People with type 2 diabetes who develop COVID-19 show a substantially reduced risk of dying if they are taking metformin, shows a study that adds to prior research indicating the drug might somehow play a role in reducing the severity of infection.

“Unlike several previous analyses, this was a study in a racially diverse population with a high proportion of Blacks/African Americans and [it] revealed that metformin treatment of diabetes prior to diagnosis with COVID-19 was associated with a dramatic threefold reduced mortality in subjects with type 2 diabetes, even after correcting for multiple covariates,” first author Anath Shalev, MD, of the Comprehensive Diabetes Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in an interview.

But Anne Peters, MD, a professor of clinical medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said caution is needed when interpreting these findings.

“It’s hard to tease out the true effects because, for instance, those treated with insulin may be a sicker subset of patients with diabetes than those on metformin, or those with comorbidities such as renal insufficiency may not be treated with metformin” she said in an interview.

“In general, though, treatment obviously matters and people who are better treated tend to do better, so while I think this study raises the question of what role metformin plays in the risk of mortality and COVID-19, I don’t think it necessarily proves the association,” Dr. Peters asserted.
 

Diverse population

The new study, published this month in Frontiers of Endocrinology, included 25,326 individuals who were tested for COVID-19 at the University of Alabama at Birmingham Hospital between February and June 2020.

Overall, 2.4% tested positive for COVID-19 (n = 604), which the authors note is likely a low figure because screening included asymptomatic hospital staff and patients having elective procedures.

Black/African American patients had a significantly higher risk of COVID-19 positivity, compared with White patients (odds ratio, 2.6; P < .0001). Rates were also higher among those with hypertension (OR, 2.46), diabetes (OR, 2.11), and obesity (OR, 1.93), compared with those without each condition (all P < .0001).

The overall mortality rate in COVID-19-positive patients was 11%. Diabetes was associated with a dramatically increased risk of death (OR, 3.62; P < .0001), and remained an independent risk factor even after adjusting for age, race, sex, obesity, and hypertension.

Notably, the reduction in mortality among those with diabetes taking metformin prior to COVID-19 diagnosis was significant: 11% of those patients died, compared with 23% of those with diabetes not taking metformin (OR, 0.33; P = .021).
 

Similar findings reported across varied populations

The study adds to mounting research suggesting metformin could have a protective effect on COVID-19 mortality, including an early report from Wuhan, China, findings from the French CORONADO study, and a U.S. study linking treatment with decreased mortality among women with COVID-19.

Of note, the effects of metformin on mortality in the current study were observed in men and women alike, as well as in high-risk subgroups including African Americans.

“The fact that such similar results were obtained in different populations from around the world suggests that the observed reduction in mortality risk, associated with metformin use in subjects with type 2 diabetes and COVID-19, might be generalizable,” the authors wrote.

“Furthermore, these findings underline the importance of following general diabetes treatment and prevention guidelines and not delaying or discontinuing any metformin treatment,” they add.
 

Speculation of mechanisms includes anti-inflammatory effects

While the mechanisms behind metformin’s potential role in reducing mortality risk in COVID-19 are unknown, the authors note that the most obvious assumption – that improved glycemic control may be a key factor – is disputed by the study’s finding that blood glucose levels and hemoglobin A1c were not significantly different among COVID-19 survivors taking versus not taking metformin.

They point instead to metformin’s known anti-inflammatory and antithrombotic properties.

“We therefore hypothesize that, by exerting some of these effects, metformin might improve outcomes and we are now in the process of investigating this possibility further,” Dr. Shalev said.

Dr. Peters noted that anti-inflammatory properties, themselves, are not necessarily unique to metformin in the treatment of diabetes.

“Many other agents, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors can reduce inflammation, so I don’t know if that would explain it, but it certainly could help,” she said. “[Reducing inflammation] is a hypothesis you see commonly with diabetes drugs, but I think there are also a lot of metabolic benefits from metformin.”

