An electronic nose (eNose) that measures volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emitted from the lungs successfully distinguished sarcoidosis from interstitial lung disease (ILD) and healthy controls, according to a report in the journal CHEST.

The approach has the potential to generate clinical data that can’t be achieved through other noninvasive means, such as the serum biomarker soluble interleukin-2 receptor (sIL-2R). sIL-2R is often used to track disease activity, but it isn’t specific for diagnosing sarcoidosis, and it isn’t available worldwide.

Sarcoidosis is a granulomatous inflammatory disease with no known cause and can affect most organs, but an estimated 89%-99% of cases affect the lungs. There is no simple noninvasive diagnostic test, leaving physicians to rely on clinical features, biopsies to obtain tissue pathology, and the ruling out of other granulomatous diagnoses.

The challenge is more difficult because sarcoidosis is a heterogeneous disease, with great variation in the number of organs affected, severity, rate of progression, and response to therapy.

Previous researchers have used VOCs in an attempt to diagnose diseases, since the compounds reflect pathophysiological processes. Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GCMS) is one method to identify the individual VOCs, but the process is time consuming and complex. Some nevertheless showed potential in sarcoidosis, but failed to reproduce their performance in validation cohorts.

In the new study, a cross-sectional analysis showed that exhaled breath analysis using an eNose had excellent sensitivity and specificity for distinguishing sarcoidosis from ILD and healthy controls, and identified sarcoidosis regardless of pulmonary involvement, pulmonary fibrosis, multiple organ involvement, immunosuppressive treatment, or whether or not pathology supported the diagnosis.

The eNose technology produces a “breath-print” after combining information from a broad range of VOCs. The information originates from an array of metal-oxide semiconductor sensors with partial specificity that artificial intelligence processes to discern patterns. Overall, the system functions similarly to the mammalian olfactory system. The artificial intelligence instead views it as a “breath-print” that it can compare against previously learned patterns.

“It is a quite easy, simple, and quick procedure, which is noninvasive. We can collect a lot of data from the VOCs in the exhaled breath because there are several sensors that cross-react. We can create breath profiles and group patients to see if profiles differ. Ultimately, we can use the profiles to diagnose or detect disease in the earlier stage and more accurately,” said Iris van der Sar, MD. Dr. van der Sar is the lead author on the study and a PhD candidate at Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam.

The study requires further prospective validation, but the technology could have important clinical benefits, said senior author and principal investigator Marlies Wijsenbeek, MD, PhD, pulmonologist and head of the Interstitial Lung Disease Center at Erasmus Medical Center. “If we in future can avoid a biopsy, that would be most attractive,” said Dr. Wijsenbeek.

“We hope to come to a point-of-care device that can be used to facilitate early diagnosis at low burden for the patient and health care system,” said Karen Moor, MD, PhD, and post-doc on this project. The researchers also hope to determine if the eNose can help evaluate a patient’s response to therapy.

Studies of eNose technology in other chronic diseases have shown promising results, but not all results have been validated yet in independent or external cohorts.

The current study included 569 outpatients, 252 with sarcoidosis and 317 with ILD, along with 48 healthy controls. The researchers constructed a training set using 168 patients with sarcoidosis and 32 healthy controls, and a validation set using 84 patients with sarcoidosis and 16 healthy controls. The eNose differentiated between patients and controls in both groups, with an area under the curve of 1.00 for each regardless of pulmonary involvement or treatment.

It also distinguished those with sarcoidosis and pulmonary involvement from those with ILD, with an AUC of 0.90 (95% confidence interval, 0.87-0.94) in the training set, and an AUC of 0.87 (95% CI, 0.82-0.93) in the validation set.

It differentiated between pulmonary sarcoidosis and hypersensitivity pneumonitis in the training set (AUC 0.95; 95% CI, 0.90-0.99) and the validation set (AUC, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.75-1.00).

The study received no funding. Dr. Wijsenbeek, Dr. van der Sar, and Dr. Moor have no relevant financial disclosures.

An electronic nose (eNose) that measures volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emitted from the lungs successfully distinguished sarcoidosis from interstitial lung disease (ILD) and healthy controls, according to a report in the journal CHEST.

The approach has the potential to generate clinical data that can’t be achieved through other noninvasive means, such as the serum biomarker soluble interleukin-2 receptor (sIL-2R). sIL-2R is often used to track disease activity, but it isn’t specific for diagnosing sarcoidosis, and it isn’t available worldwide.

Sarcoidosis is a granulomatous inflammatory disease with no known cause and can affect most organs, but an estimated 89%-99% of cases affect the lungs. There is no simple noninvasive diagnostic test, leaving physicians to rely on clinical features, biopsies to obtain tissue pathology, and the ruling out of other granulomatous diagnoses.

The challenge is more difficult because sarcoidosis is a heterogeneous disease, with great variation in the number of organs affected, severity, rate of progression, and response to therapy.

Previous researchers have used VOCs in an attempt to diagnose diseases, since the compounds reflect pathophysiological processes. Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GCMS) is one method to identify the individual VOCs, but the process is time consuming and complex. Some nevertheless showed potential in sarcoidosis, but failed to reproduce their performance in validation cohorts.

In the new study, a cross-sectional analysis showed that exhaled breath analysis using an eNose had excellent sensitivity and specificity for distinguishing sarcoidosis from ILD and healthy controls, and identified sarcoidosis regardless of pulmonary involvement, pulmonary fibrosis, multiple organ involvement, immunosuppressive treatment, or whether or not pathology supported the diagnosis.

The eNose technology produces a “breath-print” after combining information from a broad range of VOCs. The information originates from an array of metal-oxide semiconductor sensors with partial specificity that artificial intelligence processes to discern patterns. Overall, the system functions similarly to the mammalian olfactory system. The artificial intelligence instead views it as a “breath-print” that it can compare against previously learned patterns.

“It is a quite easy, simple, and quick procedure, which is noninvasive. We can collect a lot of data from the VOCs in the exhaled breath because there are several sensors that cross-react. We can create breath profiles and group patients to see if profiles differ. Ultimately, we can use the profiles to diagnose or detect disease in the earlier stage and more accurately,” said Iris van der Sar, MD. Dr. van der Sar is the lead author on the study and a PhD candidate at Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam.

The study requires further prospective validation, but the technology could have important clinical benefits, said senior author and principal investigator Marlies Wijsenbeek, MD, PhD, pulmonologist and head of the Interstitial Lung Disease Center at Erasmus Medical Center. “If we in future can avoid a biopsy, that would be most attractive,” said Dr. Wijsenbeek.

“We hope to come to a point-of-care device that can be used to facilitate early diagnosis at low burden for the patient and health care system,” said Karen Moor, MD, PhD, and post-doc on this project. The researchers also hope to determine if the eNose can help evaluate a patient’s response to therapy.

Studies of eNose technology in other chronic diseases have shown promising results, but not all results have been validated yet in independent or external cohorts.

The current study included 569 outpatients, 252 with sarcoidosis and 317 with ILD, along with 48 healthy controls. The researchers constructed a training set using 168 patients with sarcoidosis and 32 healthy controls, and a validation set using 84 patients with sarcoidosis and 16 healthy controls. The eNose differentiated between patients and controls in both groups, with an area under the curve of 1.00 for each regardless of pulmonary involvement or treatment.

It also distinguished those with sarcoidosis and pulmonary involvement from those with ILD, with an AUC of 0.90 (95% confidence interval, 0.87-0.94) in the training set, and an AUC of 0.87 (95% CI, 0.82-0.93) in the validation set.

It differentiated between pulmonary sarcoidosis and hypersensitivity pneumonitis in the training set (AUC 0.95; 95% CI, 0.90-0.99) and the validation set (AUC, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.75-1.00).

The study received no funding. Dr. Wijsenbeek, Dr. van der Sar, and Dr. Moor have no relevant financial disclosures.

An electronic nose (eNose) that measures volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emitted from the lungs successfully distinguished sarcoidosis from interstitial lung disease (ILD) and healthy controls, according to a report in the journal CHEST.

The approach has the potential to generate clinical data that can’t be achieved through other noninvasive means, such as the serum biomarker soluble interleukin-2 receptor (sIL-2R). sIL-2R is often used to track disease activity, but it isn’t specific for diagnosing sarcoidosis, and it isn’t available worldwide.

Sarcoidosis is a granulomatous inflammatory disease with no known cause and can affect most organs, but an estimated 89%-99% of cases affect the lungs. There is no simple noninvasive diagnostic test, leaving physicians to rely on clinical features, biopsies to obtain tissue pathology, and the ruling out of other granulomatous diagnoses.

The challenge is more difficult because sarcoidosis is a heterogeneous disease, with great variation in the number of organs affected, severity, rate of progression, and response to therapy.

Previous researchers have used VOCs in an attempt to diagnose diseases, since the compounds reflect pathophysiological processes. Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GCMS) is one method to identify the individual VOCs, but the process is time consuming and complex. Some nevertheless showed potential in sarcoidosis, but failed to reproduce their performance in validation cohorts.

In the new study, a cross-sectional analysis showed that exhaled breath analysis using an eNose had excellent sensitivity and specificity for distinguishing sarcoidosis from ILD and healthy controls, and identified sarcoidosis regardless of pulmonary involvement, pulmonary fibrosis, multiple organ involvement, immunosuppressive treatment, or whether or not pathology supported the diagnosis.

The eNose technology produces a “breath-print” after combining information from a broad range of VOCs. The information originates from an array of metal-oxide semiconductor sensors with partial specificity that artificial intelligence processes to discern patterns. Overall, the system functions similarly to the mammalian olfactory system. The artificial intelligence instead views it as a “breath-print” that it can compare against previously learned patterns.

“It is a quite easy, simple, and quick procedure, which is noninvasive. We can collect a lot of data from the VOCs in the exhaled breath because there are several sensors that cross-react. We can create breath profiles and group patients to see if profiles differ. Ultimately, we can use the profiles to diagnose or detect disease in the earlier stage and more accurately,” said Iris van der Sar, MD. Dr. van der Sar is the lead author on the study and a PhD candidate at Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam.

The study requires further prospective validation, but the technology could have important clinical benefits, said senior author and principal investigator Marlies Wijsenbeek, MD, PhD, pulmonologist and head of the Interstitial Lung Disease Center at Erasmus Medical Center. “If we in future can avoid a biopsy, that would be most attractive,” said Dr. Wijsenbeek.

“We hope to come to a point-of-care device that can be used to facilitate early diagnosis at low burden for the patient and health care system,” said Karen Moor, MD, PhD, and post-doc on this project. The researchers also hope to determine if the eNose can help evaluate a patient’s response to therapy.

Studies of eNose technology in other chronic diseases have shown promising results, but not all results have been validated yet in independent or external cohorts.

The current study included 569 outpatients, 252 with sarcoidosis and 317 with ILD, along with 48 healthy controls. The researchers constructed a training set using 168 patients with sarcoidosis and 32 healthy controls, and a validation set using 84 patients with sarcoidosis and 16 healthy controls. The eNose differentiated between patients and controls in both groups, with an area under the curve of 1.00 for each regardless of pulmonary involvement or treatment.

It also distinguished those with sarcoidosis and pulmonary involvement from those with ILD, with an AUC of 0.90 (95% confidence interval, 0.87-0.94) in the training set, and an AUC of 0.87 (95% CI, 0.82-0.93) in the validation set.

It differentiated between pulmonary sarcoidosis and hypersensitivity pneumonitis in the training set (AUC 0.95; 95% CI, 0.90-0.99) and the validation set (AUC, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.75-1.00).

The study received no funding. Dr. Wijsenbeek, Dr. van der Sar, and Dr. Moor have no relevant financial disclosures.

Early trials are under way to test medicinal mushrooms and Chinese herbs to treat COVID-19 patients with mild to moderate symptoms.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the MACH-19 trials (the acronym for Mushrooms and Chinese Herbs for COVID-19) after researchers applied for approval in April.

The first two phase 1 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials have begun at UCLA and the University of California San Diego to treat COVID-19 patients quarantining at home with mild to moderate symptoms. A third trial is investigating the use of medicinal mushrooms as an adjuvant to COVID-19 vaccines.

The researchers have also launched a fourth trial testing the mushrooms against placebo as an adjunct to a COVID booster shot. It looks at the effect in people who have comorbidities that would reduce their vaccine response. An article in JAMA  described the trials.

The two mushroom varieties being tested — turkey tail and agarikon — are available as over-the-counter supplements, according to the report. They are a separate class from hallucinogenic or “magic” mushrooms being tested for other uses in medicine.

“They are not even as psychoactive as a cup of tea,” Gordon Saxe, MD, PhD, MPH, principal investigator for the MACH-19 trials, told this news organization.

For each of the MACH-19 treatment trials, researchers plan to recruit 66 people who are quarantined at home with mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms. Participants will be randomly assigned either to receive the mushroom combination, the Chinese herbs, or a placebo for 2 weeks, according to the JAMA paper.

D. Craig Hopp, PhD, deputy director of the division of extramural research at the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH), told JAMA in an interview that he was “mildly concerned” about using mushrooms to treat people with active SARS-CoV-2 infection.

“We know that a cytokine storm poses the greatest risk of COVID mortality, not the virus itself,” Dr. Hopp said. “The danger is that an immune-stimulating agent like mushrooms might supercharge an individual’s immune response, leading to a cytokine storm.”

Stephen Wilson, PhD, an immunologist who consulted on the trials when he was chief operating officer of the La Jolla Institute for Immunology, says in the JAMA article that a cytokine storm is unlikely for these patients because the mushroom components “don’t mimic inflammatory cytokines.” Dr. Wilson is now chief innovations officer at Statera Biopharma.

“We think the mushrooms increase the number of immunologic opportunities to better see and respond to a specific threat. In the doses used, the mushrooms perturb the immune system in a good way but fall far short of driving hyper or sustained inflammation,” Dr. Wilson said.

Dr. Saxe said the FDA process was extensive and rigorous and FDA investigators also asked about potential cytokine storms before approving the trials. Cytokine storm is not an issue with a healthy response, Dr. Saxe pointed out. It’s a response that’s not balanced or modulated.

“Mushrooms are immunomodulatory,” he said. “In some ways they very specifically enhance immunity. In other ways they calm down overimmunity.” Dr. Saxe noted that they did a sentinel study for the storm potential “and we didn’t see any evidence for it.”

“Not a crazy concept”

Dr. Saxe pointed out that one of the mushrooms in the combo they use — agarikon — was used to treat pulmonary infections 2,300 years ago.

“Hippocrates, the father of western medicine, used mushrooms,” he said. “Penicillin comes from fungi. It’s not a crazy concept. Most people who oppose this or are skeptics — to some extent, it’s a lack of information.”

Dr. Saxe explained that there are receptors on human cells that bind specific mushroom polysaccharides.

“There’s a hand-in-glove fit there,” Dr. Saxe said, and that’s one way mushrooms can modulate immune cell behavior, which could have an effect against SARS-CoV-2.

Daniel Kuritzkes, MD, chief of the division of infectious diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who was not part of the study, told this news organization that he wasn’t surprised the FDA approved moving forward with the trials.

“As long as you can demonstrate that there is a rationale for doing the trial and that you have some safety data or a plan to collect safety data, they are fairly liberal about doing early-phase studies. It would be a much different issue, I think, if they were proposing to do a study for actual licensing or approval of a drug,” Dr. Kuritzkes said.

As yet unanswered, he noted, is which component of the mushrooms or herbs is having the effect. It will be a challenge, he said, to know from one batch of the compound to the next that you have the same amount of material and that it’s going to have the same potency among lots.

Another challenge is how the mushrooms and herbs might interact with other therapies, Dr. Kuritzkes said.

He gave the example of St. John’s Wort, which has been problematic in HIV treatment.

“If someone is on certain HIV medicines and they also are taking St. John’s Wort, they basically are causing the liver to eat up the HIV drug and they don’t get adequate levels of the drug,” he said.

Though there are many challenges ahead, Dr. Kuritzkes acknowledged, but added that “this is a great starting point.”

He, too, pointed out that many traditional medicines were discovered from plants.

“The most famous of these is quinine, which came from cinchona bark that was used to treat malaria.” Dr. Kuritzkes said. Digitalis, often used to treat heart failure, comes from the fox glove plant, he added.

He said it’s important to remember that “people shouldn’t be seeking experimental therapies in place of proven therapies, they should be thinking of them in addition to proven therapies.»

A co-author reports an investment in the dietary supplement company Mycomedica Life Sciences, for which he also serves as an unpaid scientific adviser. Another co-author is a medical consultant for Evergreen Herbs and Medical Supplies. Dr. Hopp, Dr. Saxe, and Dr. Wilson have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kuritzkes consults for Merck, Gilead, and GlaxoSmithKline.

Early trials are under way to test medicinal mushrooms and Chinese herbs to treat COVID-19 patients with mild to moderate symptoms.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the MACH-19 trials (the acronym for Mushrooms and Chinese Herbs for COVID-19) after researchers applied for approval in April.

The first two phase 1 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials have begun at UCLA and the University of California San Diego to treat COVID-19 patients quarantining at home with mild to moderate symptoms. A third trial is investigating the use of medicinal mushrooms as an adjuvant to COVID-19 vaccines.

The researchers have also launched a fourth trial testing the mushrooms against placebo as an adjunct to a COVID booster shot. It looks at the effect in people who have comorbidities that would reduce their vaccine response. An article in JAMA  described the trials.

The two mushroom varieties being tested — turkey tail and agarikon — are available as over-the-counter supplements, according to the report. They are a separate class from hallucinogenic or “magic” mushrooms being tested for other uses in medicine.

“They are not even as psychoactive as a cup of tea,” Gordon Saxe, MD, PhD, MPH, principal investigator for the MACH-19 trials, told this news organization.

For each of the MACH-19 treatment trials, researchers plan to recruit 66 people who are quarantined at home with mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms. Participants will be randomly assigned either to receive the mushroom combination, the Chinese herbs, or a placebo for 2 weeks, according to the JAMA paper.

D. Craig Hopp, PhD, deputy director of the division of extramural research at the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH), told JAMA in an interview that he was “mildly concerned” about using mushrooms to treat people with active SARS-CoV-2 infection.

“We know that a cytokine storm poses the greatest risk of COVID mortality, not the virus itself,” Dr. Hopp said. “The danger is that an immune-stimulating agent like mushrooms might supercharge an individual’s immune response, leading to a cytokine storm.”

Stephen Wilson, PhD, an immunologist who consulted on the trials when he was chief operating officer of the La Jolla Institute for Immunology, says in the JAMA article that a cytokine storm is unlikely for these patients because the mushroom components “don’t mimic inflammatory cytokines.” Dr. Wilson is now chief innovations officer at Statera Biopharma.

“We think the mushrooms increase the number of immunologic opportunities to better see and respond to a specific threat. In the doses used, the mushrooms perturb the immune system in a good way but fall far short of driving hyper or sustained inflammation,” Dr. Wilson said.

Dr. Saxe said the FDA process was extensive and rigorous and FDA investigators also asked about potential cytokine storms before approving the trials. Cytokine storm is not an issue with a healthy response, Dr. Saxe pointed out. It’s a response that’s not balanced or modulated.

“Mushrooms are immunomodulatory,” he said. “In some ways they very specifically enhance immunity. In other ways they calm down overimmunity.” Dr. Saxe noted that they did a sentinel study for the storm potential “and we didn’t see any evidence for it.”

“Not a crazy concept”

Dr. Saxe pointed out that one of the mushrooms in the combo they use — agarikon — was used to treat pulmonary infections 2,300 years ago.

“Hippocrates, the father of western medicine, used mushrooms,” he said. “Penicillin comes from fungi. It’s not a crazy concept. Most people who oppose this or are skeptics — to some extent, it’s a lack of information.”

Dr. Saxe explained that there are receptors on human cells that bind specific mushroom polysaccharides.

“There’s a hand-in-glove fit there,” Dr. Saxe said, and that’s one way mushrooms can modulate immune cell behavior, which could have an effect against SARS-CoV-2.

Daniel Kuritzkes, MD, chief of the division of infectious diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who was not part of the study, told this news organization that he wasn’t surprised the FDA approved moving forward with the trials.

“As long as you can demonstrate that there is a rationale for doing the trial and that you have some safety data or a plan to collect safety data, they are fairly liberal about doing early-phase studies. It would be a much different issue, I think, if they were proposing to do a study for actual licensing or approval of a drug,” Dr. Kuritzkes said.

As yet unanswered, he noted, is which component of the mushrooms or herbs is having the effect. It will be a challenge, he said, to know from one batch of the compound to the next that you have the same amount of material and that it’s going to have the same potency among lots.

Another challenge is how the mushrooms and herbs might interact with other therapies, Dr. Kuritzkes said.

He gave the example of St. John’s Wort, which has been problematic in HIV treatment.

“If someone is on certain HIV medicines and they also are taking St. John’s Wort, they basically are causing the liver to eat up the HIV drug and they don’t get adequate levels of the drug,” he said.

