a description often associated with AGEP.

Treatment of AGEP is mainly supportive and consists of discontinuing use of the causative agent. Topical corticosteroids can be used during the pustular phase for symptom management. There is no evidence that systemic steroids reduce the duration of the disease.² Other supportive measures such as application of wet wraps can be used to provide comfort.

Cutaneous adverse drug reactions commonly are associated with psychiatric pharmacotherapy, but first-and second-generation antipsychotics rarely are associated with these types of reactions. In this patient, the causative agent of the AGEP was cariprazine, an atypical antipsychotic that had no reported association with AGEP or cutaneous adverse drug reactions prior to this presentation.

To the Editor:

A 57-year-old woman presented to an outpatient clinic with severe pruritus and burning of the skin as well as subjective fevers and chills. She had been discharged from a psychiatric hospital for attempted suicide 1 day prior. There were no recent changes in the medication regimen, which consisted of linaclotide, fluoxetine, lorazepam, and gabapentin. While admitted, the patient was started on the atypical antipsychotic cariprazine. Within 24 hours of the first dose, she developed severe facial erythema that progressed to diffuse erythema over more than 60% of the body surface area. The attending psychiatrist promptly discontinued cariprazine. During the next 24 hours, there were no reports of fever, leukocytosis, or signs of systemic organ involvement. Given the patient’s mental and medical stability, she was discharged with instructions to follow up with the outpatient dermatology clinic.

At the current presentation, physical examination revealed innumerable 1- to 4-mm pustules coalescing to lakes of pus on an erythematous base over more than 60% of the body surface area (Figure 1). The mucous membranes were clear of lesions, the Nikolsky sign was negative, and the patient’s temperature was 99.6 °F in the office. Complete blood cell count and complete metabolic panel results were within reference range.

A 4-mm abdominal punch biopsy showed subcorneal neutrophilic pustules, papillary dermal edema, and superficial dermal lymphohistiocytic inflammation with numerous neutrophils, eosinophils, and extravasated red blood cells, consistent with acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP)(Figure 2). The patient was started on wet wraps with triamcinolone cream 0.1%.

Two days later, physical examination revealed the erythema noted on initial examination had notably decreased, and the patient no longer reported burning or pruritus. One week after initial presentation to the clinic, the patient’s rash had resolved, and only a few small areas of desquamation remained.

Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis is a severe cutaneous adverse reaction characterized by the development of numerous nonfollicular sterile pustules on an edematous and erythematous base. In almost 90% of reported cases, the cause is related to use of antibiotics, antifungals, antimalarials, or diltiazem (a calcium channel blocker). This rare cutaneous reaction occurs in 1 to 5 patients per million per year¹; it carries a 1% to 2% mortality rate with proper supportive treatment.

The clinical symptoms of AGEP typically present 24 to 48 hours after drug initiation with the rapid development of dozens to thousands of 1- to 4-mm pustules, typically localized to the flexor surfaces and face. In the setting of AGEP, acute onset of fever and leukocytosis typically occur at the time of the cutaneous eruption. These features were absent in this patient. The eruption usually starts on the face and then migrates to the trunk and extremities, sparing the palms and soles. Systemic involvement most commonly presents as hepatic, renal, or pulmonary insufficiency, which has been seen in 20% of cases.²

The immunologic response associated with the reaction has been studied in vitro. Drug-specific CD8 T cells use perforin/granzyme B and Fas ligand mechanisms to induce apoptosis of the keratinocytes within the epidermis, leading to vesicle formation.³ During the very first stages of formation, vesicles mainly comprise CD8 T cells and keratinocytes. These cells then begin producing CXC-18, a potent neutrophil chemokine, leading to extensive chemotaxis of neutrophils into vesicles, which then rapidly transform to pustules.³ This rapid transformation leads to the lakes of pustules, a description often associated with AGEP.