“It was fascinating that they had the A1c data and that survival with metformin didn’t appear to be as related to A1c levels as one might think,” she added.

Notably, a key advantage, should the effects and mechanisms be validated, is metformin’s high accessibility, Dr. Peters added.

“This doesn’t necessarily tell us what we can do to reduce the health care disparities surrounding COVID-19, but the fact that metformin is low cost and easily available is very important, so maybe it will help as we try to grapple with other risk factors.”

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

People with type 2 diabetes who develop COVID-19 show a substantially reduced risk of dying if they are taking metformin, shows a study that adds to prior research indicating the drug might somehow play a role in reducing the severity of infection.

“Unlike several previous analyses, this was a study in a racially diverse population with a high proportion of Blacks/African Americans and [it] revealed that metformin treatment of diabetes prior to diagnosis with COVID-19 was associated with a dramatic threefold reduced mortality in subjects with type 2 diabetes, even after correcting for multiple covariates,” first author Anath Shalev, MD, of the Comprehensive Diabetes Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in an interview.

But Anne Peters, MD, a professor of clinical medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said caution is needed when interpreting these findings.

“It’s hard to tease out the true effects because, for instance, those treated with insulin may be a sicker subset of patients with diabetes than those on metformin, or those with comorbidities such as renal insufficiency may not be treated with metformin” she said in an interview.

“In general, though, treatment obviously matters and people who are better treated tend to do better, so while I think this study raises the question of what role metformin plays in the risk of mortality and COVID-19, I don’t think it necessarily proves the association,” Dr. Peters asserted.
 

Diverse population

The new study, published this month in Frontiers of Endocrinology, included 25,326 individuals who were tested for COVID-19 at the University of Alabama at Birmingham Hospital between February and June 2020.

Overall, 2.4% tested positive for COVID-19 (n = 604), which the authors note is likely a low figure because screening included asymptomatic hospital staff and patients having elective procedures.

Black/African American patients had a significantly higher risk of COVID-19 positivity, compared with White patients (odds ratio, 2.6; P < .0001). Rates were also higher among those with hypertension (OR, 2.46), diabetes (OR, 2.11), and obesity (OR, 1.93), compared with those without each condition (all P < .0001).

The overall mortality rate in COVID-19-positive patients was 11%. Diabetes was associated with a dramatically increased risk of death (OR, 3.62; P < .0001), and remained an independent risk factor even after adjusting for age, race, sex, obesity, and hypertension.

Notably, the reduction in mortality among those with diabetes taking metformin prior to COVID-19 diagnosis was significant: 11% of those patients died, compared with 23% of those with diabetes not taking metformin (OR, 0.33; P = .021).
 

Similar findings reported across varied populations

The study adds to mounting research suggesting metformin could have a protective effect on COVID-19 mortality, including an early report from Wuhan, China, findings from the French CORONADO study, and a U.S. study linking treatment with decreased mortality among women with COVID-19.

Of note, the effects of metformin on mortality in the current study were observed in men and women alike, as well as in high-risk subgroups including African Americans.

“The fact that such similar results were obtained in different populations from around the world suggests that the observed reduction in mortality risk, associated with metformin use in subjects with type 2 diabetes and COVID-19, might be generalizable,” the authors wrote.

“Furthermore, these findings underline the importance of following general diabetes treatment and prevention guidelines and not delaying or discontinuing any metformin treatment,” they add.
 

Speculation of mechanisms includes anti-inflammatory effects

While the mechanisms behind metformin’s potential role in reducing mortality risk in COVID-19 are unknown, the authors note that the most obvious assumption – that improved glycemic control may be a key factor – is disputed by the study’s finding that blood glucose levels and hemoglobin A1c were not significantly different among COVID-19 survivors taking versus not taking metformin.

They point instead to metformin’s known anti-inflammatory and antithrombotic properties.

“We therefore hypothesize that, by exerting some of these effects, metformin might improve outcomes and we are now in the process of investigating this possibility further,” Dr. Shalev said.