Though there are many challenges ahead, Dr. Kuritzkes acknowledged, but added that “this is a great starting point.”

He, too, pointed out that many traditional medicines were discovered from plants.

“The most famous of these is quinine, which came from cinchona bark that was used to treat malaria.” Dr. Kuritzkes said. Digitalis, often used to treat heart failure, comes from the fox glove plant, he added.

He said it’s important to remember that “people shouldn’t be seeking experimental therapies in place of proven therapies, they should be thinking of them in addition to proven therapies.»

A co-author reports an investment in the dietary supplement company Mycomedica Life Sciences, for which he also serves as an unpaid scientific adviser. Another co-author is a medical consultant for Evergreen Herbs and Medical Supplies. Dr. Hopp, Dr. Saxe, and Dr. Wilson have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kuritzkes consults for Merck, Gilead, and GlaxoSmithKline.

Early trials are under way to test medicinal mushrooms and Chinese herbs to treat COVID-19 patients with mild to moderate symptoms.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the MACH-19 trials (the acronym for Mushrooms and Chinese Herbs for COVID-19) after researchers applied for approval in April.

The first two phase 1 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials have begun at UCLA and the University of California San Diego to treat COVID-19 patients quarantining at home with mild to moderate symptoms. A third trial is investigating the use of medicinal mushrooms as an adjuvant to COVID-19 vaccines.

The researchers have also launched a fourth trial testing the mushrooms against placebo as an adjunct to a COVID booster shot. It looks at the effect in people who have comorbidities that would reduce their vaccine response. An article in JAMA  described the trials.

The two mushroom varieties being tested — turkey tail and agarikon — are available as over-the-counter supplements, according to the report. They are a separate class from hallucinogenic or “magic” mushrooms being tested for other uses in medicine.

“They are not even as psychoactive as a cup of tea,” Gordon Saxe, MD, PhD, MPH, principal investigator for the MACH-19 trials, told this news organization.

For each of the MACH-19 treatment trials, researchers plan to recruit 66 people who are quarantined at home with mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms. Participants will be randomly assigned either to receive the mushroom combination, the Chinese herbs, or a placebo for 2 weeks, according to the JAMA paper.

D. Craig Hopp, PhD, deputy director of the division of extramural research at the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH), told JAMA in an interview that he was “mildly concerned” about using mushrooms to treat people with active SARS-CoV-2 infection.

“We know that a cytokine storm poses the greatest risk of COVID mortality, not the virus itself,” Dr. Hopp said. “The danger is that an immune-stimulating agent like mushrooms might supercharge an individual’s immune response, leading to a cytokine storm.”

Stephen Wilson, PhD, an immunologist who consulted on the trials when he was chief operating officer of the La Jolla Institute for Immunology, says in the JAMA article that a cytokine storm is unlikely for these patients because the mushroom components “don’t mimic inflammatory cytokines.” Dr. Wilson is now chief innovations officer at Statera Biopharma.

“We think the mushrooms increase the number of immunologic opportunities to better see and respond to a specific threat. In the doses used, the mushrooms perturb the immune system in a good way but fall far short of driving hyper or sustained inflammation,” Dr. Wilson said.

Dr. Saxe said the FDA process was extensive and rigorous and FDA investigators also asked about potential cytokine storms before approving the trials. Cytokine storm is not an issue with a healthy response, Dr. Saxe pointed out. It’s a response that’s not balanced or modulated.

“Mushrooms are immunomodulatory,” he said. “In some ways they very specifically enhance immunity. In other ways they calm down overimmunity.” Dr. Saxe noted that they did a sentinel study for the storm potential “and we didn’t see any evidence for it.”

“Not a crazy concept”

Dr. Saxe pointed out that one of the mushrooms in the combo they use — agarikon — was used to treat pulmonary infections 2,300 years ago.

“Hippocrates, the father of western medicine, used mushrooms,” he said. “Penicillin comes from fungi. It’s not a crazy concept. Most people who oppose this or are skeptics — to some extent, it’s a lack of information.”

Dr. Saxe explained that there are receptors on human cells that bind specific mushroom polysaccharides.

“There’s a hand-in-glove fit there,” Dr. Saxe said, and that’s one way mushrooms can modulate immune cell behavior, which could have an effect against SARS-CoV-2.

Daniel Kuritzkes, MD, chief of the division of infectious diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who was not part of the study, told this news organization that he wasn’t surprised the FDA approved moving forward with the trials.

“As long as you can demonstrate that there is a rationale for doing the trial and that you have some safety data or a plan to collect safety data, they are fairly liberal about doing early-phase studies. It would be a much different issue, I think, if they were proposing to do a study for actual licensing or approval of a drug,” Dr. Kuritzkes said.

As yet unanswered, he noted, is which component of the mushrooms or herbs is having the effect. It will be a challenge, he said, to know from one batch of the compound to the next that you have the same amount of material and that it’s going to have the same potency among lots.

Another challenge is how the mushrooms and herbs might interact with other therapies, Dr. Kuritzkes said.

He gave the example of St. John’s Wort, which has been problematic in HIV treatment.

“If someone is on certain HIV medicines and they also are taking St. John’s Wort, they basically are causing the liver to eat up the HIV drug and they don’t get adequate levels of the drug,” he said.

Though there are many challenges ahead, Dr. Kuritzkes acknowledged, but added that “this is a great starting point.”

He, too, pointed out that many traditional medicines were discovered from plants.

“The most famous of these is quinine, which came from cinchona bark that was used to treat malaria.” Dr. Kuritzkes said. Digitalis, often used to treat heart failure, comes from the fox glove plant, he added.

He said it’s important to remember that “people shouldn’t be seeking experimental therapies in place of proven therapies, they should be thinking of them in addition to proven therapies.»

A co-author reports an investment in the dietary supplement company Mycomedica Life Sciences, for which he also serves as an unpaid scientific adviser. Another co-author is a medical consultant for Evergreen Herbs and Medical Supplies. Dr. Hopp, Dr. Saxe, and Dr. Wilson have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kuritzkes consults for Merck, Gilead, and GlaxoSmithKline.

THE CASE

A 72-year-old man was admitted to our Dallas hospital with a 4-day history of fevers and new-onset urinary frequency. He did not report any joint pain, sick contacts, or recent travel or recall any skin findings (rashes, insect bites). Past medical history was significant for hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, benign prostatic hyperplasia, recurrent urinary tract infections, and lumbar radiculopathy.

Initial signs and symptoms were suggestive of sepsis: a temperature of 102.7 °F, tachycardia, and a suspected genitourinary infection. This was supported by initial labs concerning for end-organ damage: elevated creatinine of 1.58 mg/dL (reference range, 0.67-1.17 mg/dL), elevated international normalized ratio (INR) of 1.6 (reference range, 0.9-1.1), hemoglobin of 12.8 g/dL (reference range, 13.5 - 17.5 g/dL), and platelet count of 99 ×10⁹/L (reference range, 160-383 ×10⁹/L).

Over the next several days, the patient’s condition worsened, and he experienced a decline in mental status, despite initiation of broad-spectrum antibiotics and fluid resuscitation. Although lumbar puncture was warranted, neither Neurology nor Interventional Radiology were willing to risk the procedure given the patient’s worsening hemoglobin (8.3 g/dL) and platelet count (51 ×10⁹/L).

Preliminary work-up included a urinalysis negative for leukocytes, nitrites, and ­bacteria—despite a urine culture that showed gram-positive cocci. His chest x-ray was unremarkable, and computed tomography of his brain showed generalized atrophy without acute changes. The work-up was expanded to fungal cultures and immunochemical assays. Empiric treatment with micafungin and acyclovir was started without improvement.

Further conversation with family revealed that the patient liked to spend time outdoors and he’d had a similar episode in which he’d been diagnosed with an unknown disease from an insect bite. Pertinent negative tests included: HIV, syphilis, rapid heterophile antibody, influenza, respiratory virus panel, blood culture, fungal culture, antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies, histoplasmosis, brucellosis, malaria, Epstein-Barr virus, cytomegalovirus, and parvovirus. Coxiella burnetii and West Nile virus immunoglobulin (Ig) G were positive, suggesting a prior exposure.

THE DIAGNOSIS

Given these new findings and reported outdoor activities, Infectious Diseases recommended we start our patient on doxycycline for possible rickettsia infection. On Day 8, doxycycline 200 mg IV once daily was started. (The IV form was initiated due to the patient’s altered mentation.) The patient started to show improvement, and on Day 14, an immunofluorescence antibody (IFA) assay revealed Rickettsia typhi IgM titers 1:512 (< 1:64) and IgG titers 1:256 (< 1:64), consistent with a diagnosis of murine (endemic) typhus.

DISCUSSION

Murine typhus is an acute febrile disease caused by R typhi, an obligate, intracellular gram-negative organism.¹ Worldwide, transmission to humans occurs mainly from infected rat fleas harbored by rodents. In the United States, it’s been suggested that opossums serve as an important reservoir in peri-domestic settings, with cat fleas as vectors.^2-4 The disease is endemic to southern California and south Texas.⁴

Continue to: Incidence of murine typhus

Incidence of murine typhus has declined in the United States since 1945 with the use of the insecticide dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT). However, a recent rise in murine typhus cases—likely due to ecological changes—makes timely diagnosis and treatment essential.⁵ An epidemiologic study of 1762 confirmed cases in Texas from 2003 to 2013 found an increase in the number of cases and an expansion of the geographic areas impacted.³ Thus, in the work-up of acute fever of unknown origin, it is not unreasonable to include murine typhus in the differential.

Serologic testing with IFA is the preferred diagnostic method; however, a definitive diagnosis is not needed before treatment can be started.

Murine typhus can be difficult to diagnose due to nonspecific clinical manifestation.^3,4 A 2016 systematic review of 2074 patients reported common symptoms of fever, headache, malaise, chills, and myalgia.⁶ The most common laboratory abnormalities in adults were elevated aminotransferases, lactate dehydrogenase, hypoalbuminemia, and thrombocytopenia.⁶ A 4-fold increase in typhus group IgM or IgG-specific antibody titer by IFA is supportive of diagnosis.⁴ 

The differential diagnosis included urosepsis, prostatitis, syphilis, HIV, and meningitis. However, lack of response to broad-spectrum antibiotics and antifungals made a diagnosis of urologic infection unlikely. A negative sexually transmitted infection screen ruled out syphilis and HIV. An incidental, elevated INR and delirium prevented us from obtaining a lumbar puncture to test for meningitis.

Treatment may begin without a definitive diagnosis

Serologic testing with IFA is the preferred diagnostic method; however, a definitive diagnosis is not needed before treatment can be initiated. Doxycycline is the first-line therapy for all rickettsioses. Adults are advised to take doxycycline 200 mg orally once, followed by 100 mg twice daily until the patient improves, has been afebrile for 48 hours, and has received treatment for at least 7 days.⁷ Oral chloramphenicol is considered a second-line treatment; however it is not available in the United States and is associated with adverse hematologic effects.⁷

Our patient responded remarkably well to the doxycycline. After a 14-day course was completed, he was discharged to a skilled nursing facility for physical rehabilitation.

Continue to: THE TAKEAWAY

Rickettsia diseases, such as murine typhus, should be considered in the differential if a patient presents with a worsening clinical picture of unresolved delirium; fever despite use of broad-spectrum antibiotics, antifungals, and antivirals; and a history of potential outdoor exposure. Sources include opossums or cats when flea contact is likely. Rickettsia diseases belong in the differential when there is a history of travel to tropical areas, as well. All suspected cases should be reported to the local health department.

CORRESPONDENCE
Tenzin Tsewang MD, 5200 Harry Hines Boulevard, Dallas, TX 75235; [email protected]

THE CASE

A 72-year-old man was admitted to our Dallas hospital with a 4-day history of fevers and new-onset urinary frequency. He did not report any joint pain, sick contacts, or recent travel or recall any skin findings (rashes, insect bites). Past medical history was significant for hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, benign prostatic hyperplasia, recurrent urinary tract infections, and lumbar radiculopathy.

Initial signs and symptoms were suggestive of sepsis: a temperature of 102.7 °F, tachycardia, and a suspected genitourinary infection. This was supported by initial labs concerning for end-organ damage: elevated creatinine of 1.58 mg/dL (reference range, 0.67-1.17 mg/dL), elevated international normalized ratio (INR) of 1.6 (reference range, 0.9-1.1), hemoglobin of 12.8 g/dL (reference range, 13.5 - 17.5 g/dL), and platelet count of 99 ×10⁹/L (reference range, 160-383 ×10⁹/L).

Over the next several days, the patient’s condition worsened, and he experienced a decline in mental status, despite initiation of broad-spectrum antibiotics and fluid resuscitation. Although lumbar puncture was warranted, neither Neurology nor Interventional Radiology were willing to risk the procedure given the patient’s worsening hemoglobin (8.3 g/dL) and platelet count (51 ×10⁹/L).

Preliminary work-up included a urinalysis negative for leukocytes, nitrites, and ­bacteria—despite a urine culture that showed gram-positive cocci. His chest x-ray was unremarkable, and computed tomography of his brain showed generalized atrophy without acute changes. The work-up was expanded to fungal cultures and immunochemical assays. Empiric treatment with micafungin and acyclovir was started without improvement.

Further conversation with family revealed that the patient liked to spend time outdoors and he’d had a similar episode in which he’d been diagnosed with an unknown disease from an insect bite. Pertinent negative tests included: HIV, syphilis, rapid heterophile antibody, influenza, respiratory virus panel, blood culture, fungal culture, antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies, histoplasmosis, brucellosis, malaria, Epstein-Barr virus, cytomegalovirus, and parvovirus. Coxiella burnetii and West Nile virus immunoglobulin (Ig) G were positive, suggesting a prior exposure.

THE DIAGNOSIS

Given these new findings and reported outdoor activities, Infectious Diseases recommended we start our patient on doxycycline for possible rickettsia infection. On Day 8, doxycycline 200 mg IV once daily was started. (The IV form was initiated due to the patient’s altered mentation.) The patient started to show improvement, and on Day 14, an immunofluorescence antibody (IFA) assay revealed Rickettsia typhi IgM titers 1:512 (< 1:64) and IgG titers 1:256 (< 1:64), consistent with a diagnosis of murine (endemic) typhus.

DISCUSSION

Murine typhus is an acute febrile disease caused by R typhi, an obligate, intracellular gram-negative organism.¹ Worldwide, transmission to humans occurs mainly from infected rat fleas harbored by rodents. In the United States, it’s been suggested that opossums serve as an important reservoir in peri-domestic settings, with cat fleas as vectors.^2-4 The disease is endemic to southern California and south Texas.⁴

Continue to: Incidence of murine typhus

Incidence of murine typhus has declined in the United States since 1945 with the use of the insecticide dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT). However, a recent rise in murine typhus cases—likely due to ecological changes—makes timely diagnosis and treatment essential.⁵ An epidemiologic study of 1762 confirmed cases in Texas from 2003 to 2013 found an increase in the number of cases and an expansion of the geographic areas impacted.³ Thus, in the work-up of acute fever of unknown origin, it is not unreasonable to include murine typhus in the differential.

Serologic testing with IFA is the preferred diagnostic method; however, a definitive diagnosis is not needed before treatment can be started.

Murine typhus can be difficult to diagnose due to nonspecific clinical manifestation.^3,4 A 2016 systematic review of 2074 patients reported common symptoms of fever, headache, malaise, chills, and myalgia.⁶ The most common laboratory abnormalities in adults were elevated aminotransferases, lactate dehydrogenase, hypoalbuminemia, and thrombocytopenia.⁶ A 4-fold increase in typhus group IgM or IgG-specific antibody titer by IFA is supportive of diagnosis.⁴ 

The differential diagnosis included urosepsis, prostatitis, syphilis, HIV, and meningitis. However, lack of response to broad-spectrum antibiotics and antifungals made a diagnosis of urologic infection unlikely. A negative sexually transmitted infection screen ruled out syphilis and HIV. An incidental, elevated INR and delirium prevented us from obtaining a lumbar puncture to test for meningitis.

Treatment may begin without a definitive diagnosis

Serologic testing with IFA is the preferred diagnostic method; however, a definitive diagnosis is not needed before treatment can be initiated. Doxycycline is the first-line therapy for all rickettsioses. Adults are advised to take doxycycline 200 mg orally once, followed by 100 mg twice daily until the patient improves, has been afebrile for 48 hours, and has received treatment for at least 7 days.⁷ Oral chloramphenicol is considered a second-line treatment; however it is not available in the United States and is associated with adverse hematologic effects.⁷

Our patient responded remarkably well to the doxycycline. After a 14-day course was completed, he was discharged to a skilled nursing facility for physical rehabilitation.

Continue to: THE TAKEAWAY

Rickettsia diseases, such as murine typhus, should be considered in the differential if a patient presents with a worsening clinical picture of unresolved delirium; fever despite use of broad-spectrum antibiotics, antifungals, and antivirals; and a history of potential outdoor exposure. Sources include opossums or cats when flea contact is likely. Rickettsia diseases belong in the differential when there is a history of travel to tropical areas, as well. All suspected cases should be reported to the local health department.

CORRESPONDENCE
Tenzin Tsewang MD, 5200 Harry Hines Boulevard, Dallas, TX 75235; [email protected]

THE CASE

A 72-year-old man was admitted to our Dallas hospital with a 4-day history of fevers and new-onset urinary frequency. He did not report any joint pain, sick contacts, or recent travel or recall any skin findings (rashes, insect bites). Past medical history was significant for hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, benign prostatic hyperplasia, recurrent urinary tract infections, and lumbar radiculopathy.

Initial signs and symptoms were suggestive of sepsis: a temperature of 102.7 °F, tachycardia, and a suspected genitourinary infection. This was supported by initial labs concerning for end-organ damage: elevated creatinine of 1.58 mg/dL (reference range, 0.67-1.17 mg/dL), elevated international normalized ratio (INR) of 1.6 (reference range, 0.9-1.1), hemoglobin of 12.8 g/dL (reference range, 13.5 - 17.5 g/dL), and platelet count of 99 ×10⁹/L (reference range, 160-383 ×10⁹/L).

Over the next several days, the patient’s condition worsened, and he experienced a decline in mental status, despite initiation of broad-spectrum antibiotics and fluid resuscitation. Although lumbar puncture was warranted, neither Neurology nor Interventional Radiology were willing to risk the procedure given the patient’s worsening hemoglobin (8.3 g/dL) and platelet count (51 ×10⁹/L).

Preliminary work-up included a urinalysis negative for leukocytes, nitrites, and ­bacteria—despite a urine culture that showed gram-positive cocci. His chest x-ray was unremarkable, and computed tomography of his brain showed generalized atrophy without acute changes. The work-up was expanded to fungal cultures and immunochemical assays. Empiric treatment with micafungin and acyclovir was started without improvement.

Further conversation with family revealed that the patient liked to spend time outdoors and he’d had a similar episode in which he’d been diagnosed with an unknown disease from an insect bite. Pertinent negative tests included: HIV, syphilis, rapid heterophile antibody, influenza, respiratory virus panel, blood culture, fungal culture, antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies, histoplasmosis, brucellosis, malaria, Epstein-Barr virus, cytomegalovirus, and parvovirus. Coxiella burnetii and West Nile virus immunoglobulin (Ig) G were positive, suggesting a prior exposure.

THE DIAGNOSIS

Given these new findings and reported outdoor activities, Infectious Diseases recommended we start our patient on doxycycline for possible rickettsia infection. On Day 8, doxycycline 200 mg IV once daily was started. (The IV form was initiated due to the patient’s altered mentation.) The patient started to show improvement, and on Day 14, an immunofluorescence antibody (IFA) assay revealed Rickettsia typhi IgM titers 1:512 (< 1:64) and IgG titers 1:256 (< 1:64), consistent with a diagnosis of murine (endemic) typhus.

DISCUSSION

Murine typhus is an acute febrile disease caused by R typhi, an obligate, intracellular gram-negative organism.¹ Worldwide, transmission to humans occurs mainly from infected rat fleas harbored by rodents. In the United States, it’s been suggested that opossums serve as an important reservoir in peri-domestic settings, with cat fleas as vectors.^2-4 The disease is endemic to southern California and south Texas.⁴

Continue to: Incidence of murine typhus

Incidence of murine typhus has declined in the United States since 1945 with the use of the insecticide dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT). However, a recent rise in murine typhus cases—likely due to ecological changes—makes timely diagnosis and treatment essential.⁵ An epidemiologic study of 1762 confirmed cases in Texas from 2003 to 2013 found an increase in the number of cases and an expansion of the geographic areas impacted.³ Thus, in the work-up of acute fever of unknown origin, it is not unreasonable to include murine typhus in the differential.

Serologic testing with IFA is the preferred diagnostic method; however, a definitive diagnosis is not needed before treatment can be started.