Treatment of AGEP is mainly supportive and consists of discontinuing use of the causative agent. Topical corticosteroids can be used during the pustular phase for symptom management. There is no evidence that systemic steroids reduce the duration of the disease.² Other supportive measures such as application of wet wraps can be used to provide comfort.

Cutaneous adverse drug reactions commonly are associated with psychiatric pharmacotherapy, but first-and second-generation antipsychotics rarely are associated with these types of reactions. In this patient, the causative agent of the AGEP was cariprazine, an atypical antipsychotic that had no reported association with AGEP or cutaneous adverse drug reactions prior to this presentation.

To the Editor:

A 57-year-old woman presented to an outpatient clinic with severe pruritus and burning of the skin as well as subjective fevers and chills. She had been discharged from a psychiatric hospital for attempted suicide 1 day prior. There were no recent changes in the medication regimen, which consisted of linaclotide, fluoxetine, lorazepam, and gabapentin. While admitted, the patient was started on the atypical antipsychotic cariprazine. Within 24 hours of the first dose, she developed severe facial erythema that progressed to diffuse erythema over more than 60% of the body surface area. The attending psychiatrist promptly discontinued cariprazine. During the next 24 hours, there were no reports of fever, leukocytosis, or signs of systemic organ involvement. Given the patient’s mental and medical stability, she was discharged with instructions to follow up with the outpatient dermatology clinic.

At the current presentation, physical examination revealed innumerable 1- to 4-mm pustules coalescing to lakes of pus on an erythematous base over more than 60% of the body surface area (Figure 1). The mucous membranes were clear of lesions, the Nikolsky sign was negative, and the patient’s temperature was 99.6 °F in the office. Complete blood cell count and complete metabolic panel results were within reference range.

A 4-mm abdominal punch biopsy showed subcorneal neutrophilic pustules, papillary dermal edema, and superficial dermal lymphohistiocytic inflammation with numerous neutrophils, eosinophils, and extravasated red blood cells, consistent with acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP)(Figure 2). The patient was started on wet wraps with triamcinolone cream 0.1%.

Two days later, physical examination revealed the erythema noted on initial examination had notably decreased, and the patient no longer reported burning or pruritus. One week after initial presentation to the clinic, the patient’s rash had resolved, and only a few small areas of desquamation remained.

Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis is a severe cutaneous adverse reaction characterized by the development of numerous nonfollicular sterile pustules on an edematous and erythematous base. In almost 90% of reported cases, the cause is related to use of antibiotics, antifungals, antimalarials, or diltiazem (a calcium channel blocker). This rare cutaneous reaction occurs in 1 to 5 patients per million per year¹; it carries a 1% to 2% mortality rate with proper supportive treatment.

The clinical symptoms of AGEP typically present 24 to 48 hours after drug initiation with the rapid development of dozens to thousands of 1- to 4-mm pustules, typically localized to the flexor surfaces and face. In the setting of AGEP, acute onset of fever and leukocytosis typically occur at the time of the cutaneous eruption. These features were absent in this patient. The eruption usually starts on the face and then migrates to the trunk and extremities, sparing the palms and soles. Systemic involvement most commonly presents as hepatic, renal, or pulmonary insufficiency, which has been seen in 20% of cases.²

The immunologic response associated with the reaction has been studied in vitro. Drug-specific CD8 T cells use perforin/granzyme B and Fas ligand mechanisms to induce apoptosis of the keratinocytes within the epidermis, leading to vesicle formation.³ During the very first stages of formation, vesicles mainly comprise CD8 T cells and keratinocytes. These cells then begin producing CXC-18, a potent neutrophil chemokine, leading to extensive chemotaxis of neutrophils into vesicles, which then rapidly transform to pustules.³ This rapid transformation leads to the lakes of pustules, a description often associated with AGEP.

Treatment of AGEP is mainly supportive and consists of discontinuing use of the causative agent. Topical corticosteroids can be used during the pustular phase for symptom management. There is no evidence that systemic steroids reduce the duration of the disease.² Other supportive measures such as application of wet wraps can be used to provide comfort.