Dr. Peters noted that anti-inflammatory properties, themselves, are not necessarily unique to metformin in the treatment of diabetes.

“Many other agents, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors can reduce inflammation, so I don’t know if that would explain it, but it certainly could help,” she said. “[Reducing inflammation] is a hypothesis you see commonly with diabetes drugs, but I think there are also a lot of metabolic benefits from metformin.”

“It was fascinating that they had the A1c data and that survival with metformin didn’t appear to be as related to A1c levels as one might think,” she added.

Notably, a key advantage, should the effects and mechanisms be validated, is metformin’s high accessibility, Dr. Peters added.

“This doesn’t necessarily tell us what we can do to reduce the health care disparities surrounding COVID-19, but the fact that metformin is low cost and easily available is very important, so maybe it will help as we try to grapple with other risk factors.”

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

People with type 2 diabetes who develop COVID-19 show a substantially reduced risk of dying if they are taking metformin, shows a study that adds to prior research indicating the drug might somehow play a role in reducing the severity of infection.

“Unlike several previous analyses, this was a study in a racially diverse population with a high proportion of Blacks/African Americans and [it] revealed that metformin treatment of diabetes prior to diagnosis with COVID-19 was associated with a dramatic threefold reduced mortality in subjects with type 2 diabetes, even after correcting for multiple covariates,” first author Anath Shalev, MD, of the Comprehensive Diabetes Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in an interview.

But Anne Peters, MD, a professor of clinical medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said caution is needed when interpreting these findings.

“It’s hard to tease out the true effects because, for instance, those treated with insulin may be a sicker subset of patients with diabetes than those on metformin, or those with comorbidities such as renal insufficiency may not be treated with metformin” she said in an interview.

“In general, though, treatment obviously matters and people who are better treated tend to do better, so while I think this study raises the question of what role metformin plays in the risk of mortality and COVID-19, I don’t think it necessarily proves the association,” Dr. Peters asserted.
 

Diverse population

The new study, published this month in Frontiers of Endocrinology, included 25,326 individuals who were tested for COVID-19 at the University of Alabama at Birmingham Hospital between February and June 2020.

Overall, 2.4% tested positive for COVID-19 (n = 604), which the authors note is likely a low figure because screening included asymptomatic hospital staff and patients having elective procedures.

Black/African American patients had a significantly higher risk of COVID-19 positivity, compared with White patients (odds ratio, 2.6; P < .0001). Rates were also higher among those with hypertension (OR, 2.46), diabetes (OR, 2.11), and obesity (OR, 1.93), compared with those without each condition (all P < .0001).

The overall mortality rate in COVID-19-positive patients was 11%. Diabetes was associated with a dramatically increased risk of death (OR, 3.62; P < .0001), and remained an independent risk factor even after adjusting for age, race, sex, obesity, and hypertension.

Notably, the reduction in mortality among those with diabetes taking metformin prior to COVID-19 diagnosis was significant: 11% of those patients died, compared with 23% of those with diabetes not taking metformin (OR, 0.33; P = .021).
 

Similar findings reported across varied populations

The study adds to mounting research suggesting metformin could have a protective effect on COVID-19 mortality, including an early report from Wuhan, China, findings from the French CORONADO study, and a U.S. study linking treatment with decreased mortality among women with COVID-19.

Of note, the effects of metformin on mortality in the current study were observed in men and women alike, as well as in high-risk subgroups including African Americans.

“The fact that such similar results were obtained in different populations from around the world suggests that the observed reduction in mortality risk, associated with metformin use in subjects with type 2 diabetes and COVID-19, might be generalizable,” the authors wrote.

“Furthermore, these findings underline the importance of following general diabetes treatment and prevention guidelines and not delaying or discontinuing any metformin treatment,” they add.
 

Speculation of mechanisms includes anti-inflammatory effects

While the mechanisms behind metformin’s potential role in reducing mortality risk in COVID-19 are unknown, the authors note that the most obvious assumption – that improved glycemic control may be a key factor – is disputed by the study’s finding that blood glucose levels and hemoglobin A1c were not significantly different among COVID-19 survivors taking versus not taking metformin.