Murine typhus can be difficult to diagnose due to nonspecific clinical manifestation.^3,4 A 2016 systematic review of 2074 patients reported common symptoms of fever, headache, malaise, chills, and myalgia.⁶ The most common laboratory abnormalities in adults were elevated aminotransferases, lactate dehydrogenase, hypoalbuminemia, and thrombocytopenia.⁶ A 4-fold increase in typhus group IgM or IgG-specific antibody titer by IFA is supportive of diagnosis.⁴ 

The differential diagnosis included urosepsis, prostatitis, syphilis, HIV, and meningitis. However, lack of response to broad-spectrum antibiotics and antifungals made a diagnosis of urologic infection unlikely. A negative sexually transmitted infection screen ruled out syphilis and HIV. An incidental, elevated INR and delirium prevented us from obtaining a lumbar puncture to test for meningitis.

Treatment may begin without a definitive diagnosis

Serologic testing with IFA is the preferred diagnostic method; however, a definitive diagnosis is not needed before treatment can be initiated. Doxycycline is the first-line therapy for all rickettsioses. Adults are advised to take doxycycline 200 mg orally once, followed by 100 mg twice daily until the patient improves, has been afebrile for 48 hours, and has received treatment for at least 7 days.⁷ Oral chloramphenicol is considered a second-line treatment; however it is not available in the United States and is associated with adverse hematologic effects.⁷

Our patient responded remarkably well to the doxycycline. After a 14-day course was completed, he was discharged to a skilled nursing facility for physical rehabilitation.

Continue to: THE TAKEAWAY

Rickettsia diseases, such as murine typhus, should be considered in the differential if a patient presents with a worsening clinical picture of unresolved delirium; fever despite use of broad-spectrum antibiotics, antifungals, and antivirals; and a history of potential outdoor exposure. Sources include opossums or cats when flea contact is likely. Rickettsia diseases belong in the differential when there is a history of travel to tropical areas, as well. All suspected cases should be reported to the local health department.

CORRESPONDENCE
Tenzin Tsewang MD, 5200 Harry Hines Boulevard, Dallas, TX 75235; [email protected]

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 30-year-old woman presented to the ED after she “passed out” while standing at a concert. She lost consciousness for 10 seconds. After she revived, her friends drove her to the ED. She is healthy, with no chronic medical conditions, no medication use, and no drug or alcohol use. Should she be admitted to the hospital for observation?

Syncope, a transient loss of consciousness followed by spontaneous complete recovery, accounts for 1% of ED visits.² Approximately 10% of patients presenting to the ED will have a serious underlying condition identified and among 3% to 5% of these patients with syncope, the serious condition will be identified only after they leave the ED.¹ Most patients have a benign course, but more than half of all patients presenting to the ED with syncope will be hospitalized, costing $2.4 billion annually.²

Because of the high hospitalization rate of patients with syncope, a practical and accurate tool to risk-stratify patients is vital. Other tools, such as the San Francisco Syncope Rule, Short-Term Prognosis of Syncope, and Risk Stratification of Syncope in the Emergency Department, lack validation or are excessively complex, with extensive lab work or testing.³

The CSRS was previously derived from a large, multisite consecutive cohort, and was internally validated and reported according to the Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis guideline statement.⁴ Patients are assigned points based on clinical findings, test results, and the diagnosis given in the ED (TABLE⁴). The scoring system is used to stratify patients as very low (−3, −2), low (−1, 0), medium (1, 2, 3), high (4, 5), or very high (≥6) risk.⁴

STUDY SUMMARY

Less than 1% of very low– and low-risk patients had serious 30-day outcomes

This multisite Canadian prospective validation cohort study enrolled patients age ≥ 16 years who presented to the ED within 24 hours of syncope. Both discharged and hospitalized patients were included.¹

Patients were excluded if they had loss of consciousness for > 5 minutes, mental status changes at presentation, history of current or previous seizure, or head trauma resulting in loss of consciousness. Patients requiring hospitalization secondary to trauma or those from whom an accurate history could not be obtained (eg, intoxication) were excluded, as were patients with a serious underlying condition identified during the original ED evaluation.

ED physicians confirmed patient eligibility, obtained verbal consent, and completed the data collection form. In addition, research assistants sought to identify eligible patients who were not previously enrolled by reviewing all ED visits during the study period.

Continue to: To examine 30-day outcomes...

To examine 30-day outcomes, researchers reviewed all available patient medical records, including administrative health records at all hospitals within the province; performed a telephone follow-up immediately after 30 days; and if no other information was found, searched the coroner’s database. Two ED physicians (with a third resolving disagreements) determined if a serious outcome occurred, including any arrhythmia, intervention to treat arrythmia, death due to an unknown cause, myocardial infarction, structural heart disease, aortic dissection, pulmonary embolism, severe pulmonary hypertension, significant hemorrhage, or subarachnoid hemorrhage.¹

A total of 4131 patients made up the validation cohort. A serious condition was identified during the initial ED visit in 160 patients (3.9%), who were excluded from the study, and 152 patients (3.7%) were lost to follow-up. Of the 3819 patients included in the final analysis, troponin was not measured in 1566 patients (41%), and an electrocardiogram was not obtained in 114 patients (3%). A serious outcome within 30 days was experienced by 139 patients (3.6%; 95% CI, 3.1%-4.3%). There was good correlation to the model-predicted serious outcome probability of 3.2% (95% CI, 2.7%-3.8%).¹

Three of 1631 (0.2%) patients classified as very low risk and 9 of 1254 (0.7%) low-risk patients experienced a serious outcome, and no patients died. In the group classified as medium risk, 55 of 687 (8%) patients experienced a serious outcome, and there was 1 death. In the high-risk group, 32 of 167 (19.2%) patients experienced a serious outcome, and there were 5 deaths. In the group classified as very high risk, 40 of 78 (51.3%) patients experienced a serious outcome, and there were 7 deaths. The CSRS was able to identify very low– or low-risk patients (score of −1 or better) with a sensitivity of 97.8% (95% CI, 93.8%-99.6%) and a specificity of 44.3% (95% CI, 42.7%-45.9%).¹

WHAT’S NEW

This scoring system offers a validated method to risk-stratify ED patients

Previous recommendations from the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Associationsuggested determining disposition of ED patients by using clinical judgment based on a list of risk factors such as age, chronic conditions, and medications. However, there was no scoring system.³ This new scoring system allows physicians to send home very low– and low-risk patients with reassurance that the likelihood of a serious outcome is less than 1%. High-risk and very high–risk patients should be admitted to the hospital for further evaluation. Most moderate-risk patients (8% risk of serious outcome but 0.1% risk of death) can also be discharged after providers have a risk/benefit discussion, including precautions for signs of arrhythmia or need for urgent return to the hospital.

CAVEATS

The study does not translate to all clinical settings

Because this study was done in EDs, the scoring system cannot necessarily be applied to urgent care or outpatient settings. However, 41% of the patients in the study did not have troponin testing performed. Therefore, physicians could consider using the scoring system in settings where this lab test is not immediately available.

Continue to: This scoring system was also only...

This scoring system was also only validated with adult patients presenting within 24 hours of their syncopal episode. It is unknown how it may predict the outcomes of patients who present > 24 hours after syncope.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Clinicians may not be awareof the CSRS scoring system

The main challenge to implementation is practitioner awareness of the CSRS scoring system and how to use it appropriately, as there are several different syncopal scoring systems that may already be in use. Additionally, depending on the electronic health record used, the CSRS scoring system may not be embedded. Using and documenting scores may also be a challenge.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 30-year-old woman presented to the ED after she “passed out” while standing at a concert. She lost consciousness for 10 seconds. After she revived, her friends drove her to the ED. She is healthy, with no chronic medical conditions, no medication use, and no drug or alcohol use. Should she be admitted to the hospital for observation?

Syncope, a transient loss of consciousness followed by spontaneous complete recovery, accounts for 1% of ED visits.² Approximately 10% of patients presenting to the ED will have a serious underlying condition identified and among 3% to 5% of these patients with syncope, the serious condition will be identified only after they leave the ED.¹ Most patients have a benign course, but more than half of all patients presenting to the ED with syncope will be hospitalized, costing $2.4 billion annually.²

Because of the high hospitalization rate of patients with syncope, a practical and accurate tool to risk-stratify patients is vital. Other tools, such as the San Francisco Syncope Rule, Short-Term Prognosis of Syncope, and Risk Stratification of Syncope in the Emergency Department, lack validation or are excessively complex, with extensive lab work or testing.³

The CSRS was previously derived from a large, multisite consecutive cohort, and was internally validated and reported according to the Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis guideline statement.⁴ Patients are assigned points based on clinical findings, test results, and the diagnosis given in the ED (TABLE⁴). The scoring system is used to stratify patients as very low (−3, −2), low (−1, 0), medium (1, 2, 3), high (4, 5), or very high (≥6) risk.⁴

STUDY SUMMARY

Less than 1% of very low– and low-risk patients had serious 30-day outcomes

This multisite Canadian prospective validation cohort study enrolled patients age ≥ 16 years who presented to the ED within 24 hours of syncope. Both discharged and hospitalized patients were included.¹

Patients were excluded if they had loss of consciousness for > 5 minutes, mental status changes at presentation, history of current or previous seizure, or head trauma resulting in loss of consciousness. Patients requiring hospitalization secondary to trauma or those from whom an accurate history could not be obtained (eg, intoxication) were excluded, as were patients with a serious underlying condition identified during the original ED evaluation.

ED physicians confirmed patient eligibility, obtained verbal consent, and completed the data collection form. In addition, research assistants sought to identify eligible patients who were not previously enrolled by reviewing all ED visits during the study period.

Continue to: To examine 30-day outcomes...

To examine 30-day outcomes, researchers reviewed all available patient medical records, including administrative health records at all hospitals within the province; performed a telephone follow-up immediately after 30 days; and if no other information was found, searched the coroner’s database. Two ED physicians (with a third resolving disagreements) determined if a serious outcome occurred, including any arrhythmia, intervention to treat arrythmia, death due to an unknown cause, myocardial infarction, structural heart disease, aortic dissection, pulmonary embolism, severe pulmonary hypertension, significant hemorrhage, or subarachnoid hemorrhage.¹

A total of 4131 patients made up the validation cohort. A serious condition was identified during the initial ED visit in 160 patients (3.9%), who were excluded from the study, and 152 patients (3.7%) were lost to follow-up. Of the 3819 patients included in the final analysis, troponin was not measured in 1566 patients (41%), and an electrocardiogram was not obtained in 114 patients (3%). A serious outcome within 30 days was experienced by 139 patients (3.6%; 95% CI, 3.1%-4.3%). There was good correlation to the model-predicted serious outcome probability of 3.2% (95% CI, 2.7%-3.8%).¹

Three of 1631 (0.2%) patients classified as very low risk and 9 of 1254 (0.7%) low-risk patients experienced a serious outcome, and no patients died. In the group classified as medium risk, 55 of 687 (8%) patients experienced a serious outcome, and there was 1 death. In the high-risk group, 32 of 167 (19.2%) patients experienced a serious outcome, and there were 5 deaths. In the group classified as very high risk, 40 of 78 (51.3%) patients experienced a serious outcome, and there were 7 deaths. The CSRS was able to identify very low– or low-risk patients (score of −1 or better) with a sensitivity of 97.8% (95% CI, 93.8%-99.6%) and a specificity of 44.3% (95% CI, 42.7%-45.9%).¹

WHAT’S NEW

This scoring system offers a validated method to risk-stratify ED patients

Previous recommendations from the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Associationsuggested determining disposition of ED patients by using clinical judgment based on a list of risk factors such as age, chronic conditions, and medications. However, there was no scoring system.³ This new scoring system allows physicians to send home very low– and low-risk patients with reassurance that the likelihood of a serious outcome is less than 1%. High-risk and very high–risk patients should be admitted to the hospital for further evaluation. Most moderate-risk patients (8% risk of serious outcome but 0.1% risk of death) can also be discharged after providers have a risk/benefit discussion, including precautions for signs of arrhythmia or need for urgent return to the hospital.

CAVEATS

The study does not translate to all clinical settings

Because this study was done in EDs, the scoring system cannot necessarily be applied to urgent care or outpatient settings. However, 41% of the patients in the study did not have troponin testing performed. Therefore, physicians could consider using the scoring system in settings where this lab test is not immediately available.

Continue to: This scoring system was also only...

This scoring system was also only validated with adult patients presenting within 24 hours of their syncopal episode. It is unknown how it may predict the outcomes of patients who present > 24 hours after syncope.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Clinicians may not be awareof the CSRS scoring system

The main challenge to implementation is practitioner awareness of the CSRS scoring system and how to use it appropriately, as there are several different syncopal scoring systems that may already be in use. Additionally, depending on the electronic health record used, the CSRS scoring system may not be embedded. Using and documenting scores may also be a challenge.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 30-year-old woman presented to the ED after she “passed out” while standing at a concert. She lost consciousness for 10 seconds. After she revived, her friends drove her to the ED. She is healthy, with no chronic medical conditions, no medication use, and no drug or alcohol use. Should she be admitted to the hospital for observation?

Syncope, a transient loss of consciousness followed by spontaneous complete recovery, accounts for 1% of ED visits.² Approximately 10% of patients presenting to the ED will have a serious underlying condition identified and among 3% to 5% of these patients with syncope, the serious condition will be identified only after they leave the ED.¹ Most patients have a benign course, but more than half of all patients presenting to the ED with syncope will be hospitalized, costing $2.4 billion annually.²

Because of the high hospitalization rate of patients with syncope, a practical and accurate tool to risk-stratify patients is vital. Other tools, such as the San Francisco Syncope Rule, Short-Term Prognosis of Syncope, and Risk Stratification of Syncope in the Emergency Department, lack validation or are excessively complex, with extensive lab work or testing.³

The CSRS was previously derived from a large, multisite consecutive cohort, and was internally validated and reported according to the Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis guideline statement.⁴ Patients are assigned points based on clinical findings, test results, and the diagnosis given in the ED (TABLE⁴). The scoring system is used to stratify patients as very low (−3, −2), low (−1, 0), medium (1, 2, 3), high (4, 5), or very high (≥6) risk.⁴

STUDY SUMMARY

Less than 1% of very low– and low-risk patients had serious 30-day outcomes

This multisite Canadian prospective validation cohort study enrolled patients age ≥ 16 years who presented to the ED within 24 hours of syncope. Both discharged and hospitalized patients were included.¹

Patients were excluded if they had loss of consciousness for > 5 minutes, mental status changes at presentation, history of current or previous seizure, or head trauma resulting in loss of consciousness. Patients requiring hospitalization secondary to trauma or those from whom an accurate history could not be obtained (eg, intoxication) were excluded, as were patients with a serious underlying condition identified during the original ED evaluation.

ED physicians confirmed patient eligibility, obtained verbal consent, and completed the data collection form. In addition, research assistants sought to identify eligible patients who were not previously enrolled by reviewing all ED visits during the study period.

Continue to: To examine 30-day outcomes...

To examine 30-day outcomes, researchers reviewed all available patient medical records, including administrative health records at all hospitals within the province; performed a telephone follow-up immediately after 30 days; and if no other information was found, searched the coroner’s database. Two ED physicians (with a third resolving disagreements) determined if a serious outcome occurred, including any arrhythmia, intervention to treat arrythmia, death due to an unknown cause, myocardial infarction, structural heart disease, aortic dissection, pulmonary embolism, severe pulmonary hypertension, significant hemorrhage, or subarachnoid hemorrhage.¹

A total of 4131 patients made up the validation cohort. A serious condition was identified during the initial ED visit in 160 patients (3.9%), who were excluded from the study, and 152 patients (3.7%) were lost to follow-up. Of the 3819 patients included in the final analysis, troponin was not measured in 1566 patients (41%), and an electrocardiogram was not obtained in 114 patients (3%). A serious outcome within 30 days was experienced by 139 patients (3.6%; 95% CI, 3.1%-4.3%). There was good correlation to the model-predicted serious outcome probability of 3.2% (95% CI, 2.7%-3.8%).¹

Three of 1631 (0.2%) patients classified as very low risk and 9 of 1254 (0.7%) low-risk patients experienced a serious outcome, and no patients died. In the group classified as medium risk, 55 of 687 (8%) patients experienced a serious outcome, and there was 1 death. In the high-risk group, 32 of 167 (19.2%) patients experienced a serious outcome, and there were 5 deaths. In the group classified as very high risk, 40 of 78 (51.3%) patients experienced a serious outcome, and there were 7 deaths. The CSRS was able to identify very low– or low-risk patients (score of −1 or better) with a sensitivity of 97.8% (95% CI, 93.8%-99.6%) and a specificity of 44.3% (95% CI, 42.7%-45.9%).¹

WHAT’S NEW

This scoring system offers a validated method to risk-stratify ED patients

Previous recommendations from the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Associationsuggested determining disposition of ED patients by using clinical judgment based on a list of risk factors such as age, chronic conditions, and medications. However, there was no scoring system.³ This new scoring system allows physicians to send home very low– and low-risk patients with reassurance that the likelihood of a serious outcome is less than 1%. High-risk and very high–risk patients should be admitted to the hospital for further evaluation. Most moderate-risk patients (8% risk of serious outcome but 0.1% risk of death) can also be discharged after providers have a risk/benefit discussion, including precautions for signs of arrhythmia or need for urgent return to the hospital.

CAVEATS

The study does not translate to all clinical settings

Because this study was done in EDs, the scoring system cannot necessarily be applied to urgent care or outpatient settings. However, 41% of the patients in the study did not have troponin testing performed. Therefore, physicians could consider using the scoring system in settings where this lab test is not immediately available.

Continue to: This scoring system was also only...

This scoring system was also only validated with adult patients presenting within 24 hours of their syncopal episode. It is unknown how it may predict the outcomes of patients who present > 24 hours after syncope.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Clinicians may not be awareof the CSRS scoring system

The main challenge to implementation is practitioner awareness of the CSRS scoring system and how to use it appropriately, as there are several different syncopal scoring systems that may already be in use. Additionally, depending on the electronic health record used, the CSRS scoring system may not be embedded. Using and documenting scores may also be a challenge.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

In a new study, researchers stimulated immune cells to assemble into tertiary lymphoid structures that improved the efficacy of chemotherapy in a preclinical model of pancreatic cancer.

Overall, the evidence generated by the study supports the notion that induction of tertiary lymphoid structures may potentiate chemotherapy’s antitumor activity, at least in a murine model of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). A more detailed understanding of tertiary lymphoid structure “kinetics and their induction, owing to multiple host and tumor factors, may help design personalized therapies harnessing the potential of immuno-oncology,” Francesca Delvecchio of Queen Mary University of London and colleagues wrote in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

While the immune system can play a role in combating cancer, a dense stroma surrounds pancreatic cancer cells, often blocking the ability of certain immune cells, such as T cells, from accessing the tumor. As shown by Young and colleagues, this causes immunotherapies to have very little success in the management of most pancreatic cancers, despite the efficacy of these therapies in other types of cancer.

In a proportion of patients with pancreatic cancer, clusters of immune cells can assemble tertiary lymphoid structures within the stroma that surrounds pancreatic cancer. These structures are associated with improved survival in PDAC. In the study, Mr. Delvecchio and colleagues sought to further elucidate the role of tertiary lymphoid structures in PDAC, particularly the structures’ antitumor potential.

The investigators analyzed donated tissue samples from patients to identify the presence of the structures within chemotherapy-naive human pancreatic cancer. Tertiary lymphoid structures were defined by the presence of tissue zones that were rich in T cells, B cells, and dendritic cells. Staining techniques were used to visualize the various cell types in the samples, revealing tertiary lymphoid structures in approximately 30% of tissue microarrays and 42% of the full section.

Multicolor immunofluorescence and immunohistochemistry were also used to characterize tertiary lymphoid structures in murine models of pancreatic cancer. Additionally, the investigators developed an orthotopic murine model to assess the development of the structures and their role in improving the therapeutic effects of chemotherapy. While tertiary lymphoid structures were not initially present in the preclinical murine model, B cells and T cells subsequently infiltrated into the tumor site following injection of lymphoid chemokines. These cells consequently assembled into the tertiary lymphoid structures.

In addition, the researchers combined chemotherapy gemcitabine with the intratumoral lymphoid chemokine and injected this combination treatment into orthotopic tumors. Following injection, the researchers observed “altered immune cell infiltration,” which facilitated the induction of tertiary lymphoid structures and potentiated antitumor activity of the chemotherapy. As a result, there was a significant reduction in the tumors, an effect the researchers did not find following the use of either treatment alone.

According to the investigators, the antitumor activity observed following induction of the tertiary lymphoid structures within the cancer is associated with B cell–mediated activation of dendritic cells, a key cell type involved in initiating an immune response.