Cutaneous adverse drug reactions commonly are associated with psychiatric pharmacotherapy, but first-and second-generation antipsychotics rarely are associated with these types of reactions. In this patient, the causative agent of the AGEP was cariprazine, an atypical antipsychotic that had no reported association with AGEP or cutaneous adverse drug reactions prior to this presentation.

To the Editor:

A 47-year-old man presented at the dermatology clinic with a growing lesion on the left medial thigh. The patient traveled frequently for work. Although asymptomatic, the lesion was interfering with the patient’s ability to get through security because it routinely was getting detected by airport full-body scanners. These scanners use high-frequency radio waves or x-rays to detect nonmetallic objects under a traveler’s clothing. The patient would be frisked by security and had to explain that he had a growth in that location. He thankfully would be released by security on those occasions, but the delay in getting through security was becoming a nuisance.

Physical examination revealed a 5-cm, pedunculated, fatty nodule on the left medial thigh that was clinically consistent with nevus lipomatosis (NL)(Figure). Although benign, trouble traveling through airport security prompted the patient to request shave removal, which subsequently was performed. Histology showed a large pedunculated nodule with prominent adipose tissue, consistent with NL. At 3-month follow-up, the patient reported getting through airport security multiple times without incident.

Nevus lipomatosis is a benign fatty lesion most commonly found on the medial thighs or trunk of adults. The lesion usually is asymptomatic but can become irritated by rubbing or catching on clothing. Our patient had symptomatic NL that caused delays getting through airport security; he experienced full resolution after simple shave removal. In rare instances, both benign and malignant skin conditions have been seen on airport scanning devices since the introduction of increased security measures following September 11, 2001. In 2016, Heymann¹ reported a man with a 1.5-cm epidermal inclusion cyst detected by airport security scanners, prompting the traveler to request and carry a medically explanatory letter used to get through security. In 2015 Mayer and Adams² described a case of nodular melanoma that was detected 20 times over a period of 2 months by airport scanners, and in 2016, Caine et al³ reported a case of desmoplastic melanoma that was detected by airport security, but after its removal was not identified by security for the next 40 flights. Noncutaneous pathology also can be detected by airport scanners. In 2013, Naraynsingh et al⁴ reported a man with a large left reducible inguinal hernia who was stopped by airport security and subjected to an invasive physical examination of the area. These instances demonstrate the breadth of conditions that can be cumbersome when individuals are traveling by airplane in our current security climate.

Our patient had to go through the trouble of having the benign NL lesion removed to avoid the hassle of repeatedly being stopped by airport security. The patient had the lesion removed and is doing well, but the procedure could have been avoided if systems existed to help patients with dermatologic and medical conditions at airport security. Our patient likely will never be stopped again for the suspicious lump on the left inner thigh, but many others will be stopped for similar reasons.

To the Editor:

A 47-year-old man presented at the dermatology clinic with a growing lesion on the left medial thigh. The patient traveled frequently for work. Although asymptomatic, the lesion was interfering with the patient’s ability to get through security because it routinely was getting detected by airport full-body scanners. These scanners use high-frequency radio waves or x-rays to detect nonmetallic objects under a traveler’s clothing. The patient would be frisked by security and had to explain that he had a growth in that location. He thankfully would be released by security on those occasions, but the delay in getting through security was becoming a nuisance.

Physical examination revealed a 5-cm, pedunculated, fatty nodule on the left medial thigh that was clinically consistent with nevus lipomatosis (NL)(Figure). Although benign, trouble traveling through airport security prompted the patient to request shave removal, which subsequently was performed. Histology showed a large pedunculated nodule with prominent adipose tissue, consistent with NL. At 3-month follow-up, the patient reported getting through airport security multiple times without incident.