They point instead to metformin’s known anti-inflammatory and antithrombotic properties.

“We therefore hypothesize that, by exerting some of these effects, metformin might improve outcomes and we are now in the process of investigating this possibility further,” Dr. Shalev said.

Dr. Peters noted that anti-inflammatory properties, themselves, are not necessarily unique to metformin in the treatment of diabetes.

“Many other agents, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors can reduce inflammation, so I don’t know if that would explain it, but it certainly could help,” she said. “[Reducing inflammation] is a hypothesis you see commonly with diabetes drugs, but I think there are also a lot of metabolic benefits from metformin.”

“It was fascinating that they had the A1c data and that survival with metformin didn’t appear to be as related to A1c levels as one might think,” she added.

Notably, a key advantage, should the effects and mechanisms be validated, is metformin’s high accessibility, Dr. Peters added.

“This doesn’t necessarily tell us what we can do to reduce the health care disparities surrounding COVID-19, but the fact that metformin is low cost and easily available is very important, so maybe it will help as we try to grapple with other risk factors.”

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

President Joe Biden has come into office after an unexpected shift in Congress. On Jan. 5, Democrats scored an upset by winning two U.S. Senate seats in runoff elections in Georgia, giving them control of the Senate.

Now the Democrats have control of all three levers of power – the Senate, the House, and the presidency – for the first time since the early years of the Obama administration.

How will President Biden use this new concentration of power to shape health care policy?

Democrats’ small majorities in both houses of Congress suggest that moderation and bipartisanship will be necessary to get things done. Moreover, Mr. Biden himself is calling for bipartisanship. “On this January day,” he said in his inauguration speech, “my whole soul is in this: Bringing America together, uniting our people, uniting our nation.”

Key health care actions that Mr. Biden could pursue include the following.
 

1. Passing a new COVID-19 relief bill

Above all, Mr. Biden is focused on overcoming the COVID-19 pandemic, which has been registering record deaths recently, and getting newly released vaccines to Americans.

“Dealing with the coronavirus pandemic is one of the most important battles our administration will face, and I will be informed by science and by experts,” the president said.

“There is no question that the pandemic is the highest priority for the Biden administration,” said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. “COVID will dominate the early weeks and months of this administration. His success rests, in particular, on improving the rollout of vaccines.”

Five days before his inauguration, the president-elect unveiled the American Rescue Plan, a massive, $1.9 trillion legislative package intended to hasten rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, improve COVID-19 testing, and provide financial help to businesses and individuals, among many other things.

The bill would add $1,400 to the recently passed $600 government relief payments for each American, amounting to a $2,000 check. It would also enact many non-COVID-19 measures, such as a $15-an-hour minimum wage and measures to bolster the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

If Democrats cannot reach a deal with the Republicans, they might turn the proposal into a reconciliation bill, which could then be passed with a simple majority. However, drafting a reconciliation bill is a long, complicated process that would require removing provisions that don’t meet the requirements of reconciliation, said Hazen Marshall, a Washington lobbyist and former staffer for Sen. Mitch McConnell.

Most importantly, Mr. Marshall said, reconciliation bills bring out diehard partisanship. “They involve a sledgehammer mentality,” he says. “You’re telling the other side that their views aren’t going to matter.” The final version of the ACA, for example, was passed as a reconciliation bill, with not one Republican vote.

In the Trump years, “the last four reconciliation bills did not get any votes from the minority,” added Rodney Whitlock, PhD, a political consultant at McDermott+Consulting, who worked 21 years for Republicans in the House. “When the majority chooses to use reconciliation, it is an admission that it has no interest in working with the minority.”

Hammering out a compromise will be tough, but Robert Pearl MD, former CEO of the Permanente Medical Group and a professor at Stanford (Calif.) University, said that if anyone can do it, it would be President Biden. Having served in the Senate for 36 years, “Biden knows Congress better than any president since Lyndon Johnson,” he said. “He can reach across the aisle and get legislation passed as much as anyone could these days.”
 