Based on the findings, the researchers concluded that the combination of chemotherapy and lymphoid chemokines might be a viable strategy for promoting an antitumor immune response in pancreatic cancer. In turn, the researchers suggest this strategy may result in better clinical outcomes for patients with the disease. Additionally, the researchers wrote that mature tertiary lymphoid structures in PDAC prior to an immune treatment could “be used as a biomarker to define inclusion criteria of patients in immunotherapy protocols, with the aim to boost the ongoing antitumor immune response.”

The study relied on a mouse model and for this reason, it remains unclear at this time if the findings will be generalizable to humans. In the context of PDAC, the researchers wrote that further investigation and understanding of the formation of tertiary lymphoid structures may support the development of tailored treatments, including those that take advantage of the body’s immune system, to combat cancer and improve patient outcomes.

The researchers reported no conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry. No funding was reported for the study.

In a new study, researchers stimulated immune cells to assemble into tertiary lymphoid structures that improved the efficacy of chemotherapy in a preclinical model of pancreatic cancer.

Overall, the evidence generated by the study supports the notion that induction of tertiary lymphoid structures may potentiate chemotherapy’s antitumor activity, at least in a murine model of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). A more detailed understanding of tertiary lymphoid structure “kinetics and their induction, owing to multiple host and tumor factors, may help design personalized therapies harnessing the potential of immuno-oncology,” Francesca Delvecchio of Queen Mary University of London and colleagues wrote in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

While the immune system can play a role in combating cancer, a dense stroma surrounds pancreatic cancer cells, often blocking the ability of certain immune cells, such as T cells, from accessing the tumor. As shown by Young and colleagues, this causes immunotherapies to have very little success in the management of most pancreatic cancers, despite the efficacy of these therapies in other types of cancer.

In a proportion of patients with pancreatic cancer, clusters of immune cells can assemble tertiary lymphoid structures within the stroma that surrounds pancreatic cancer. These structures are associated with improved survival in PDAC. In the study, Mr. Delvecchio and colleagues sought to further elucidate the role of tertiary lymphoid structures in PDAC, particularly the structures’ antitumor potential.

The investigators analyzed donated tissue samples from patients to identify the presence of the structures within chemotherapy-naive human pancreatic cancer. Tertiary lymphoid structures were defined by the presence of tissue zones that were rich in T cells, B cells, and dendritic cells. Staining techniques were used to visualize the various cell types in the samples, revealing tertiary lymphoid structures in approximately 30% of tissue microarrays and 42% of the full section.

Multicolor immunofluorescence and immunohistochemistry were also used to characterize tertiary lymphoid structures in murine models of pancreatic cancer. Additionally, the investigators developed an orthotopic murine model to assess the development of the structures and their role in improving the therapeutic effects of chemotherapy. While tertiary lymphoid structures were not initially present in the preclinical murine model, B cells and T cells subsequently infiltrated into the tumor site following injection of lymphoid chemokines. These cells consequently assembled into the tertiary lymphoid structures.

In addition, the researchers combined chemotherapy gemcitabine with the intratumoral lymphoid chemokine and injected this combination treatment into orthotopic tumors. Following injection, the researchers observed “altered immune cell infiltration,” which facilitated the induction of tertiary lymphoid structures and potentiated antitumor activity of the chemotherapy. As a result, there was a significant reduction in the tumors, an effect the researchers did not find following the use of either treatment alone.

According to the investigators, the antitumor activity observed following induction of the tertiary lymphoid structures within the cancer is associated with B cell–mediated activation of dendritic cells, a key cell type involved in initiating an immune response.

Based on the findings, the researchers concluded that the combination of chemotherapy and lymphoid chemokines might be a viable strategy for promoting an antitumor immune response in pancreatic cancer. In turn, the researchers suggest this strategy may result in better clinical outcomes for patients with the disease. Additionally, the researchers wrote that mature tertiary lymphoid structures in PDAC prior to an immune treatment could “be used as a biomarker to define inclusion criteria of patients in immunotherapy protocols, with the aim to boost the ongoing antitumor immune response.”

The study relied on a mouse model and for this reason, it remains unclear at this time if the findings will be generalizable to humans. In the context of PDAC, the researchers wrote that further investigation and understanding of the formation of tertiary lymphoid structures may support the development of tailored treatments, including those that take advantage of the body’s immune system, to combat cancer and improve patient outcomes.

The researchers reported no conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry. No funding was reported for the study.

In a new study, researchers stimulated immune cells to assemble into tertiary lymphoid structures that improved the efficacy of chemotherapy in a preclinical model of pancreatic cancer.

Overall, the evidence generated by the study supports the notion that induction of tertiary lymphoid structures may potentiate chemotherapy’s antitumor activity, at least in a murine model of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). A more detailed understanding of tertiary lymphoid structure “kinetics and their induction, owing to multiple host and tumor factors, may help design personalized therapies harnessing the potential of immuno-oncology,” Francesca Delvecchio of Queen Mary University of London and colleagues wrote in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

While the immune system can play a role in combating cancer, a dense stroma surrounds pancreatic cancer cells, often blocking the ability of certain immune cells, such as T cells, from accessing the tumor. As shown by Young and colleagues, this causes immunotherapies to have very little success in the management of most pancreatic cancers, despite the efficacy of these therapies in other types of cancer.

In a proportion of patients with pancreatic cancer, clusters of immune cells can assemble tertiary lymphoid structures within the stroma that surrounds pancreatic cancer. These structures are associated with improved survival in PDAC. In the study, Mr. Delvecchio and colleagues sought to further elucidate the role of tertiary lymphoid structures in PDAC, particularly the structures’ antitumor potential.

The investigators analyzed donated tissue samples from patients to identify the presence of the structures within chemotherapy-naive human pancreatic cancer. Tertiary lymphoid structures were defined by the presence of tissue zones that were rich in T cells, B cells, and dendritic cells. Staining techniques were used to visualize the various cell types in the samples, revealing tertiary lymphoid structures in approximately 30% of tissue microarrays and 42% of the full section.

Multicolor immunofluorescence and immunohistochemistry were also used to characterize tertiary lymphoid structures in murine models of pancreatic cancer. Additionally, the investigators developed an orthotopic murine model to assess the development of the structures and their role in improving the therapeutic effects of chemotherapy. While tertiary lymphoid structures were not initially present in the preclinical murine model, B cells and T cells subsequently infiltrated into the tumor site following injection of lymphoid chemokines. These cells consequently assembled into the tertiary lymphoid structures.

In addition, the researchers combined chemotherapy gemcitabine with the intratumoral lymphoid chemokine and injected this combination treatment into orthotopic tumors. Following injection, the researchers observed “altered immune cell infiltration,” which facilitated the induction of tertiary lymphoid structures and potentiated antitumor activity of the chemotherapy. As a result, there was a significant reduction in the tumors, an effect the researchers did not find following the use of either treatment alone.

According to the investigators, the antitumor activity observed following induction of the tertiary lymphoid structures within the cancer is associated with B cell–mediated activation of dendritic cells, a key cell type involved in initiating an immune response.

Based on the findings, the researchers concluded that the combination of chemotherapy and lymphoid chemokines might be a viable strategy for promoting an antitumor immune response in pancreatic cancer. In turn, the researchers suggest this strategy may result in better clinical outcomes for patients with the disease. Additionally, the researchers wrote that mature tertiary lymphoid structures in PDAC prior to an immune treatment could “be used as a biomarker to define inclusion criteria of patients in immunotherapy protocols, with the aim to boost the ongoing antitumor immune response.”

The study relied on a mouse model and for this reason, it remains unclear at this time if the findings will be generalizable to humans. In the context of PDAC, the researchers wrote that further investigation and understanding of the formation of tertiary lymphoid structures may support the development of tailored treatments, including those that take advantage of the body’s immune system, to combat cancer and improve patient outcomes.

The researchers reported no conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry. No funding was reported for the study.

THE CASE

Michael T,* a 20-year-old cisgender male, visited one of our clinic’s primary care physicians (PCPs). He was reserved and quiet and spoke of his concerns about depression and social anxiety that had been present for several years. He also spoke of his inability to succeed at work and school. Following a thorough PCP review leading to diagnoses of major depressive disorder and social anxiety, the patient agreed to try medication. Over a period of 15 months, trials of medications including fluoxetine, sertraline, aripiprazole, and duloxetine did little to improve the patient’s mood. The PCP decided to consult with our clinic’s integrated health team.

The team reviewed several diagnostic possibilities (TABLE 1) and agreed with the PCP’s diagnoses of major depression and social anxiety. But these disorders alone did not explain the full picture. Team members noted the patient’s unusual communication style, characterized by remarkably long response times and slow processing speed. In particular, when discussing mood, he took several seconds to respond but would respond thoughtfully and with few words.

We administered the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-IV). Due to differences between the 4 indices within the WAIS-IV, the Full Scale Intelligence Quotient may under- or overestimate abilities across domains; this was the case for this patient. His General Ability Index (GAI) score was 130, in the very superior range and at the 98th percentile, placing him in the category of gifted intelligence. The patient’s processing speed, however, was at the 18th percentile, which explained his delayed response style and presence of developmental asynchrony, a concept occasionally reported when interpreting socio-emotional and educational maladjustment in gifted individuals.

We determined that Mr. T was twice exceptional—intellectually gifted and also having one or more areas of disability.

● How would you proceed with this patient?

* The patient’s name has been changed to protect his identity .

In individuals with gifted intelligence, a discrepancy between cognitive and emotional development can make them vulnerable to behavioral and emotional challenges. It is not uncommon for gifted individuals to experience co-occurring distress, anxiety, depression, social withdrawal, difficulty coping with challenging tasks and experiences, low self-esteem, and excessive perfectionism.^1-6 Giftedness accompanied by a delay in general abilities and processing speed (significant verbal-performance discrepancy) places an individual in the category of twice-exceptionality, or “2E”—having the potential for high achievement while displaying evidence of 1 or more disabilities including emotional or behavioral difficulties.⁷

2E Individuals: Prevalence, characteristics, and outcomes

Reported prevalence of twice-exceptionality varies, from approximately 180,000 to 360,000 students in the United States.⁷ In 2009, the National Commission on Twice Exceptional Students provided the following definition of twice exceptionality:^7,8

2E individuals may excel early due to strong language abilities, but then show signs of disability when curricular demands rise in junior high school or later.

“Twice-exceptional learners are students who demonstrate the potential for high achievement or creative productivity in one or more domains such as math, science, technology, the social arts, the visual, spatial, or performing arts or other areas of human productivity AND who manifest one or more disabilities as defined by federal or state eligibility criteria. These disabilities include specific learning disabilities; speech and language disorders; emotional/behavioral disorders; physical disabilities; Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD); or other health impairments, such as Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).”

How twice-exceptionality might manifest. The literature describes 3 unique groupings of 2E children: those who excel early due to strong language abilities, but later show signs of disability, often when curricular demands rise in junior high, high school, or even college; students diagnosed with disability, but who show exceptional gifts in some areas that may be masked by their learning difficulties; and highly intelligent students who seem to be average, because their disabilities mask their giftedness or their talents mask their difficulties.^9,10

Unique behavioral and emotional challenges of 2E individuals may include lower motivation and academic self-efficacy, low self-worth and feelings of failure, or disruptive behaviors.^7,11,12 Anxiety and depression often result from the functional impact of twice-exceptionality as well as resultant withdrawal, social isolation, and delay or hindrance of social skills (such as difficulty interpreting social cues).^13,14 The individual in our case displayed many of these challenges, including lower motivation, self-worth, and self-esteem, and comorbid anxiety and depression (TABLE 1), further clouding diagnostic clarity.

Continue to: The need for improved recognition

The need for improved recognition. Twice-exceptionality commonly manifests as children reach grade-school age, but they are underrepresented in programs for the gifted due to misunderstanding and misdiagnosis by professionals.^15,16 Best practices in identifying 2E children incorporate multidimensional assessments including pre-referral and screening, preliminary intervention, evaluation procedures, and educational planning.¹⁶ Despite research asserting that 2E individuals need more support services, knowing how to best identify and support individuals across various settings can prove difficult.^7,17-19

Primary care, as we will discuss in a bit, is an interdisciplinary setting in which identification and comprehensive and collaborative support can occur. Historically, though, mental and physical health care have been “siloed” and mental health professionals’ functions in medical settings have often been circumscribed.^20,21

A lesson from how our case unfolded

Our integrated health team, known as Integrated Behavioral Health Plus (IBH+), was developed at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, and is a system-level integration of behavioral health professionals working with medical providers to improve outcomes and satisfaction.²² Psychology supervisors and trainees, telepsychiatrists and psychiatry residents, social workers, and pharmacists work together with PCPs and residents to deliver comprehensive patient care. Our model includes a range of behavioral health access points for patients (TABLE 2) and the use of complex patient databases and care team meetings.

In the case we have described here, the nature of the patient’s presentation did not trigger any of the clinical procedures described in TABLE 2, and he fell under the radar of complex patient cases in the clinic. Instead, informal, asynchronous clinical conversations between providers were what eventually lead to diagnostic clarification. Team consultation and psychometric testing provided by IBH+ helped uncover the “hidden diagnosis” of this patient in primary care and identified him as twice-exceptional, experiencing both giftedness and significant emotional suffering (major depression and social anxiety, low self-esteem and self-worth).

Takeaways for primary care

Not all PCPs, of course, have immediate onsite access to a program such as ours. However, innovative ways to tap into available resources might include establishing a partnership with 1 or more behavioral health professionals or bridging less formal relationships with such providers in the community and schools to more easily share patient records.

Continue to: Other presentations within 2E populations

Other presentations within 2E populations. 2E individuals may have other presentations coupled with high cognitive ability⁷: symptoms of hyperactivity disorders; specific learning disabilities; a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (previously termed Asperger type); attention, organizational, social, and behavioral issues; and impulsivity or emotional volatility.

We shifted from a “bugs and drugs” perspective of diagnosis and treatment to an approach that explored the interplay between cognitive and emotional functioning for this individual.

Of note, the perspective of our care team shifted from a “bugs and drugs” perspective of diagnosis and treatment—biological explanations and pharmaceutical solutions—to an approach that explored the underlying interplay between cognitive and emotional functioning for this individual. Our treatment focused on a strengths-based and patient-centered approach. Even without the resources of a full IBH+ model, primary care practices may be able to adapt our experience to their ever-growing complex populations.

THE CASE

Our team shifted treatment planning to the needs of the patient. The 2E identification changed the patient’s perspective about himself. After learning of his giftedness, the patient was able to reframe himself as a highly intelligent, capable individual in need of treatment for depression and social anxiety, as opposed to questioning his intelligence and experiencing confusion and hopelessness within the medical system. His PCP collaborated with the team via telecommunication to maintain an efficacious antidepressant plan and to use a strengths-based approach focused on increasing the patient’s self-view and changing the illness narrative. This narrative was changed by practicing skills, such as challenging unhelpful thought patterns, setting beneficial boundaries, and supporting assertive communication to oppose thoughts and relationships that perpetuated old, negative beliefs and assumptions.

CORRESPONDENCE
Kathryn S. Saldaña, PhD, University of Colorado, 12631 East 17th Avenue, AO1 L15, 3rd Floor, Aurora, CO 80045; kathryn. [email protected].

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Our thanks to A.F. Williams Family Medicine Clinic and the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus School of Medicine for their unparalleled models of resident training and multidisciplinary care.

THE CASE

Michael T,* a 20-year-old cisgender male, visited one of our clinic’s primary care physicians (PCPs). He was reserved and quiet and spoke of his concerns about depression and social anxiety that had been present for several years. He also spoke of his inability to succeed at work and school. Following a thorough PCP review leading to diagnoses of major depressive disorder and social anxiety, the patient agreed to try medication. Over a period of 15 months, trials of medications including fluoxetine, sertraline, aripiprazole, and duloxetine did little to improve the patient’s mood. The PCP decided to consult with our clinic’s integrated health team.

The team reviewed several diagnostic possibilities (TABLE 1) and agreed with the PCP’s diagnoses of major depression and social anxiety. But these disorders alone did not explain the full picture. Team members noted the patient’s unusual communication style, characterized by remarkably long response times and slow processing speed. In particular, when discussing mood, he took several seconds to respond but would respond thoughtfully and with few words.

We administered the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-IV). Due to differences between the 4 indices within the WAIS-IV, the Full Scale Intelligence Quotient may under- or overestimate abilities across domains; this was the case for this patient. His General Ability Index (GAI) score was 130, in the very superior range and at the 98th percentile, placing him in the category of gifted intelligence. The patient’s processing speed, however, was at the 18th percentile, which explained his delayed response style and presence of developmental asynchrony, a concept occasionally reported when interpreting socio-emotional and educational maladjustment in gifted individuals.

We determined that Mr. T was twice exceptional—intellectually gifted and also having one or more areas of disability.

● How would you proceed with this patient?

* The patient’s name has been changed to protect his identity .

In individuals with gifted intelligence, a discrepancy between cognitive and emotional development can make them vulnerable to behavioral and emotional challenges. It is not uncommon for gifted individuals to experience co-occurring distress, anxiety, depression, social withdrawal, difficulty coping with challenging tasks and experiences, low self-esteem, and excessive perfectionism.^1-6 Giftedness accompanied by a delay in general abilities and processing speed (significant verbal-performance discrepancy) places an individual in the category of twice-exceptionality, or “2E”—having the potential for high achievement while displaying evidence of 1 or more disabilities including emotional or behavioral difficulties.⁷

2E Individuals: Prevalence, characteristics, and outcomes

Reported prevalence of twice-exceptionality varies, from approximately 180,000 to 360,000 students in the United States.⁷ In 2009, the National Commission on Twice Exceptional Students provided the following definition of twice exceptionality:^7,8

2E individuals may excel early due to strong language abilities, but then show signs of disability when curricular demands rise in junior high school or later.

“Twice-exceptional learners are students who demonstrate the potential for high achievement or creative productivity in one or more domains such as math, science, technology, the social arts, the visual, spatial, or performing arts or other areas of human productivity AND who manifest one or more disabilities as defined by federal or state eligibility criteria. These disabilities include specific learning disabilities; speech and language disorders; emotional/behavioral disorders; physical disabilities; Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD); or other health impairments, such as Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).”

How twice-exceptionality might manifest. The literature describes 3 unique groupings of 2E children: those who excel early due to strong language abilities, but later show signs of disability, often when curricular demands rise in junior high, high school, or even college; students diagnosed with disability, but who show exceptional gifts in some areas that may be masked by their learning difficulties; and highly intelligent students who seem to be average, because their disabilities mask their giftedness or their talents mask their difficulties.^9,10

Unique behavioral and emotional challenges of 2E individuals may include lower motivation and academic self-efficacy, low self-worth and feelings of failure, or disruptive behaviors.^7,11,12 Anxiety and depression often result from the functional impact of twice-exceptionality as well as resultant withdrawal, social isolation, and delay or hindrance of social skills (such as difficulty interpreting social cues).^13,14 The individual in our case displayed many of these challenges, including lower motivation, self-worth, and self-esteem, and comorbid anxiety and depression (TABLE 1), further clouding diagnostic clarity.

Continue to: The need for improved recognition

The need for improved recognition. Twice-exceptionality commonly manifests as children reach grade-school age, but they are underrepresented in programs for the gifted due to misunderstanding and misdiagnosis by professionals.^15,16 Best practices in identifying 2E children incorporate multidimensional assessments including pre-referral and screening, preliminary intervention, evaluation procedures, and educational planning.¹⁶ Despite research asserting that 2E individuals need more support services, knowing how to best identify and support individuals across various settings can prove difficult.^7,17-19

Primary care, as we will discuss in a bit, is an interdisciplinary setting in which identification and comprehensive and collaborative support can occur. Historically, though, mental and physical health care have been “siloed” and mental health professionals’ functions in medical settings have often been circumscribed.^20,21

A lesson from how our case unfolded

Our integrated health team, known as Integrated Behavioral Health Plus (IBH+), was developed at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, and is a system-level integration of behavioral health professionals working with medical providers to improve outcomes and satisfaction.²² Psychology supervisors and trainees, telepsychiatrists and psychiatry residents, social workers, and pharmacists work together with PCPs and residents to deliver comprehensive patient care. Our model includes a range of behavioral health access points for patients (TABLE 2) and the use of complex patient databases and care team meetings.

In the case we have described here, the nature of the patient’s presentation did not trigger any of the clinical procedures described in TABLE 2, and he fell under the radar of complex patient cases in the clinic. Instead, informal, asynchronous clinical conversations between providers were what eventually lead to diagnostic clarification. Team consultation and psychometric testing provided by IBH+ helped uncover the “hidden diagnosis” of this patient in primary care and identified him as twice-exceptional, experiencing both giftedness and significant emotional suffering (major depression and social anxiety, low self-esteem and self-worth).

Takeaways for primary care

Not all PCPs, of course, have immediate onsite access to a program such as ours. However, innovative ways to tap into available resources might include establishing a partnership with 1 or more behavioral health professionals or bridging less formal relationships with such providers in the community and schools to more easily share patient records.