Nevus lipomatosis is a benign fatty lesion most commonly found on the medial thighs or trunk of adults. The lesion usually is asymptomatic but can become irritated by rubbing or catching on clothing. Our patient had symptomatic NL that caused delays getting through airport security; he experienced full resolution after simple shave removal. In rare instances, both benign and malignant skin conditions have been seen on airport scanning devices since the introduction of increased security measures following September 11, 2001. In 2016, Heymann¹ reported a man with a 1.5-cm epidermal inclusion cyst detected by airport security scanners, prompting the traveler to request and carry a medically explanatory letter used to get through security. In 2015 Mayer and Adams² described a case of nodular melanoma that was detected 20 times over a period of 2 months by airport scanners, and in 2016, Caine et al³ reported a case of desmoplastic melanoma that was detected by airport security, but after its removal was not identified by security for the next 40 flights. Noncutaneous pathology also can be detected by airport scanners. In 2013, Naraynsingh et al⁴ reported a man with a large left reducible inguinal hernia who was stopped by airport security and subjected to an invasive physical examination of the area. These instances demonstrate the breadth of conditions that can be cumbersome when individuals are traveling by airplane in our current security climate.

Our patient had to go through the trouble of having the benign NL lesion removed to avoid the hassle of repeatedly being stopped by airport security. The patient had the lesion removed and is doing well, but the procedure could have been avoided if systems existed to help patients with dermatologic and medical conditions at airport security. Our patient likely will never be stopped again for the suspicious lump on the left inner thigh, but many others will be stopped for similar reasons.

To the Editor:

A 47-year-old man presented at the dermatology clinic with a growing lesion on the left medial thigh. The patient traveled frequently for work. Although asymptomatic, the lesion was interfering with the patient’s ability to get through security because it routinely was getting detected by airport full-body scanners. These scanners use high-frequency radio waves or x-rays to detect nonmetallic objects under a traveler’s clothing. The patient would be frisked by security and had to explain that he had a growth in that location. He thankfully would be released by security on those occasions, but the delay in getting through security was becoming a nuisance.

Physical examination revealed a 5-cm, pedunculated, fatty nodule on the left medial thigh that was clinically consistent with nevus lipomatosis (NL)(Figure). Although benign, trouble traveling through airport security prompted the patient to request shave removal, which subsequently was performed. Histology showed a large pedunculated nodule with prominent adipose tissue, consistent with NL. At 3-month follow-up, the patient reported getting through airport security multiple times without incident.

Nevus lipomatosis is a benign fatty lesion most commonly found on the medial thighs or trunk of adults. The lesion usually is asymptomatic but can become irritated by rubbing or catching on clothing. Our patient had symptomatic NL that caused delays getting through airport security; he experienced full resolution after simple shave removal. In rare instances, both benign and malignant skin conditions have been seen on airport scanning devices since the introduction of increased security measures following September 11, 2001. In 2016, Heymann¹ reported a man with a 1.5-cm epidermal inclusion cyst detected by airport security scanners, prompting the traveler to request and carry a medically explanatory letter used to get through security. In 2015 Mayer and Adams² described a case of nodular melanoma that was detected 20 times over a period of 2 months by airport scanners, and in 2016, Caine et al³ reported a case of desmoplastic melanoma that was detected by airport security, but after its removal was not identified by security for the next 40 flights. Noncutaneous pathology also can be detected by airport scanners. In 2013, Naraynsingh et al⁴ reported a man with a large left reducible inguinal hernia who was stopped by airport security and subjected to an invasive physical examination of the area. These instances demonstrate the breadth of conditions that can be cumbersome when individuals are traveling by airplane in our current security climate.

Our patient had to go through the trouble of having the benign NL lesion removed to avoid the hassle of repeatedly being stopped by airport security. The patient had the lesion removed and is doing well, but the procedure could have been avoided if systems existed to help patients with dermatologic and medical conditions at airport security. Our patient likely will never be stopped again for the suspicious lump on the left inner thigh, but many others will be stopped for similar reasons.