2. Restoring Obamacare

Mr. Biden has vowed to undo a gradual dismantling of the ACA that went on during the Trump administration through executive orders, rule-making, and new laws. “Reinvigorating the ACA was a central part of Biden’s platform as a candidate,” Mr. Levitt said.

Each Trump action against the ACA must be undone in the same way. Presidential orders must be met with presidential orders, regulations with regulations, and legislation with legislation.

The ACA is also being challenged in the Supreme Court. Republicans under Trump passed a law that reduced the penalty for not buying health insurance under the ACA to zero. Then a group of 20 states, led by Texas, filed a lawsuit asserting that this change makes the ACA unconstitutional.

The lawsuit was heard by the Supreme Court in November. From remarks made by the justices then, it appears that the court might well uphold the law when a verdict comes down in June.

But just in case, Mr. Biden wants Congress to enact a small penalty for not buying health insurance, which would remove the basis of the lawsuit.

Mr. Biden’s choice for secretary of Health and Human Services shows his level of commitment to protecting the ACA. His HHS nominee is California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who led a group of 17 states defending the ACA in the current lawsuit.

In addition to undoing Trump’s changes, Mr. Biden plans to expand the ACA beyond the original legislation. The new COVID-19 bill contains provisions that would expand subsidies to buy insurance on the exchanges and would lower the maximum percentage of income that anyone has to pay for health insurance to 8.5%.

Dealing with Medicaid is also related to the ACA. In 2012, the Supreme Court struck down a mandate that states expand their Medicaid programs, with substantial funding from the federal government.

To date, 12 states still do not participate in the Medicaid expansion. To lure them into the expansion, the Democrat-controlled House last session passed a bill that would offer to pay the entire bill for the first 3 years of Medicaid expansion if they chose to enact an expansion.
 

3. Undoing other Trump actions in health care

In addition to changes in the ACA, Trump also enacted a number of other changes in health care that President Biden could undo. For example, Mr. Biden says he will reenter the World Health Organization (WHO) so that the United States could better coordinate a COVID-19 response with other nations. Trump exited the WHO with the stroke of a pen, and Mr. Biden can do the same in reverse.

Under Trump, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services used waivers to weaken the ACA and allow states to alter their Medicaid programs. One waiver allows Georgia to leave the ACA exchanges and put brokers in charge of buying coverage. Other waivers allow states to transform federal Medicaid payments into block grants, which several states are planning to do.

The Trump CMS has allowed several states to use Medicaid waivers to add work requirements for Medicaid recipients. The courts have blocked the work rules so far, and the Biden CMS may decide to reverse these waivers or modify them.

“Undoing waivers is normally a fairly simple thing,” Mr. Levitt said. In January, however, the Trump CMS asked some waiver states to sign new contracts in which the CMS pledges not to end a waiver without 9 months’ notice. It’s unclear how many states signed such contracts and what obligation the Biden CMS has to enforce them.

The Trump CMS also stopped reimbursing insurers for waiving deductibles and copayments for low-income customers, as directed by the ACA. Without federal reimbursement, some insurers raised premiums by as much as 20% to cover the costs. It is unclear how the Biden CMS would tackle this change.
 

4. Negotiating lower drug prices

Allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, a major plank in Mr. Biden’s campaign, would seem like a slam dunk for the Democrats. This approach is backed by 89% of Americans, including 84% of Republicans, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation survey in December.

“With that level of support, it’s hard to go wrong politically on this issue,” Mr. Levitt said.

Many Republicans, however, do not favor negotiating drug prices, and the two parties continue to be far apart on how to control drug prices. Trump signed an action that allows Americans to buy cheaper drugs abroad, an approach that Mr. Biden also supports, but it is now tied up in the courts.