Continue to: Other presentations within 2E populations

Other presentations within 2E populations. 2E individuals may have other presentations coupled with high cognitive ability⁷: symptoms of hyperactivity disorders; specific learning disabilities; a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (previously termed Asperger type); attention, organizational, social, and behavioral issues; and impulsivity or emotional volatility.

We shifted from a “bugs and drugs” perspective of diagnosis and treatment to an approach that explored the interplay between cognitive and emotional functioning for this individual.

Of note, the perspective of our care team shifted from a “bugs and drugs” perspective of diagnosis and treatment—biological explanations and pharmaceutical solutions—to an approach that explored the underlying interplay between cognitive and emotional functioning for this individual. Our treatment focused on a strengths-based and patient-centered approach. Even without the resources of a full IBH+ model, primary care practices may be able to adapt our experience to their ever-growing complex populations.

THE CASE

Our team shifted treatment planning to the needs of the patient. The 2E identification changed the patient’s perspective about himself. After learning of his giftedness, the patient was able to reframe himself as a highly intelligent, capable individual in need of treatment for depression and social anxiety, as opposed to questioning his intelligence and experiencing confusion and hopelessness within the medical system. His PCP collaborated with the team via telecommunication to maintain an efficacious antidepressant plan and to use a strengths-based approach focused on increasing the patient’s self-view and changing the illness narrative. This narrative was changed by practicing skills, such as challenging unhelpful thought patterns, setting beneficial boundaries, and supporting assertive communication to oppose thoughts and relationships that perpetuated old, negative beliefs and assumptions.

CORRESPONDENCE
Kathryn S. Saldaña, PhD, University of Colorado, 12631 East 17th Avenue, AO1 L15, 3rd Floor, Aurora, CO 80045; kathryn. [email protected].

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Our thanks to A.F. Williams Family Medicine Clinic and the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus School of Medicine for their unparalleled models of resident training and multidisciplinary care.

THE CASE

Michael T,* a 20-year-old cisgender male, visited one of our clinic’s primary care physicians (PCPs). He was reserved and quiet and spoke of his concerns about depression and social anxiety that had been present for several years. He also spoke of his inability to succeed at work and school. Following a thorough PCP review leading to diagnoses of major depressive disorder and social anxiety, the patient agreed to try medication. Over a period of 15 months, trials of medications including fluoxetine, sertraline, aripiprazole, and duloxetine did little to improve the patient’s mood. The PCP decided to consult with our clinic’s integrated health team.

The team reviewed several diagnostic possibilities (TABLE 1) and agreed with the PCP’s diagnoses of major depression and social anxiety. But these disorders alone did not explain the full picture. Team members noted the patient’s unusual communication style, characterized by remarkably long response times and slow processing speed. In particular, when discussing mood, he took several seconds to respond but would respond thoughtfully and with few words.

We administered the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-IV). Due to differences between the 4 indices within the WAIS-IV, the Full Scale Intelligence Quotient may under- or overestimate abilities across domains; this was the case for this patient. His General Ability Index (GAI) score was 130, in the very superior range and at the 98th percentile, placing him in the category of gifted intelligence. The patient’s processing speed, however, was at the 18th percentile, which explained his delayed response style and presence of developmental asynchrony, a concept occasionally reported when interpreting socio-emotional and educational maladjustment in gifted individuals.

We determined that Mr. T was twice exceptional—intellectually gifted and also having one or more areas of disability.

● How would you proceed with this patient?

* The patient’s name has been changed to protect his identity .

In individuals with gifted intelligence, a discrepancy between cognitive and emotional development can make them vulnerable to behavioral and emotional challenges. It is not uncommon for gifted individuals to experience co-occurring distress, anxiety, depression, social withdrawal, difficulty coping with challenging tasks and experiences, low self-esteem, and excessive perfectionism.^1-6 Giftedness accompanied by a delay in general abilities and processing speed (significant verbal-performance discrepancy) places an individual in the category of twice-exceptionality, or “2E”—having the potential for high achievement while displaying evidence of 1 or more disabilities including emotional or behavioral difficulties.⁷

2E Individuals: Prevalence, characteristics, and outcomes

Reported prevalence of twice-exceptionality varies, from approximately 180,000 to 360,000 students in the United States.⁷ In 2009, the National Commission on Twice Exceptional Students provided the following definition of twice exceptionality:^7,8

2E individuals may excel early due to strong language abilities, but then show signs of disability when curricular demands rise in junior high school or later.

“Twice-exceptional learners are students who demonstrate the potential for high achievement or creative productivity in one or more domains such as math, science, technology, the social arts, the visual, spatial, or performing arts or other areas of human productivity AND who manifest one or more disabilities as defined by federal or state eligibility criteria. These disabilities include specific learning disabilities; speech and language disorders; emotional/behavioral disorders; physical disabilities; Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD); or other health impairments, such as Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).”

How twice-exceptionality might manifest. The literature describes 3 unique groupings of 2E children: those who excel early due to strong language abilities, but later show signs of disability, often when curricular demands rise in junior high, high school, or even college; students diagnosed with disability, but who show exceptional gifts in some areas that may be masked by their learning difficulties; and highly intelligent students who seem to be average, because their disabilities mask their giftedness or their talents mask their difficulties.^9,10

Unique behavioral and emotional challenges of 2E individuals may include lower motivation and academic self-efficacy, low self-worth and feelings of failure, or disruptive behaviors.^7,11,12 Anxiety and depression often result from the functional impact of twice-exceptionality as well as resultant withdrawal, social isolation, and delay or hindrance of social skills (such as difficulty interpreting social cues).^13,14 The individual in our case displayed many of these challenges, including lower motivation, self-worth, and self-esteem, and comorbid anxiety and depression (TABLE 1), further clouding diagnostic clarity.

Continue to: The need for improved recognition

The need for improved recognition. Twice-exceptionality commonly manifests as children reach grade-school age, but they are underrepresented in programs for the gifted due to misunderstanding and misdiagnosis by professionals.^15,16 Best practices in identifying 2E children incorporate multidimensional assessments including pre-referral and screening, preliminary intervention, evaluation procedures, and educational planning.¹⁶ Despite research asserting that 2E individuals need more support services, knowing how to best identify and support individuals across various settings can prove difficult.^7,17-19

Primary care, as we will discuss in a bit, is an interdisciplinary setting in which identification and comprehensive and collaborative support can occur. Historically, though, mental and physical health care have been “siloed” and mental health professionals’ functions in medical settings have often been circumscribed.^20,21

A lesson from how our case unfolded

Our integrated health team, known as Integrated Behavioral Health Plus (IBH+), was developed at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, and is a system-level integration of behavioral health professionals working with medical providers to improve outcomes and satisfaction.²² Psychology supervisors and trainees, telepsychiatrists and psychiatry residents, social workers, and pharmacists work together with PCPs and residents to deliver comprehensive patient care. Our model includes a range of behavioral health access points for patients (TABLE 2) and the use of complex patient databases and care team meetings.

In the case we have described here, the nature of the patient’s presentation did not trigger any of the clinical procedures described in TABLE 2, and he fell under the radar of complex patient cases in the clinic. Instead, informal, asynchronous clinical conversations between providers were what eventually lead to diagnostic clarification. Team consultation and psychometric testing provided by IBH+ helped uncover the “hidden diagnosis” of this patient in primary care and identified him as twice-exceptional, experiencing both giftedness and significant emotional suffering (major depression and social anxiety, low self-esteem and self-worth).

Takeaways for primary care

Not all PCPs, of course, have immediate onsite access to a program such as ours. However, innovative ways to tap into available resources might include establishing a partnership with 1 or more behavioral health professionals or bridging less formal relationships with such providers in the community and schools to more easily share patient records.

Continue to: Other presentations within 2E populations

Other presentations within 2E populations. 2E individuals may have other presentations coupled with high cognitive ability⁷: symptoms of hyperactivity disorders; specific learning disabilities; a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (previously termed Asperger type); attention, organizational, social, and behavioral issues; and impulsivity or emotional volatility.

We shifted from a “bugs and drugs” perspective of diagnosis and treatment to an approach that explored the interplay between cognitive and emotional functioning for this individual.

Of note, the perspective of our care team shifted from a “bugs and drugs” perspective of diagnosis and treatment—biological explanations and pharmaceutical solutions—to an approach that explored the underlying interplay between cognitive and emotional functioning for this individual. Our treatment focused on a strengths-based and patient-centered approach. Even without the resources of a full IBH+ model, primary care practices may be able to adapt our experience to their ever-growing complex populations.

THE CASE

Our team shifted treatment planning to the needs of the patient. The 2E identification changed the patient’s perspective about himself. After learning of his giftedness, the patient was able to reframe himself as a highly intelligent, capable individual in need of treatment for depression and social anxiety, as opposed to questioning his intelligence and experiencing confusion and hopelessness within the medical system. His PCP collaborated with the team via telecommunication to maintain an efficacious antidepressant plan and to use a strengths-based approach focused on increasing the patient’s self-view and changing the illness narrative. This narrative was changed by practicing skills, such as challenging unhelpful thought patterns, setting beneficial boundaries, and supporting assertive communication to oppose thoughts and relationships that perpetuated old, negative beliefs and assumptions.

CORRESPONDENCE
Kathryn S. Saldaña, PhD, University of Colorado, 12631 East 17th Avenue, AO1 L15, 3rd Floor, Aurora, CO 80045; kathryn. [email protected].

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Our thanks to A.F. Williams Family Medicine Clinic and the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus School of Medicine for their unparalleled models of resident training and multidisciplinary care.

A 17-year-old high school baseball player presented to a sports medicine clinic for left anterior knee pain. During the exam, a hyperpigmented lesion was incidentally noted on his left palm. The patient, who also played basketball and football, was unsure of how long he’d had the lesion, and he did not recall having any prior lesions on his hand. He denied any discomfort or significant past medical history. There was no known family history of skin cancers, but the patient did report that his brother, also an athlete, had a similar lesion on his hand.

On closer examination, scattered black dots were noted within a 2 × 1–cm thickened keratotic plaque at the hypothenar eminence of the patient’s left hand (Figure). There was no tenderness, erythema, warmth, or disruption of normal skin architecture or drainage.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

Posttraumatic tache noir (also known as talon noir on the volar aspect of the feet) is a subcorneal hematoma. The diagnosis is made clinically.

Identifying “pebbles on a ridge” or “satellite globules” during dermoscopic evaluation can differentiate benign from malignant sources of this type of lesion.

Our patient was a competitive baseball player, and he noted that the knob of his baseball bat rubbed the hypothenar eminence of his nondominant hand when he took a swing. The sheer force of the knob led to the subcorneal hematoma. Tache noir was high on the differential due to the author’s clinical experience with similar cases.

Tache noir occurs predominantly in people ages 12 to 24 years, without regard to gender.¹ The condition is commonly found in athletes who participate in baseball, cricket, racquet sports, weightlifting, and rock climbing.^1-3 Talon noir occurs most commonly in athletes who are frequently jumping, turning, and pivoting, as in football, basketball, tennis, and lacrosse. One should have a high index of suspicion for this diagnosis in patients who participate in any sport that might lead to shearing forces involving the volar aspect of the hands or feet.

Confirmation is obtained through a simple procedure. Dermoscopic evaluation of tache/talon noir will reveal “pebbles on a ridge” or “satellite globules.” Confirmation of tache/talon noir can be made by paring the corneum with a #15 blade, which will reveal blood in the shavings and punctate lesions.⁴

Other lesions may havea similar appearance

Tache noir can be differentiated from other conditions by the presence of preserved architecture of the skin surface and punctate capillaries beneath the stratum corneum. The differential diagnosis includes verruca vulgaris, acral melanoma, and a traumatic tattoo.

Continue to: Verruca vulgaris

Verruca vulgaris similarly contains puncta but typically appears as a raised lesion with a disruption of the stratum corneum.⁵

Acral melanoma can be distinguished from tache/talon noir by dermoscopic evaluation and/or paring of the corneum. On dermoscopic evaluation, both acral melanoma and tache/talon noir will reveal parallel ridge patterns; this finding has an 86% sensitivity and 96% specificity for early acral melanoma.⁶ What differentiates the 2 is the “satellite globules” or “pebbles on a ridge” that are seen with a subcorneal hematoma. Furthermore, paring the corneum would demonstrate an absence of blood within the ridges of the skin shavings, pointing away from tache/talon noir as the diagnosis.^1-3,5-7

Traumatic tattoo can also mimic tache/talon noir, due to foreign-material deposits in the skin (gunpowder, carbon, lead, dirt, and asphalt). A history of penetrating trauma should help to narrow the differential. Attempts at paring with traumatic tattoo may or may not help with differentiation.¹

In this case, time does heal all wounds

Talon/tache noir are benign conditions that do not require treatment and do not affect sports performance. The lesion will usually self-resolve within a matter of weeks from onset or can even be gently scraped with a sterile needle or blade, which can partially or completely remove the pigmentation from within the parallel ridges.^3,5,8

Our patient was advised that the lesion would resolve on its own. His knee pain was determined to be a simple case of patellofemoral syndrome or “runner’s knee” and he opted to complete a home exercise program to obtain relief.

A 17-year-old high school baseball player presented to a sports medicine clinic for left anterior knee pain. During the exam, a hyperpigmented lesion was incidentally noted on his left palm. The patient, who also played basketball and football, was unsure of how long he’d had the lesion, and he did not recall having any prior lesions on his hand. He denied any discomfort or significant past medical history. There was no known family history of skin cancers, but the patient did report that his brother, also an athlete, had a similar lesion on his hand.

On closer examination, scattered black dots were noted within a 2 × 1–cm thickened keratotic plaque at the hypothenar eminence of the patient’s left hand (Figure). There was no tenderness, erythema, warmth, or disruption of normal skin architecture or drainage.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

Posttraumatic tache noir (also known as talon noir on the volar aspect of the feet) is a subcorneal hematoma. The diagnosis is made clinically.

Identifying “pebbles on a ridge” or “satellite globules” during dermoscopic evaluation can differentiate benign from malignant sources of this type of lesion.

Our patient was a competitive baseball player, and he noted that the knob of his baseball bat rubbed the hypothenar eminence of his nondominant hand when he took a swing. The sheer force of the knob led to the subcorneal hematoma. Tache noir was high on the differential due to the author’s clinical experience with similar cases.

Tache noir occurs predominantly in people ages 12 to 24 years, without regard to gender.¹ The condition is commonly found in athletes who participate in baseball, cricket, racquet sports, weightlifting, and rock climbing.^1-3 Talon noir occurs most commonly in athletes who are frequently jumping, turning, and pivoting, as in football, basketball, tennis, and lacrosse. One should have a high index of suspicion for this diagnosis in patients who participate in any sport that might lead to shearing forces involving the volar aspect of the hands or feet.

Confirmation is obtained through a simple procedure. Dermoscopic evaluation of tache/talon noir will reveal “pebbles on a ridge” or “satellite globules.” Confirmation of tache/talon noir can be made by paring the corneum with a #15 blade, which will reveal blood in the shavings and punctate lesions.⁴

Other lesions may havea similar appearance

Tache noir can be differentiated from other conditions by the presence of preserved architecture of the skin surface and punctate capillaries beneath the stratum corneum. The differential diagnosis includes verruca vulgaris, acral melanoma, and a traumatic tattoo.

Continue to: Verruca vulgaris

Verruca vulgaris similarly contains puncta but typically appears as a raised lesion with a disruption of the stratum corneum.⁵

Acral melanoma can be distinguished from tache/talon noir by dermoscopic evaluation and/or paring of the corneum. On dermoscopic evaluation, both acral melanoma and tache/talon noir will reveal parallel ridge patterns; this finding has an 86% sensitivity and 96% specificity for early acral melanoma.⁶ What differentiates the 2 is the “satellite globules” or “pebbles on a ridge” that are seen with a subcorneal hematoma. Furthermore, paring the corneum would demonstrate an absence of blood within the ridges of the skin shavings, pointing away from tache/talon noir as the diagnosis.^1-3,5-7

Traumatic tattoo can also mimic tache/talon noir, due to foreign-material deposits in the skin (gunpowder, carbon, lead, dirt, and asphalt). A history of penetrating trauma should help to narrow the differential. Attempts at paring with traumatic tattoo may or may not help with differentiation.¹

In this case, time does heal all wounds

Talon/tache noir are benign conditions that do not require treatment and do not affect sports performance. The lesion will usually self-resolve within a matter of weeks from onset or can even be gently scraped with a sterile needle or blade, which can partially or completely remove the pigmentation from within the parallel ridges.^3,5,8

Our patient was advised that the lesion would resolve on its own. His knee pain was determined to be a simple case of patellofemoral syndrome or “runner’s knee” and he opted to complete a home exercise program to obtain relief.

A 17-year-old high school baseball player presented to a sports medicine clinic for left anterior knee pain. During the exam, a hyperpigmented lesion was incidentally noted on his left palm. The patient, who also played basketball and football, was unsure of how long he’d had the lesion, and he did not recall having any prior lesions on his hand. He denied any discomfort or significant past medical history. There was no known family history of skin cancers, but the patient did report that his brother, also an athlete, had a similar lesion on his hand.

On closer examination, scattered black dots were noted within a 2 × 1–cm thickened keratotic plaque at the hypothenar eminence of the patient’s left hand (Figure). There was no tenderness, erythema, warmth, or disruption of normal skin architecture or drainage.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

Posttraumatic tache noir (also known as talon noir on the volar aspect of the feet) is a subcorneal hematoma. The diagnosis is made clinically.

Identifying “pebbles on a ridge” or “satellite globules” during dermoscopic evaluation can differentiate benign from malignant sources of this type of lesion.

Our patient was a competitive baseball player, and he noted that the knob of his baseball bat rubbed the hypothenar eminence of his nondominant hand when he took a swing. The sheer force of the knob led to the subcorneal hematoma. Tache noir was high on the differential due to the author’s clinical experience with similar cases.

Tache noir occurs predominantly in people ages 12 to 24 years, without regard to gender.¹ The condition is commonly found in athletes who participate in baseball, cricket, racquet sports, weightlifting, and rock climbing.^1-3 Talon noir occurs most commonly in athletes who are frequently jumping, turning, and pivoting, as in football, basketball, tennis, and lacrosse. One should have a high index of suspicion for this diagnosis in patients who participate in any sport that might lead to shearing forces involving the volar aspect of the hands or feet.

Confirmation is obtained through a simple procedure. Dermoscopic evaluation of tache/talon noir will reveal “pebbles on a ridge” or “satellite globules.” Confirmation of tache/talon noir can be made by paring the corneum with a #15 blade, which will reveal blood in the shavings and punctate lesions.⁴

Other lesions may havea similar appearance

Tache noir can be differentiated from other conditions by the presence of preserved architecture of the skin surface and punctate capillaries beneath the stratum corneum. The differential diagnosis includes verruca vulgaris, acral melanoma, and a traumatic tattoo.

Continue to: Verruca vulgaris

Verruca vulgaris similarly contains puncta but typically appears as a raised lesion with a disruption of the stratum corneum.⁵

Acral melanoma can be distinguished from tache/talon noir by dermoscopic evaluation and/or paring of the corneum. On dermoscopic evaluation, both acral melanoma and tache/talon noir will reveal parallel ridge patterns; this finding has an 86% sensitivity and 96% specificity for early acral melanoma.⁶ What differentiates the 2 is the “satellite globules” or “pebbles on a ridge” that are seen with a subcorneal hematoma. Furthermore, paring the corneum would demonstrate an absence of blood within the ridges of the skin shavings, pointing away from tache/talon noir as the diagnosis.^1-3,5-7

Traumatic tattoo can also mimic tache/talon noir, due to foreign-material deposits in the skin (gunpowder, carbon, lead, dirt, and asphalt). A history of penetrating trauma should help to narrow the differential. Attempts at paring with traumatic tattoo may or may not help with differentiation.¹

In this case, time does heal all wounds

Talon/tache noir are benign conditions that do not require treatment and do not affect sports performance. The lesion will usually self-resolve within a matter of weeks from onset or can even be gently scraped with a sterile needle or blade, which can partially or completely remove the pigmentation from within the parallel ridges.^3,5,8

Our patient was advised that the lesion would resolve on its own. His knee pain was determined to be a simple case of patellofemoral syndrome or “runner’s knee” and he opted to complete a home exercise program to obtain relief.

One of the most concerning and challenging patient complaints presented to physicians is chest pain. Chest pain is a ubiquitous complaint in primary care settings and in the emergency department (ED), accounting for 8 million ED visits and 0.4% of all primary care visits in North America annually.^1,2

Acute coronary syndrome is the cause of chest pain in 5.1% of patients with chest pain who present to the ED, compared with 1.5% to 3.1% of chestpain patients seen in ambulatory care.

Despite the great number of chest-pain encounters, early identification of life-threatening causes and prompt treatment remain a challenge. In this article, we examine how the approach to a complaint of chest pain in a primary care practice (and, likewise, in the ED) must first, rest on the clinical evaluation and second, employ risk-stratification tools to aid in evaluation, appropriate diagnosis, triage, and treatment.

Chest pain by the numbers

Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is the cause of chest pain in 5.1% of patients with chest pain who present to the ED, compared with 1.5% to 3.1% of chest-pain patients seen in ambulatory care.^1,3 “Nonspecific chest pain” is the most frequent diagnosis of chest pain in the ED for all age groups (47.5% to 55.8%).³ In contrast, the most common cause of chest pain in primary care is musculoskeletal (36%), followed by gastrointestinal disease (18% to 19%); serious cardiac causes (15%), including ACS (1.5%); nonspecific causes (16%); psychiatric causes (8%); and pulmonary causes (5% to 10%).⁴ Among patients seen in the ED because of chest pain, 57.4% are discharged, 30.6% are admitted for further evaluation, and 0.4% die in the ED or after admission.³

IMAGE: © KIMBERLY MARTENS-KIEFER

First challenge: The scale of the differential Dx

The differential diagnosis of chest pain is broad. It includes life-threatening causes, such as ACS (from ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction [STEMI], Type 1 non-STEMI, and unstable angina), acute aortic dissection, pulmonary embolism (PE), esophageal rupture, and tension pneumothorax, as well as non-life-threatening causes (TABLE 1).

History and physical exam guide early decisions

Triage assessment of the patient with chest pain, including vital signs, general appearance, and basic symptom questions, can guide you as to whether they require transfer to a higher level of care. Although an individual’s findings cannot, alone, accurately exclude or diagnose ACS, the findings can be used in combination in clinical decision tools to distinguish noncardiac chest pain from ACS.

History. Features in the history (TABLE 2^5-9) that are most helpful at increasing the probability (ie, a positive likelihood ratio [LR] ≥ 2) of chest pain being caused by ACS are:

• pain radiating to both arms or the right arm
• pain that is worse upon exertion
• a history of peripheral artery disease or coronary artery disease (CAD)
• a previously abnormal stress test.

The presence of any prior normal stress test is unhelpful: Such patients have a similar risk of a 30-day adverse cardiac event as a patient who has never had a stress test.⁵

Continue to: A history of tobacco use...

A history of tobacco use, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, obesity, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), coronary artery bypass grafting, or a family history of CAD does not significantly increase the risk of ACS.⁶ However, exploring each of these risk factors further is important, because genetic links between these risk factors can lead to an increased risk of CAD (eg, familial hypercholesterolemia).⁷

A history of normal or near-normal coronary angiography (< 25% stenosis) is associated with a lower likelihood of ACS, because 98% of such patients are free of AMI and 90% are without single-vessel coronary disease nearly 10 years out.⁶ A history of coronary artery bypass grafting is not necessarily predictive of ACS (LR = 1-3).^5,6

Historical features classically associated with ACS, but that have an LR < 2, are pain radiating to the neck or jaw, nausea or vomiting, dyspnea, and pain that is relieved with nitroglycerin.^5,6 Pain described as pleuritic, sharp, positional, or reproduced with palpation is less likely due to AMI.⁵

Physical exam findings are not independently diagnostic when evaluating chest pain. However, a third heart sound is the most likely finding associated with AMI and hypotension is the clinical sign most likely associated with ACS.⁵

Consider the diagnosis of PE in all patients with chest pain. In PE, chest pain might be associated with dyspnea, presyncope, syncope, or hemoptysis.⁸ On examination, 40% of patients have tachycardia.⁸ If PE is suspected; the patient should be risk-stratified using a validated prediction rule (see the discussion of PE that follows).

Continue to: Other historical features...

Other historical features or physical exam findings correlate with aortic dissection, pneumonia, and psychiatric causes of chest pain (TABLE 2^5-9).

Useful EKG findings

Among patients in whom ACS or PE is suspected, 12-lead electrocardiography (EKG) should be performed.

AMI. EKG findings most predictive of AMI are new ST-segment elevation or depression > 1 mm (LR = 6-54), new left bundle branch block (LR = 6.3), Q wave (positive LR = 3.9), and prominent, wide-based (hyperacute) T wave (LR = 3.1).¹⁰

ACS. Useful EKG findings to predict ACS are ST-segment depression (LR = 5.3 [95% CI, 2.1-8.6]) and any evidence of ischemia, defined as ST-segment depression, T-wave inversion, or Q wave (LR = 3.6 [95% CI, 1.6-5.7]).¹⁰

PE. The most common abnormal finding on EKG in the setting of PE is sinus tachycardia.

Continue to: Right ventricular strain

Right ventricular strain. Other findings that reflect right ventricular strain, but are much less common, are complete or incomplete right bundle branch block, prominent S wave in lead I, Q wave in lead III, and T-wave inversion in lead III (S1Q3T3; the ­McGinn-White sign) and in leads V₁-V₄.⁸

The utility of troponin and high-sensitivity troponin testing

Clinical evaluation and EKG findings are unable to diagnose or exclude ACS without the use of the cardiac biomarker troponin. In the past decade, high-sensitivity troponin assays have been used to stratify patients at risk of ACS.^11,12 Many protocols now exist using short interval (2-3 hours), high-sensitivity troponin testing to identify patients at low risk of myocardial infarction who can be safely discharged from the ED after 2 normal tests of the troponin level.^13-16

An elevated troponin value alone, however, is not a specific indicator of ACS; troponin can be elevated in the settings of myocardial ischemia related to increased oxygen demand (Type 2 non-STEMI) and decreased renal clearance. Consideration of the rate of rising and falling levels of troponin, its absolute value > 99th percentile, and other findings is critical to interpreting an elevated troponin level.¹⁷ Studies in which the HEART score (History, Electrocardiography, Age, Risk factors, Troponin) was combined with high-sensitivity troponin measurement show that this pairing is promising in reducing unnecessary admissions for chest pain.¹⁸ (For a description of this tool, see the discussion of the HEART score that follows.) Carlton and colleagues¹⁸ showed that a HEART score ≤ 3 and a negative high-sensitivity troponin I level had a negative predictive value of ≥ 99.5% for AMI.

Clinical decision tools: Who needs care? Who can go home?

Given the varied presentations of patients with life-threatening causes of chest pain, it is challenging to confidently determine who is safe to send home after initial assessment. Guidance in 2014 from the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology recommends risk-stratifying patients for ACS using clinical decision tools to help guide management.^19,20 The American College of Physicians, in its 2015 guidelines, also recommends using a clinical decision tool to assess patients when there is suspicion of PE.²¹ Clinical application of these tools identifies patients at low risk of life-threatening conditions and can help avoid unnecessary intervention and a higher level of care. 

Tools for investigating ACS

The Marburg Heart Score²² assesses the likelihood of CAD in ambulatory settings while the HEART score assesses the risk of major adverse cardiac events in ED patients.²³ The Diamond Forrester criteria can be used to assess the pretest probability of CAD in both settings.²⁴

Continue to: Marburg Heart Score

Marburg Heart Score. Validated in patients older than 35 years of age in 2 different outpatient populations in 2010²² and 2012,²⁵ the Marburg score is determined by answering 5 questions:

• Female ≥ 65 years? Or male ≥ 55 years of age? (No, 0; Yes, +1)
• Known CAD, cerebrovascular disease, or peripheral vascular disease? (No, 0; Yes, +1)
• Is pain worse with exercise? (No, 0; Yes, +1)
• Is pain reproducible with palpation? (No, +1, Yes, 0)
• Does the patient assume that the pain is cardiac in nature? (No, 0; Yes, +1)

A Marburg Heart Score of 0 or 1 means CAD is highly unlikely in a patient with chest pain (negative predictive value = 99%-100%; positive predictive value = 0.6%)⁴ (TABLE 3^4,26-28). A score of ≤ 2 has a negative predictive value of 98%. A Marburg Heart Score of 4 or 5 has a relatively low positive predictive value (63%).⁴

The most common causes of chest pain in primary care? In descending order, musculoskeletal, GI, serious cardiac, nonspecific, psychiatric, and pulmonary causes.

This tool does not accurately diagnose acute MI, but it does help identify patients at low risk of ACS, thus reducing unnecessary subsequent testing. Although no clinical decision tool can rule out AMI with absolute certainty, the Marburg Heart Score is considered one of the most extensively tested and sensitive tools to predict low risk of CAD in outpatient primary care.²⁹

INTERCHEST rule (in outpatient primary care) is a newer prediction rule using data from 5 primary care–based studies of chest pain.³⁰ For a score ≤ 2, the negative predictive value for CAD causing chest pain is 97% to 98% and the positive predictive value is 43%. INTERCHEST incorporates studies used to validate the Marburg Heart Score, but has not been validated beyond initial pooled studies. Concerns have been raised about the quality of these pooled studies, however, and this rule has not been widely accepted for clinical use at this time.²⁹

The HEART score has been validated in patients older than 12 years in multiple institutions and across multiple ED populations.^23,31,32 It is widely used in the ED to assess a patient’s risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) over the next 6 weeks. MACE is defined as AMI, percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery bypass grafting, or death.

Continue to: The HEART score...

The HEART score is calculated based on 5 components:

• History of chest pain (slightly [0], moderately [+1], or highly [+2]) suspicious for ACS)
• EKG (normal [0], nonspecific ST changes [+1], significant ST deviations [+2])
• Age (< 45 y [0], 45-64 y [+1], ≥ 65 y [+2])
• Risk factors (none [0], 1 or 2 [+1], ≥ 3 or a history of atherosclerotic disease [+2]) ^a
• Initial troponin assay, standard sensitivity (≤ normal [0], 1-3× normal [+1], > 3× normal [+2]).

For patients with a HEART score of 0-3 (ie, at low risk), the pooled positive predictive value of a MACE was determined to be 0.19 (95% CI, 0.14-0.24), and the negative predictive value was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.98-0.99)—making it an effective tool to rule out a MACE over the short term²⁶ (TABLE 3^4,26-28).

Because the HEART Score was published in 2008, multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses have compared it to the TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) and GRACE (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events) scores for predicting short-term (30-day to 6-week) MACE in ED patients.^27,28,33,34 These studies have all shown that the HEART score is relatively superior to the TIMI and GRACE tools.

Characteristics of these tools are summarized in TABLE 3.^4,26-28

Diamond Forrester classification (in ED and outpatient settings). This tool uses 3 criteria—substernal chest pain, pain that increases upon exertion or with stress, and pain relieved by nitroglycerin or rest—to classify chest pain as typical angina (all 3 criteria), atypical angina (2 criteria), or noncardiac chest pain (0 criteria or 1 criterion).²⁴ Pretest probability (ie, the likelihood of an outcome before noninvasive testing) of the pain being due to CAD can then be determined from the type of chest pain and the patient’s gender and age¹⁹ (TABLE 4¹⁹). Recent studies have found that the Diamond Forrester criteria might overestimate the probability of CAD.³⁵

Continue to: Noninvasive imaging-based diagnostic methods

Positron-emission tomography stress testing, stress echocardiography, myocardial perfusion scanning, exercise treadmill testing. The first 3 of these imaging tests have a sensitivity and specificity ranging from 74% to 87%³⁶; exercise treadmill testing is less sensitive (68%) and specific (77%).³⁷

In a patient with a very low (< 5%) probability of CAD, a positive stress test (of any modality) is likely to be a false-positive; conversely, in a patient with a very high (> 90%) probability of CAD, a negative stress test is likely to be a false-negative.¹⁹ The American Heart Association, therefore, does not recommend any of these modalities for patients who have a < 5% or > 90% probability of CAD.¹⁹

Triage assessment of the chestpain patient, including vital signs, general appearance, and basic symptom questions, can clarify whether they need transfer to a higher level of care.

Noninvasive testing to rule out ACS in low- and intermediate-risk patients who present to the ED with chest pain provides no clinical benefit over clinical evaluation alone.³⁸ Therefore, these tests are rarely used in the initial evaluation of chest pain in an acute setting.

Coronary artery calcium score (CACS), coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA). These tests have demonstrated promise in the risk stratification of chest pain, given their high sensitivity and negative predictive value in low- and intermediate-risk patients.^39,40 However, their application remains unclear in the evaluation of acute chest pain: Appropriate-use criteria do not favor CACS or CCTA alone to evaluate acute chest pain when there is suspicion of ACS.⁴¹ The Choosing Wisely initiative (for “avoiding unnecessary medical tests, treatments, and procedures”; www.choosingwisely.org) recommends against CCTA for high-risk patients presenting to the ED with acute chest pain.⁴²

Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging does not have an established role in the evaluation of patients with suspected ACS.⁴³

Continue to: Tools for investigating PE

Three clinical decision tools have been validated to predict the risk of PE: the Wells score, the Geneva score, and Pulmonary Embolism Rule Out Criteria (PERC).^44,45

Wells score is more sensitive than the Geneva score and has been validated in ambulatory¹ and ED^46-48 settings. Based on Wells criteria, high-risk patients need further evaluation with imaging. In low-risk patients, a normal D-dimer level effectively excludes PE, with a < 1% risk of subsequent thromboembolism in the following 3 months. Positive predictive value of the Wells decision tool is low because it is intended to rule out, not confirm, PE.

PERC can be used in a low-probability setting (defined as the treating physician arriving at the conclusion that PE is not the most likely diagnosis and can be excluded with a negative D-dimer test). In that setting, if the patient meets the 8 clinical variables in PERC, the diagnosis of PE is, effectively, ruled out.⁴⁸

Summing up: Evaluation of chest pain guided by risk of CAD

Patients who present in an outpatient setting with a potentially life-threatening cause of chest pain (TABLE 1) and patients with unstable vital signs should be sent to the ED for urgent evaluation. In the remaining outpatients, use the Marburg Heart Score or Diamond Forrester classification to assess the likelihood that pain is due to CAD (in the ED, the HEART score can be used for this purpose) (FIGURE).

When the risk is low. No further cardiac testing is indicated in patients with a risk of CAD < 5%, based on a Marburg score of 0 or 1, or on Diamond Forrester criteria; an abnormal stress test is likely to be a false-positive.¹⁹

Continue to: Moderate risk

Moderate risk. However, further testing is indicated, with a stress test (with or without myocardial imaging), in patients whose risk of CAD is 5% to 70%, based on the Diamond Forrester classification or an intermediate Marburg Heart Score (ie, a score of 2 or 3 but a normal EKG). This further testing can be performed urgently in patients who have multiple other risk factors that are not assessed by the Marburg Heart Score.

High risk. In patients whose risk is > 70%, invasive testing with angiography should be considered.^35,49

EKG abnormalities. Patients with a Marburg Score of 2 or 3 and an abnormal EKG should be sent to the ED (FIGURE). There, patients with a HEART score < 4 and a negative 2-3–hour troponin test have a < 1% chance of ACS and can be safely discharged.³¹

CORRESPONDENCE
Anne Mounsey, MD, UNC Family Medicine, 590 Manning Drive, Chapel Hill, NC 27599; [email protected]

One of the most concerning and challenging patient complaints presented to physicians is chest pain. Chest pain is a ubiquitous complaint in primary care settings and in the emergency department (ED), accounting for 8 million ED visits and 0.4% of all primary care visits in North America annually.^1,2

Acute coronary syndrome is the cause of chest pain in 5.1% of patients with chest pain who present to the ED, compared with 1.5% to 3.1% of chestpain patients seen in ambulatory care.

Despite the great number of chest-pain encounters, early identification of life-threatening causes and prompt treatment remain a challenge. In this article, we examine how the approach to a complaint of chest pain in a primary care practice (and, likewise, in the ED) must first, rest on the clinical evaluation and second, employ risk-stratification tools to aid in evaluation, appropriate diagnosis, triage, and treatment.

Chest pain by the numbers

Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is the cause of chest pain in 5.1% of patients with chest pain who present to the ED, compared with 1.5% to 3.1% of chest-pain patients seen in ambulatory care.^1,3 “Nonspecific chest pain” is the most frequent diagnosis of chest pain in the ED for all age groups (47.5% to 55.8%).³ In contrast, the most common cause of chest pain in primary care is musculoskeletal (36%), followed by gastrointestinal disease (18% to 19%); serious cardiac causes (15%), including ACS (1.5%); nonspecific causes (16%); psychiatric causes (8%); and pulmonary causes (5% to 10%).⁴ Among patients seen in the ED because of chest pain, 57.4% are discharged, 30.6% are admitted for further evaluation, and 0.4% die in the ED or after admission.³

IMAGE: © KIMBERLY MARTENS-KIEFER

First challenge: The scale of the differential Dx

The differential diagnosis of chest pain is broad. It includes life-threatening causes, such as ACS (from ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction [STEMI], Type 1 non-STEMI, and unstable angina), acute aortic dissection, pulmonary embolism (PE), esophageal rupture, and tension pneumothorax, as well as non-life-threatening causes (TABLE 1).

History and physical exam guide early decisions

Triage assessment of the patient with chest pain, including vital signs, general appearance, and basic symptom questions, can guide you as to whether they require transfer to a higher level of care. Although an individual’s findings cannot, alone, accurately exclude or diagnose ACS, the findings can be used in combination in clinical decision tools to distinguish noncardiac chest pain from ACS.

History. Features in the history (TABLE 2^5-9) that are most helpful at increasing the probability (ie, a positive likelihood ratio [LR] ≥ 2) of chest pain being caused by ACS are:

• pain radiating to both arms or the right arm
• pain that is worse upon exertion
• a history of peripheral artery disease or coronary artery disease (CAD)
• a previously abnormal stress test.

The presence of any prior normal stress test is unhelpful: Such patients have a similar risk of a 30-day adverse cardiac event as a patient who has never had a stress test.⁵

Continue to: A history of tobacco use...

A history of tobacco use, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, obesity, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), coronary artery bypass grafting, or a family history of CAD does not significantly increase the risk of ACS.⁶ However, exploring each of these risk factors further is important, because genetic links between these risk factors can lead to an increased risk of CAD (eg, familial hypercholesterolemia).⁷

A history of normal or near-normal coronary angiography (< 25% stenosis) is associated with a lower likelihood of ACS, because 98% of such patients are free of AMI and 90% are without single-vessel coronary disease nearly 10 years out.⁶ A history of coronary artery bypass grafting is not necessarily predictive of ACS (LR = 1-3).^5,6

Historical features classically associated with ACS, but that have an LR < 2, are pain radiating to the neck or jaw, nausea or vomiting, dyspnea, and pain that is relieved with nitroglycerin.^5,6 Pain described as pleuritic, sharp, positional, or reproduced with palpation is less likely due to AMI.⁵

Physical exam findings are not independently diagnostic when evaluating chest pain. However, a third heart sound is the most likely finding associated with AMI and hypotension is the clinical sign most likely associated with ACS.⁵

Consider the diagnosis of PE in all patients with chest pain. In PE, chest pain might be associated with dyspnea, presyncope, syncope, or hemoptysis.⁸ On examination, 40% of patients have tachycardia.⁸ If PE is suspected; the patient should be risk-stratified using a validated prediction rule (see the discussion of PE that follows).

Continue to: Other historical features...

Other historical features or physical exam findings correlate with aortic dissection, pneumonia, and psychiatric causes of chest pain (TABLE 2^5-9).

Useful EKG findings

Among patients in whom ACS or PE is suspected, 12-lead electrocardiography (EKG) should be performed.

AMI. EKG findings most predictive of AMI are new ST-segment elevation or depression > 1 mm (LR = 6-54), new left bundle branch block (LR = 6.3), Q wave (positive LR = 3.9), and prominent, wide-based (hyperacute) T wave (LR = 3.1).¹⁰

ACS. Useful EKG findings to predict ACS are ST-segment depression (LR = 5.3 [95% CI, 2.1-8.6]) and any evidence of ischemia, defined as ST-segment depression, T-wave inversion, or Q wave (LR = 3.6 [95% CI, 1.6-5.7]).¹⁰

PE. The most common abnormal finding on EKG in the setting of PE is sinus tachycardia.

Continue to: Right ventricular strain

Right ventricular strain. Other findings that reflect right ventricular strain, but are much less common, are complete or incomplete right bundle branch block, prominent S wave in lead I, Q wave in lead III, and T-wave inversion in lead III (S1Q3T3; the ­McGinn-White sign) and in leads V₁-V₄.⁸

The utility of troponin and high-sensitivity troponin testing

Clinical evaluation and EKG findings are unable to diagnose or exclude ACS without the use of the cardiac biomarker troponin. In the past decade, high-sensitivity troponin assays have been used to stratify patients at risk of ACS.^11,12 Many protocols now exist using short interval (2-3 hours), high-sensitivity troponin testing to identify patients at low risk of myocardial infarction who can be safely discharged from the ED after 2 normal tests of the troponin level.^13-16

An elevated troponin value alone, however, is not a specific indicator of ACS; troponin can be elevated in the settings of myocardial ischemia related to increased oxygen demand (Type 2 non-STEMI) and decreased renal clearance. Consideration of the rate of rising and falling levels of troponin, its absolute value > 99th percentile, and other findings is critical to interpreting an elevated troponin level.¹⁷ Studies in which the HEART score (History, Electrocardiography, Age, Risk factors, Troponin) was combined with high-sensitivity troponin measurement show that this pairing is promising in reducing unnecessary admissions for chest pain.¹⁸ (For a description of this tool, see the discussion of the HEART score that follows.) Carlton and colleagues¹⁸ showed that a HEART score ≤ 3 and a negative high-sensitivity troponin I level had a negative predictive value of ≥ 99.5% for AMI.

Clinical decision tools: Who needs care? Who can go home?

Given the varied presentations of patients with life-threatening causes of chest pain, it is challenging to confidently determine who is safe to send home after initial assessment. Guidance in 2014 from the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology recommends risk-stratifying patients for ACS using clinical decision tools to help guide management.^19,20 The American College of Physicians, in its 2015 guidelines, also recommends using a clinical decision tool to assess patients when there is suspicion of PE.²¹ Clinical application of these tools identifies patients at low risk of life-threatening conditions and can help avoid unnecessary intervention and a higher level of care. 

Tools for investigating ACS

The Marburg Heart Score²² assesses the likelihood of CAD in ambulatory settings while the HEART score assesses the risk of major adverse cardiac events in ED patients.²³ The Diamond Forrester criteria can be used to assess the pretest probability of CAD in both settings.²⁴

Continue to: Marburg Heart Score

Marburg Heart Score. Validated in patients older than 35 years of age in 2 different outpatient populations in 2010²² and 2012,²⁵ the Marburg score is determined by answering 5 questions:

• Female ≥ 65 years? Or male ≥ 55 years of age? (No, 0; Yes, +1)
• Known CAD, cerebrovascular disease, or peripheral vascular disease? (No, 0; Yes, +1)
• Is pain worse with exercise? (No, 0; Yes, +1)
• Is pain reproducible with palpation? (No, +1, Yes, 0)
• Does the patient assume that the pain is cardiac in nature? (No, 0; Yes, +1)

A Marburg Heart Score of 0 or 1 means CAD is highly unlikely in a patient with chest pain (negative predictive value = 99%-100%; positive predictive value = 0.6%)⁴ (TABLE 3^4,26-28). A score of ≤ 2 has a negative predictive value of 98%. A Marburg Heart Score of 4 or 5 has a relatively low positive predictive value (63%).⁴

The most common causes of chest pain in primary care? In descending order, musculoskeletal, GI, serious cardiac, nonspecific, psychiatric, and pulmonary causes.

This tool does not accurately diagnose acute MI, but it does help identify patients at low risk of ACS, thus reducing unnecessary subsequent testing. Although no clinical decision tool can rule out AMI with absolute certainty, the Marburg Heart Score is considered one of the most extensively tested and sensitive tools to predict low risk of CAD in outpatient primary care.²⁹

INTERCHEST rule (in outpatient primary care) is a newer prediction rule using data from 5 primary care–based studies of chest pain.³⁰ For a score ≤ 2, the negative predictive value for CAD causing chest pain is 97% to 98% and the positive predictive value is 43%. INTERCHEST incorporates studies used to validate the Marburg Heart Score, but has not been validated beyond initial pooled studies. Concerns have been raised about the quality of these pooled studies, however, and this rule has not been widely accepted for clinical use at this time.²⁹

The HEART score has been validated in patients older than 12 years in multiple institutions and across multiple ED populations.^23,31,32 It is widely used in the ED to assess a patient’s risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) over the next 6 weeks. MACE is defined as AMI, percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery bypass grafting, or death.

Continue to: The HEART score...

The HEART score is calculated based on 5 components:

• History of chest pain (slightly [0], moderately [+1], or highly [+2]) suspicious for ACS)
• EKG (normal [0], nonspecific ST changes [+1], significant ST deviations [+2])
• Age (< 45 y [0], 45-64 y [+1], ≥ 65 y [+2])
• Risk factors (none [0], 1 or 2 [+1], ≥ 3 or a history of atherosclerotic disease [+2]) ^a
• Initial troponin assay, standard sensitivity (≤ normal [0], 1-3× normal [+1], > 3× normal [+2]).

For patients with a HEART score of 0-3 (ie, at low risk), the pooled positive predictive value of a MACE was determined to be 0.19 (95% CI, 0.14-0.24), and the negative predictive value was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.98-0.99)—making it an effective tool to rule out a MACE over the short term²⁶ (TABLE 3^4,26-28).

Because the HEART Score was published in 2008, multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses have compared it to the TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) and GRACE (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events) scores for predicting short-term (30-day to 6-week) MACE in ED patients.^27,28,33,34 These studies have all shown that the HEART score is relatively superior to the TIMI and GRACE tools.

Characteristics of these tools are summarized in TABLE 3.^4,26-28

Diamond Forrester classification (in ED and outpatient settings). This tool uses 3 criteria—substernal chest pain, pain that increases upon exertion or with stress, and pain relieved by nitroglycerin or rest—to classify chest pain as typical angina (all 3 criteria), atypical angina (2 criteria), or noncardiac chest pain (0 criteria or 1 criterion).²⁴ Pretest probability (ie, the likelihood of an outcome before noninvasive testing) of the pain being due to CAD can then be determined from the type of chest pain and the patient’s gender and age¹⁹ (TABLE 4¹⁹). Recent studies have found that the Diamond Forrester criteria might overestimate the probability of CAD.³⁵

Continue to: Noninvasive imaging-based diagnostic methods

Positron-emission tomography stress testing, stress echocardiography, myocardial perfusion scanning, exercise treadmill testing. The first 3 of these imaging tests have a sensitivity and specificity ranging from 74% to 87%³⁶; exercise treadmill testing is less sensitive (68%) and specific (77%).³⁷

In a patient with a very low (< 5%) probability of CAD, a positive stress test (of any modality) is likely to be a false-positive; conversely, in a patient with a very high (> 90%) probability of CAD, a negative stress test is likely to be a false-negative.¹⁹ The American Heart Association, therefore, does not recommend any of these modalities for patients who have a < 5% or > 90% probability of CAD.¹⁹

Triage assessment of the chestpain patient, including vital signs, general appearance, and basic symptom questions, can clarify whether they need transfer to a higher level of care.

Noninvasive testing to rule out ACS in low- and intermediate-risk patients who present to the ED with chest pain provides no clinical benefit over clinical evaluation alone.³⁸ Therefore, these tests are rarely used in the initial evaluation of chest pain in an acute setting.

Coronary artery calcium score (CACS), coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA). These tests have demonstrated promise in the risk stratification of chest pain, given their high sensitivity and negative predictive value in low- and intermediate-risk patients.^39,40 However, their application remains unclear in the evaluation of acute chest pain: Appropriate-use criteria do not favor CACS or CCTA alone to evaluate acute chest pain when there is suspicion of ACS.⁴¹ The Choosing Wisely initiative (for “avoiding unnecessary medical tests, treatments, and procedures”; www.choosingwisely.org) recommends against CCTA for high-risk patients presenting to the ED with acute chest pain.⁴²

Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging does not have an established role in the evaluation of patients with suspected ACS.⁴³

Continue to: Tools for investigating PE

Three clinical decision tools have been validated to predict the risk of PE: the Wells score, the Geneva score, and Pulmonary Embolism Rule Out Criteria (PERC).^44,45

Wells score is more sensitive than the Geneva score and has been validated in ambulatory¹ and ED^46-48 settings. Based on Wells criteria, high-risk patients need further evaluation with imaging. In low-risk patients, a normal D-dimer level effectively excludes PE, with a < 1% risk of subsequent thromboembolism in the following 3 months. Positive predictive value of the Wells decision tool is low because it is intended to rule out, not confirm, PE.

PERC can be used in a low-probability setting (defined as the treating physician arriving at the conclusion that PE is not the most likely diagnosis and can be excluded with a negative D-dimer test). In that setting, if the patient meets the 8 clinical variables in PERC, the diagnosis of PE is, effectively, ruled out.⁴⁸

Summing up: Evaluation of chest pain guided by risk of CAD

Patients who present in an outpatient setting with a potentially life-threatening cause of chest pain (TABLE 1) and patients with unstable vital signs should be sent to the ED for urgent evaluation. In the remaining outpatients, use the Marburg Heart Score or Diamond Forrester classification to assess the likelihood that pain is due to CAD (in the ED, the HEART score can be used for this purpose) (FIGURE).

When the risk is low. No further cardiac testing is indicated in patients with a risk of CAD < 5%, based on a Marburg score of 0 or 1, or on Diamond Forrester criteria; an abnormal stress test is likely to be a false-positive.¹⁹

Continue to: Moderate risk

Moderate risk. However, further testing is indicated, with a stress test (with or without myocardial imaging), in patients whose risk of CAD is 5% to 70%, based on the Diamond Forrester classification or an intermediate Marburg Heart Score (ie, a score of 2 or 3 but a normal EKG). This further testing can be performed urgently in patients who have multiple other risk factors that are not assessed by the Marburg Heart Score.

High risk. In patients whose risk is > 70%, invasive testing with angiography should be considered.^35,49

EKG abnormalities. Patients with a Marburg Score of 2 or 3 and an abnormal EKG should be sent to the ED (FIGURE). There, patients with a HEART score < 4 and a negative 2-3–hour troponin test have a < 1% chance of ACS and can be safely discharged.³¹

CORRESPONDENCE
Anne Mounsey, MD, UNC Family Medicine, 590 Manning Drive, Chapel Hill, NC 27599; [email protected]

One of the most concerning and challenging patient complaints presented to physicians is chest pain. Chest pain is a ubiquitous complaint in primary care settings and in the emergency department (ED), accounting for 8 million ED visits and 0.4% of all primary care visits in North America annually.^1,2

Acute coronary syndrome is the cause of chest pain in 5.1% of patients with chest pain who present to the ED, compared with 1.5% to 3.1% of chestpain patients seen in ambulatory care.

Despite the great number of chest-pain encounters, early identification of life-threatening causes and prompt treatment remain a challenge. In this article, we examine how the approach to a complaint of chest pain in a primary care practice (and, likewise, in the ED) must first, rest on the clinical evaluation and second, employ risk-stratification tools to aid in evaluation, appropriate diagnosis, triage, and treatment.

Chest pain by the numbers

Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is the cause of chest pain in 5.1% of patients with chest pain who present to the ED, compared with 1.5% to 3.1% of chest-pain patients seen in ambulatory care.^1,3 “Nonspecific chest pain” is the most frequent diagnosis of chest pain in the ED for all age groups (47.5% to 55.8%).³ In contrast, the most common cause of chest pain in primary care is musculoskeletal (36%), followed by gastrointestinal disease (18% to 19%); serious cardiac causes (15%), including ACS (1.5%); nonspecific causes (16%); psychiatric causes (8%); and pulmonary causes (5% to 10%).⁴ Among patients seen in the ED because of chest pain, 57.4% are discharged, 30.6% are admitted for further evaluation, and 0.4% die in the ED or after admission.³

IMAGE: © KIMBERLY MARTENS-KIEFER

First challenge: The scale of the differential Dx

The differential diagnosis of chest pain is broad. It includes life-threatening causes, such as ACS (from ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction [STEMI], Type 1 non-STEMI, and unstable angina), acute aortic dissection, pulmonary embolism (PE), esophageal rupture, and tension pneumothorax, as well as non-life-threatening causes (TABLE 1).

History and physical exam guide early decisions

Triage assessment of the patient with chest pain, including vital signs, general appearance, and basic symptom questions, can guide you as to whether they require transfer to a higher level of care. Although an individual’s findings cannot, alone, accurately exclude or diagnose ACS, the findings can be used in combination in clinical decision tools to distinguish noncardiac chest pain from ACS.

History. Features in the history (TABLE 2^5-9) that are most helpful at increasing the probability (ie, a positive likelihood ratio [LR] ≥ 2) of chest pain being caused by ACS are:

• pain radiating to both arms or the right arm
• pain that is worse upon exertion
• a history of peripheral artery disease or coronary artery disease (CAD)
• a previously abnormal stress test.

The presence of any prior normal stress test is unhelpful: Such patients have a similar risk of a 30-day adverse cardiac event as a patient who has never had a stress test.⁵

Continue to: A history of tobacco use...

A history of tobacco use, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, obesity, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), coronary artery bypass grafting, or a family history of CAD does not significantly increase the risk of ACS.⁶ However, exploring each of these risk factors further is important, because genetic links between these risk factors can lead to an increased risk of CAD (eg, familial hypercholesterolemia).⁷

A history of normal or near-normal coronary angiography (< 25% stenosis) is associated with a lower likelihood of ACS, because 98% of such patients are free of AMI and 90% are without single-vessel coronary disease nearly 10 years out.⁶ A history of coronary artery bypass grafting is not necessarily predictive of ACS (LR = 1-3).^5,6

Historical features classically associated with ACS, but that have an LR < 2, are pain radiating to the neck or jaw, nausea or vomiting, dyspnea, and pain that is relieved with nitroglycerin.^5,6 Pain described as pleuritic, sharp, positional, or reproduced with palpation is less likely due to AMI.⁵

Physical exam findings are not independently diagnostic when evaluating chest pain. However, a third heart sound is the most likely finding associated with AMI and hypotension is the clinical sign most likely associated with ACS.⁵

Consider the diagnosis of PE in all patients with chest pain. In PE, chest pain might be associated with dyspnea, presyncope, syncope, or hemoptysis.⁸ On examination, 40% of patients have tachycardia.⁸ If PE is suspected; the patient should be risk-stratified using a validated prediction rule (see the discussion of PE that follows).

Continue to: Other historical features...

Other historical features or physical exam findings correlate with aortic dissection, pneumonia, and psychiatric causes of chest pain (TABLE 2^5-9).

Useful EKG findings

Among patients in whom ACS or PE is suspected, 12-lead electrocardiography (EKG) should be performed.

AMI. EKG findings most predictive of AMI are new ST-segment elevation or depression > 1 mm (LR = 6-54), new left bundle branch block (LR = 6.3), Q wave (positive LR = 3.9), and prominent, wide-based (hyperacute) T wave (LR = 3.1).¹⁰

ACS. Useful EKG findings to predict ACS are ST-segment depression (LR = 5.3 [95% CI, 2.1-8.6]) and any evidence of ischemia, defined as ST-segment depression, T-wave inversion, or Q wave (LR = 3.6 [95% CI, 1.6-5.7]).¹⁰

PE. The most common abnormal finding on EKG in the setting of PE is sinus tachycardia.

Continue to: Right ventricular strain

Right ventricular strain. Other findings that reflect right ventricular strain, but are much less common, are complete or incomplete right bundle branch block, prominent S wave in lead I, Q wave in lead III, and T-wave inversion in lead III (S1Q3T3; the ­McGinn-White sign) and in leads V₁-V₄.⁸

The utility of troponin and high-sensitivity troponin testing

Clinical evaluation and EKG findings are unable to diagnose or exclude ACS without the use of the cardiac biomarker troponin. In the past decade, high-sensitivity troponin assays have been used to stratify patients at risk of ACS.^11,12 Many protocols now exist using short interval (2-3 hours), high-sensitivity troponin testing to identify patients at low risk of myocardial infarction who can be safely discharged from the ED after 2 normal tests of the troponin level.^13-16

An elevated troponin value alone, however, is not a specific indicator of ACS; troponin can be elevated in the settings of myocardial ischemia related to increased oxygen demand (Type 2 non-STEMI) and decreased renal clearance. Consideration of the rate of rising and falling levels of troponin, its absolute value > 99th percentile, and other findings is critical to interpreting an elevated troponin level.¹⁷ Studies in which the HEART score (History, Electrocardiography, Age, Risk factors, Troponin) was combined with high-sensitivity troponin measurement show that this pairing is promising in reducing unnecessary admissions for chest pain.¹⁸ (For a description of this tool, see the discussion of the HEART score that follows.) Carlton and colleagues¹⁸ showed that a HEART score ≤ 3 and a negative high-sensitivity troponin I level had a negative predictive value of ≥ 99.5% for AMI.

Clinical decision tools: Who needs care? Who can go home?

Given the varied presentations of patients with life-threatening causes of chest pain, it is challenging to confidently determine who is safe to send home after initial assessment. Guidance in 2014 from the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology recommends risk-stratifying patients for ACS using clinical decision tools to help guide management.^19,20 The American College of Physicians, in its 2015 guidelines, also recommends using a clinical decision tool to assess patients when there is suspicion of PE.²¹ Clinical application of these tools identifies patients at low risk of life-threatening conditions and can help avoid unnecessary intervention and a higher level of care. 

Tools for investigating ACS

The Marburg Heart Score²² assesses the likelihood of CAD in ambulatory settings while the HEART score assesses the risk of major adverse cardiac events in ED patients.²³ The Diamond Forrester criteria can be used to assess the pretest probability of CAD in both settings.²⁴

Continue to: Marburg Heart Score

Marburg Heart Score. Validated in patients older than 35 years of age in 2 different outpatient populations in 2010²² and 2012,²⁵ the Marburg score is determined by answering 5 questions:

• Female ≥ 65 years? Or male ≥ 55 years of age? (No, 0; Yes, +1)
• Known CAD, cerebrovascular disease, or peripheral vascular disease? (No, 0; Yes, +1)
• Is pain worse with exercise? (No, 0; Yes, +1)
• Is pain reproducible with palpation? (No, +1, Yes, 0)
• Does the patient assume that the pain is cardiac in nature? (No, 0; Yes, +1)

A Marburg Heart Score of 0 or 1 means CAD is highly unlikely in a patient with chest pain (negative predictive value = 99%-100%; positive predictive value = 0.6%)⁴ (TABLE 3^4,26-28). A score of ≤ 2 has a negative predictive value of 98%. A Marburg Heart Score of 4 or 5 has a relatively low positive predictive value (63%).⁴

The most common causes of chest pain in primary care? In descending order, musculoskeletal, GI, serious cardiac, nonspecific, psychiatric, and pulmonary causes.

This tool does not accurately diagnose acute MI, but it does help identify patients at low risk of ACS, thus reducing unnecessary subsequent testing. Although no clinical decision tool can rule out AMI with absolute certainty, the Marburg Heart Score is considered one of the most extensively tested and sensitive tools to predict low risk of CAD in outpatient primary care.²⁹

INTERCHEST rule (in outpatient primary care) is a newer prediction rule using data from 5 primary care–based studies of chest pain.³⁰ For a score ≤ 2, the negative predictive value for CAD causing chest pain is 97% to 98% and the positive predictive value is 43%. INTERCHEST incorporates studies used to validate the Marburg Heart Score, but has not been validated beyond initial pooled studies. Concerns have been raised about the quality of these pooled studies, however, and this rule has not been widely accepted for clinical use at this time.²⁹

The HEART score has been validated in patients older than 12 years in multiple institutions and across multiple ED populations.^23,31,32 It is widely used in the ED to assess a patient’s risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) over the next 6 weeks. MACE is defined as AMI, percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery bypass grafting, or death.

Continue to: The HEART score...

The HEART score is calculated based on 5 components:

• History of chest pain (slightly [0], moderately [+1], or highly [+2]) suspicious for ACS)
• EKG (normal [0], nonspecific ST changes [+1], significant ST deviations [+2])
• Age (< 45 y [0], 45-64 y [+1], ≥ 65 y [+2])
• Risk factors (none [0], 1 or 2 [+1], ≥ 3 or a history of atherosclerotic disease [+2]) ^a
• Initial troponin assay, standard sensitivity (≤ normal [0], 1-3× normal [+1], > 3× normal [+2]).

For patients with a HEART score of 0-3 (ie, at low risk), the pooled positive predictive value of a MACE was determined to be 0.19 (95% CI, 0.14-0.24), and the negative predictive value was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.98-0.99)—making it an effective tool to rule out a MACE over the short term²⁶ (TABLE 3^4,26-28).

Because the HEART Score was published in 2008, multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses have compared it to the TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) and GRACE (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events) scores for predicting short-term (30-day to 6-week) MACE in ED patients.^27,28,33,34 These studies have all shown that the HEART score is relatively superior to the TIMI and GRACE tools.

Characteristics of these tools are summarized in TABLE 3.^4,26-28

Diamond Forrester classification (in ED and outpatient settings). This tool uses 3 criteria—substernal chest pain, pain that increases upon exertion or with stress, and pain relieved by nitroglycerin or rest—to classify chest pain as typical angina (all 3 criteria), atypical angina (2 criteria), or noncardiac chest pain (0 criteria or 1 criterion).²⁴ Pretest probability (ie, the likelihood of an outcome before noninvasive testing) of the pain being due to CAD can then be determined from the type of chest pain and the patient’s gender and age¹⁹ (TABLE 4¹⁹). Recent studies have found that the Diamond Forrester criteria might overestimate the probability of CAD.³⁵

Continue to: Noninvasive imaging-based diagnostic methods

Positron-emission tomography stress testing, stress echocardiography, myocardial perfusion scanning, exercise treadmill testing. The first 3 of these imaging tests have a sensitivity and specificity ranging from 74% to 87%³⁶; exercise treadmill testing is less sensitive (68%) and specific (77%).³⁷

In a patient with a very low (< 5%) probability of CAD, a positive stress test (of any modality) is likely to be a false-positive; conversely, in a patient with a very high (> 90%) probability of CAD, a negative stress test is likely to be a false-negative.¹⁹ The American Heart Association, therefore, does not recommend any of these modalities for patients who have a < 5% or > 90% probability of CAD.¹⁹

Triage assessment of the chestpain patient, including vital signs, general appearance, and basic symptom questions, can clarify whether they need transfer to a higher level of care.

Noninvasive testing to rule out ACS in low- and intermediate-risk patients who present to the ED with chest pain provides no clinical benefit over clinical evaluation alone.³⁸ Therefore, these tests are rarely used in the initial evaluation of chest pain in an acute setting.

Coronary artery calcium score (CACS), coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA). These tests have demonstrated promise in the risk stratification of chest pain, given their high sensitivity and negative predictive value in low- and intermediate-risk patients.^39,40 However, their application remains unclear in the evaluation of acute chest pain: Appropriate-use criteria do not favor CACS or CCTA alone to evaluate acute chest pain when there is suspicion of ACS.⁴¹ The Choosing Wisely initiative (for “avoiding unnecessary medical tests, treatments, and procedures”; www.choosingwisely.org) recommends against CCTA for high-risk patients presenting to the ED with acute chest pain.⁴²

Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging does not have an established role in the evaluation of patients with suspected ACS.⁴³

Continue to: Tools for investigating PE

Three clinical decision tools have been validated to predict the risk of PE: the Wells score, the Geneva score, and Pulmonary Embolism Rule Out Criteria (PERC).^44,45

Wells score is more sensitive than the Geneva score and has been validated in ambulatory¹ and ED^46-48 settings. Based on Wells criteria, high-risk patients need further evaluation with imaging. In low-risk patients, a normal D-dimer level effectively excludes PE, with a < 1% risk of subsequent thromboembolism in the following 3 months. Positive predictive value of the Wells decision tool is low because it is intended to rule out, not confirm, PE.

PERC can be used in a low-probability setting (defined as the treating physician arriving at the conclusion that PE is not the most likely diagnosis and can be excluded with a negative D-dimer test). In that setting, if the patient meets the 8 clinical variables in PERC, the diagnosis of PE is, effectively, ruled out.⁴⁸

Summing up: Evaluation of chest pain guided by risk of CAD

Patients who present in an outpatient setting with a potentially life-threatening cause of chest pain (TABLE 1) and patients with unstable vital signs should be sent to the ED for urgent evaluation. In the remaining outpatients, use the Marburg Heart Score or Diamond Forrester classification to assess the likelihood that pain is due to CAD (in the ED, the HEART score can be used for this purpose) (FIGURE).

When the risk is low. No further cardiac testing is indicated in patients with a risk of CAD < 5%, based on a Marburg score of 0 or 1, or on Diamond Forrester criteria; an abnormal stress test is likely to be a false-positive.¹⁹

Continue to: Moderate risk

Moderate risk. However, further testing is indicated, with a stress test (with or without myocardial imaging), in patients whose risk of CAD is 5% to 70%, based on the Diamond Forrester classification or an intermediate Marburg Heart Score (ie, a score of 2 or 3 but a normal EKG). This further testing can be performed urgently in patients who have multiple other risk factors that are not assessed by the Marburg Heart Score.

High risk. In patients whose risk is > 70%, invasive testing with angiography should be considered.^35,49

EKG abnormalities. Patients with a Marburg Score of 2 or 3 and an abnormal EKG should be sent to the ED (FIGURE). There, patients with a HEART score < 4 and a negative 2-3–hour troponin test have a < 1% chance of ACS and can be safely discharged.³¹

CORRESPONDENCE
Anne Mounsey, MD, UNC Family Medicine, 590 Manning Drive, Chapel Hill, NC 27599; [email protected]

When state senators in South Carolina held two hearings in September about COVID-19 treatments, they got an earful on the benefits of ivermectin — which many of the lawmakers echoed, sharing experiences of their own loved ones.

The demands for access to the drug were loud and insistent, despite federal regulators’ recent warning against using the drug to treat COVID.

Ivermectin is a generic drug  that has been used for decades to treat river blindness, scabies, and even head lice. Veterinarians also use it, in different formulations and dosages, to treat animals for parasites like worms.

At one of the South Carolina hearings, Pressley Stutts III reminded the panel that his father, a prominent GOP leader in the state, had died of COVID a month earlier. He believed ivermectin could have helped him. But doctors at the hospital wouldn’t discuss it.

“I went every bit as far as I could without getting myself thrown in jail trying to save my father’s life,” he told the panel, as lawmakers offered condolences.

“What is going on here?” he asked, with the passion in his voice growing. “My dad’s dead!”

The pleas to public officials have been building. And now politicians are beginning to act, largely to satisfy their conservative constituents.

After the pandemic began, scientists launched clinical trials to see if ivermectin could help as a treatment for COVID. Some are still ongoing. But providers in mainstream medicine have rejected it as a COVID treatment, citing the poor quality of the studies to date, and two notorious “preprint” studies that were circulated before they were peer-reviewed, and later taken off the internet because of inaccurate and flawed data.

On Aug. 26, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advised clinicians not to use ivermectin, citing insufficient evidence of benefit and pointing out that unauthorized use had led to accidental poisonings. Vaccination, the CDC reiterated, is still the best way to avoid serious illness and death from the coronavirus.

But many Americans remain convinced ivermectin could be beneficial, and some politicians appear to be listening to them.

“If we have medications out here that are working — or seem to be working — I think it’s absolutely horrible that we’re not trying them,” said Republican state Sen. Tom Corbin in South Carolina. He questioned doctors who had come to the Statehouse to counter efforts to move ivermectin into mainstream use.

The doctors challenged the implied insult that they weren’t following best practices: “Any implication that any of us would do anything to withhold effective treatments from our patients is really insulting to our profession,” said Dr. Annie Andrews, a professor at the Medical University of South Carolina who has cared for COVID patients throughout the pandemic.

Instead of listening to the medical consensus, some politicians in states like South Carolina seem to be taking cues from doctors on the fringe. During one September hearing, state senators patched in a call from Dr. Pierre Kory.

They know better now, she said.

“My first attempt would have been to keep her out of the hospital,” Ms. Berry said. “Because right now when you go to the hospital, they only give you what’s on the CDC protocol.”

Ms. Berry and her husband have purchased their own supply of ivermectin, which they keep at home.

This story is from a partnership that includes NPR, Nashville Public Radio and  KHN. KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

When state senators in South Carolina held two hearings in September about COVID-19 treatments, they got an earful on the benefits of ivermectin — which many of the lawmakers echoed, sharing experiences of their own loved ones.

The demands for access to the drug were loud and insistent, despite federal regulators’ recent warning against using the drug to treat COVID.

Ivermectin is a generic drug  that has been used for decades to treat river blindness, scabies, and even head lice. Veterinarians also use it, in different formulations and dosages, to treat animals for parasites like worms.

At one of the South Carolina hearings, Pressley Stutts III reminded the panel that his father, a prominent GOP leader in the state, had died of COVID a month earlier. He believed ivermectin could have helped him. But doctors at the hospital wouldn’t discuss it.

“I went every bit as far as I could without getting myself thrown in jail trying to save my father’s life,” he told the panel, as lawmakers offered condolences.

“What is going on here?” he asked, with the passion in his voice growing. “My dad’s dead!”

The pleas to public officials have been building. And now politicians are beginning to act, largely to satisfy their conservative constituents.

After the pandemic began, scientists launched clinical trials to see if ivermectin could help as a treatment for COVID. Some are still ongoing. But providers in mainstream medicine have rejected it as a COVID treatment, citing the poor quality of the studies to date, and two notorious “preprint” studies that were circulated before they were peer-reviewed, and later taken off the internet because of inaccurate and flawed data.

On Aug. 26, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advised clinicians not to use ivermectin, citing insufficient evidence of benefit and pointing out that unauthorized use had led to accidental poisonings. Vaccination, the CDC reiterated, is still the best way to avoid serious illness and death from the coronavirus.

But many Americans remain convinced ivermectin could be beneficial, and some politicians appear to be listening to them.

“If we have medications out here that are working — or seem to be working — I think it’s absolutely horrible that we’re not trying them,” said Republican state Sen. Tom Corbin in South Carolina. He questioned doctors who had come to the Statehouse to counter efforts to move ivermectin into mainstream use.

The doctors challenged the implied insult that they weren’t following best practices: “Any implication that any of us would do anything to withhold effective treatments from our patients is really insulting to our profession,” said Dr. Annie Andrews, a professor at the Medical University of South Carolina who has cared for COVID patients throughout the pandemic.

Instead of listening to the medical consensus, some politicians in states like South Carolina seem to be taking cues from doctors on the fringe. During one September hearing, state senators patched in a call from Dr. Pierre Kory.

They know better now, she said.

“My first attempt would have been to keep her out of the hospital,” Ms. Berry said. “Because right now when you go to the hospital, they only give you what’s on the CDC protocol.”

Ms. Berry and her husband have purchased their own supply of ivermectin, which they keep at home.

This story is from a partnership that includes NPR, Nashville Public Radio and  KHN. KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

When state senators in South Carolina held two hearings in September about COVID-19 treatments, they got an earful on the benefits of ivermectin — which many of the lawmakers echoed, sharing experiences of their own loved ones.

The demands for access to the drug were loud and insistent, despite federal regulators’ recent warning against using the drug to treat COVID.

Ivermectin is a generic drug  that has been used for decades to treat river blindness, scabies, and even head lice. Veterinarians also use it, in different formulations and dosages, to treat animals for parasites like worms.

At one of the South Carolina hearings, Pressley Stutts III reminded the panel that his father, a prominent GOP leader in the state, had died of COVID a month earlier. He believed ivermectin could have helped him. But doctors at the hospital wouldn’t discuss it.

“I went every bit as far as I could without getting myself thrown in jail trying to save my father’s life,” he told the panel, as lawmakers offered condolences.

“What is going on here?” he asked, with the passion in his voice growing. “My dad’s dead!”

The pleas to public officials have been building. And now politicians are beginning to act, largely to satisfy their conservative constituents.

After the pandemic began, scientists launched clinical trials to see if ivermectin could help as a treatment for COVID. Some are still ongoing. But providers in mainstream medicine have rejected it as a COVID treatment, citing the poor quality of the studies to date, and two notorious “preprint” studies that were circulated before they were peer-reviewed, and later taken off the internet because of inaccurate and flawed data.

On Aug. 26, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advised clinicians not to use ivermectin, citing insufficient evidence of benefit and pointing out that unauthorized use had led to accidental poisonings. Vaccination, the CDC reiterated, is still the best way to avoid serious illness and death from the coronavirus.

But many Americans remain convinced ivermectin could be beneficial, and some politicians appear to be listening to them.

“If we have medications out here that are working — or seem to be working — I think it’s absolutely horrible that we’re not trying them,” said Republican state Sen. Tom Corbin in South Carolina. He questioned doctors who had come to the Statehouse to counter efforts to move ivermectin into mainstream use.

The doctors challenged the implied insult that they weren’t following best practices: “Any implication that any of us would do anything to withhold effective treatments from our patients is really insulting to our profession,” said Dr. Annie Andrews, a professor at the Medical University of South Carolina who has cared for COVID patients throughout the pandemic.

Instead of listening to the medical consensus, some politicians in states like South Carolina seem to be taking cues from doctors on the fringe. During one September hearing, state senators patched in a call from Dr. Pierre Kory.

They know better now, she said.

“My first attempt would have been to keep her out of the hospital,” Ms. Berry said. “Because right now when you go to the hospital, they only give you what’s on the CDC protocol.”

Ms. Berry and her husband have purchased their own supply of ivermectin, which they keep at home.

This story is from a partnership that includes NPR, Nashville Public Radio and  KHN. KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

It’s rare for mothers with COVID-19 to transfer the infection to their newborns, according to a new small study.

The research, published in JAMA Network Open, found that newborns of mothers infected with the COVID-19 virus were able to develop their own immune defenses via their mother’s breast milk. Researchers detected antibodies in the infants’ saliva.

“It is the first time that this mechanism has been demonstrated,” said study author Rita Carsetti, MD, head of immunology diagnostics for Bambino Gesù Children’s Hospital in Rome. “We now know how breast milk can help babies develop their immune defenses. The system could work the same way for many other pathogens, which are present in the mother during breastfeeding.”

Dr. Carsetti and colleagues examined data from 28 pregnant women who tested positive for COVID-19 and who gave birth at Policlinico Umberto I in Rome between November 2020 and May 2021, and their newborns. They investigated the immune responses of the mothers and their newborns by detecting spike-specific antibodies in serum, and the mucosal immune response was assessed by measuring specific antibodies in maternal breast milk and infant saliva 48 hours after delivery and 2 months later.

Twenty-one mothers and their newborns completed the 2 months of follow-up. Researchers found that the majority of the mothers had mild symptoms of COVID-19, while only three of them were admitted for worsening condition. There was only one reported case of a possible vertical transmission – transmitted in utero – and one case of a horizontal infection through droplets or respiratory secretions, which occurred when the newborn was taken home.

The results of the study showed that antibodies specific to the virus were present in the mothers’ blood at 2 months after delivery, but not at 48 hours. However, in milk, specific antibodies were already present 48 hours after delivery.

Therefore, after 48 hours, the breastfed babies had specific mucosal antibodies against COVID-19 in their saliva that the other newborns did not have. Two months later, these antibodies continued to be present even though the mothers had stopped producing them.

The findings suggest that breast milk offers protection by transferring the antibodies produced by the mother to the baby, but also by helping them to produce their own immune defenses.

“I am not surprised that infants of mothers who had COVID-19 infection in the peripartum period pass anti-spike protein IgA to their infants,” J. Howard Smart, MD, FAAP, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview. “This confirmation is good news for breastfeeding mothers.

“I wonder whether we really know these infants did not become infected, and produce their own antibodies,” said Dr. Smart, chairman of the department of pediatrics at Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group in San Diego.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said having COVID-19 should not stop mothers from giving their children breast milk. The organization also said that the chance of COVID-19 passing through the breast milk and causing infection in the newborn infant is slim.

“Breast milk also helps protect babies from infections, including infections of the ears, lungs, and digestive system. For these reasons, having COVID-19 should not stop you from giving your baby breast milk,” according to ACOG’s website.

Similar studies on mothers who received the COVID-19 vaccination rather than being infected would be interesting, Dr. Smart added.

The authors of the current study plan to broaden their research by evaluating the response of pregnant mothers vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 for the presence of antibodies in the milk and the immunity of their newborns. Dr. Carsetti said her team plans to expand the study to other infections, such as cytomegalovirus and respiratory syncytial virus.

None of the researchers or commentators had financial disclosures.

It’s rare for mothers with COVID-19 to transfer the infection to their newborns, according to a new small study.

The research, published in JAMA Network Open, found that newborns of mothers infected with the COVID-19 virus were able to develop their own immune defenses via their mother’s breast milk. Researchers detected antibodies in the infants’ saliva.

“It is the first time that this mechanism has been demonstrated,” said study author Rita Carsetti, MD, head of immunology diagnostics for Bambino Gesù Children’s Hospital in Rome. “We now know how breast milk can help babies develop their immune defenses. The system could work the same way for many other pathogens, which are present in the mother during breastfeeding.”

Dr. Carsetti and colleagues examined data from 28 pregnant women who tested positive for COVID-19 and who gave birth at Policlinico Umberto I in Rome between November 2020 and May 2021, and their newborns. They investigated the immune responses of the mothers and their newborns by detecting spike-specific antibodies in serum, and the mucosal immune response was assessed by measuring specific antibodies in maternal breast milk and infant saliva 48 hours after delivery and 2 months later.

Twenty-one mothers and their newborns completed the 2 months of follow-up. Researchers found that the majority of the mothers had mild symptoms of COVID-19, while only three of them were admitted for worsening condition. There was only one reported case of a possible vertical transmission – transmitted in utero – and one case of a horizontal infection through droplets or respiratory secretions, which occurred when the newborn was taken home.

The results of the study showed that antibodies specific to the virus were present in the mothers’ blood at 2 months after delivery, but not at 48 hours. However, in milk, specific antibodies were already present 48 hours after delivery.

Therefore, after 48 hours, the breastfed babies had specific mucosal antibodies against COVID-19 in their saliva that the other newborns did not have. Two months later, these antibodies continued to be present even though the mothers had stopped producing them.

The findings suggest that breast milk offers protection by transferring the antibodies produced by the mother to the baby, but also by helping them to produce their own immune defenses.

“I am not surprised that infants of mothers who had COVID-19 infection in the peripartum period pass anti-spike protein IgA to their infants,” J. Howard Smart, MD, FAAP, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview. “This confirmation is good news for breastfeeding mothers.

“I wonder whether we really know these infants did not become infected, and produce their own antibodies,” said Dr. Smart, chairman of the department of pediatrics at Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group in San Diego.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said having COVID-19 should not stop mothers from giving their children breast milk. The organization also said that the chance of COVID-19 passing through the breast milk and causing infection in the newborn infant is slim.

“Breast milk also helps protect babies from infections, including infections of the ears, lungs, and digestive system. For these reasons, having COVID-19 should not stop you from giving your baby breast milk,” according to ACOG’s website.

Similar studies on mothers who received the COVID-19 vaccination rather than being infected would be interesting, Dr. Smart added.

The authors of the current study plan to broaden their research by evaluating the response of pregnant mothers vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 for the presence of antibodies in the milk and the immunity of their newborns. Dr. Carsetti said her team plans to expand the study to other infections, such as cytomegalovirus and respiratory syncytial virus.

None of the researchers or commentators had financial disclosures.

It’s rare for mothers with COVID-19 to transfer the infection to their newborns, according to a new small study.

The research, published in JAMA Network Open, found that newborns of mothers infected with the COVID-19 virus were able to develop their own immune defenses via their mother’s breast milk. Researchers detected antibodies in the infants’ saliva.

“It is the first time that this mechanism has been demonstrated,” said study author Rita Carsetti, MD, head of immunology diagnostics for Bambino Gesù Children’s Hospital in Rome. “We now know how breast milk can help babies develop their immune defenses. The system could work the same way for many other pathogens, which are present in the mother during breastfeeding.”

Dr. Carsetti and colleagues examined data from 28 pregnant women who tested positive for COVID-19 and who gave birth at Policlinico Umberto I in Rome between November 2020 and May 2021, and their newborns. They investigated the immune responses of the mothers and their newborns by detecting spike-specific antibodies in serum, and the mucosal immune response was assessed by measuring specific antibodies in maternal breast milk and infant saliva 48 hours after delivery and 2 months later.

Twenty-one mothers and their newborns completed the 2 months of follow-up. Researchers found that the majority of the mothers had mild symptoms of COVID-19, while only three of them were admitted for worsening condition. There was only one reported case of a possible vertical transmission – transmitted in utero – and one case of a horizontal infection through droplets or respiratory secretions, which occurred when the newborn was taken home.

The results of the study showed that antibodies specific to the virus were present in the mothers’ blood at 2 months after delivery, but not at 48 hours. However, in milk, specific antibodies were already present 48 hours after delivery.

Therefore, after 48 hours, the breastfed babies had specific mucosal antibodies against COVID-19 in their saliva that the other newborns did not have. Two months later, these antibodies continued to be present even though the mothers had stopped producing them.

The findings suggest that breast milk offers protection by transferring the antibodies produced by the mother to the baby, but also by helping them to produce their own immune defenses.

“I am not surprised that infants of mothers who had COVID-19 infection in the peripartum period pass anti-spike protein IgA to their infants,” J. Howard Smart, MD, FAAP, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview. “This confirmation is good news for breastfeeding mothers.

“I wonder whether we really know these infants did not become infected, and produce their own antibodies,” said Dr. Smart, chairman of the department of pediatrics at Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group in San Diego.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said having COVID-19 should not stop mothers from giving their children breast milk. The organization also said that the chance of COVID-19 passing through the breast milk and causing infection in the newborn infant is slim.

“Breast milk also helps protect babies from infections, including infections of the ears, lungs, and digestive system. For these reasons, having COVID-19 should not stop you from giving your baby breast milk,” according to ACOG’s website.

Similar studies on mothers who received the COVID-19 vaccination rather than being infected would be interesting, Dr. Smart added.

The authors of the current study plan to broaden their research by evaluating the response of pregnant mothers vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 for the presence of antibodies in the milk and the immunity of their newborns. Dr. Carsetti said her team plans to expand the study to other infections, such as cytomegalovirus and respiratory syncytial virus.

None of the researchers or commentators had financial disclosures.