“A drug pricing bill has always been difficult to pass,” Dr. Whitlock said. “The issue is popular with the public, but change does not come easily. The drug lobby is one the strongest in Washington, and now it may be even stronger, since it was the drug companies that gave us the COVID vaccines.”

Dr. Whitlock said Republicans will want Democrats to compromise on drug pricing, but he doubts they will do so. The House passed a bill to negotiate drug prices last year, which never was voted on in the Senate. “It is difficult to imagine that the Democrats will be able to move rightward from that House bill,” Dr. Whitlock said. “Democrats are likely to stand pat on drug pricing.”
 

5. Introducing a public option

President Biden’s campaign proposal for a public option – health insurance offered by the federal government – and to lower the age for Medicare eligibility from 65 years to 60 years, resulted from a compromise between two factions of the Democratic party on how to expand coverage.

Although Mr. Biden and other moderates wanted to focus on fixing the ACA, Democrats led by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont called for a single-payer system, dubbed “Medicare for all.” A public option was seen as the middle ground between the two camps.

“A public option would be a very controversial,” Dr. Whitlock said. Critics say it would pay at Medicare rates, which would reduce doctors’ reimbursements, and save very little money compared with a single-payer system.

Dr. Pearl sees similar problems with lowering the Medicare age. “This would be an expensive change that the federal government could not afford, particularly with all the spending on the pandemic,” he said. “And it would be tough on doctors and hospitals, because Medicare pays less than the private insurance payment they are now getting.”

“The public option is likely to get serious discussion within the Democratic caucus and get onto the Senate floor,” Mr. Levitt said. “The party won’t ignore it.” He notes that in the new Senate, Sen. Sanders chairs the budget committee, and from that position he is likely to push for expanding access to care.

Mr. Levitt says the Biden CMS might allow states to experiment with a statewide public option or even a single-payer model, but he concedes that states, with their budgets ravaged by COVID-19, do not currently have the money to launch such programs.
 

6. Reviving the CMS

Under President Obama, the CMS was the engine that implemented the ACA and shepherded wider use of value-based reimbursements, which reward providers for quality and outcomes rather than volume.

Under the Trump administration, CMS leadership continued to uphold value-based reimbursement, Dr. Pearl observed. “CMS leadership championed value-based payments, but they encountered a lot of pushback from doctors and hospitals and had to scale back their goals,” he said.

On the other hand, the Trump CMS took a 180-degree turn on the ACA and worked to take it apart. This took a toll on staff morale, according to Donald M. Berwick, MD, who ran the CMS under President Obama. “Many people in CMS did not feel supported during the Trump administration, and some of them left,” Dr. Berwick said.

The CMS needs experienced staff on board to write comprehensible rules and regulations that can overcome court challenges.

Having a fully functioning CMS also requires consistent leadership, which was a problem for Obama. When Mr. Obama nominated Dr. Berwick, 60 Senate votes were needed to confirm him, and Republicans would not vote for him. Mr. Obama eventually brought Dr. Berwick in as a recess appointment, but it meant he could serve for only 17 months.

Since then, Senate confirmation rules have changed so that only a simple majority is needed to confirm appointments. This is important for Biden’s nominees, Dr. Berwick said. “For a president, having your team in place means you are able to execute the policies you want,” he said. “You need to have consistent leadership.”
 

7. Potentially changing health care without Congress

Even with their newly won control of the Senate, the Democrats’ thin majorities in both houses of Congress may not be enough to pass much legislation if Republicans are solidly opposed.

Democrats in the House also have a narrow path this session in which to pass legislation. The Democratic leadership has an 11-vote majority, but it must contend with 15 moderate representatives in purple districts (where Democrats and Republicans have about equal support).

A bigger problem looms before the Democrats. In 2022, the party may well lose its majorities in both houses. Mr. Whitlock notes that the party of an incoming president normally loses seats in the first midterm election. “The last incoming president to keep both houses of Congress in his first midterm was Jimmy Carter,” he said.

If this happens, President Biden would have to govern without the support of Congress, which is what Barack Obama had to do through most of his presidency. As Mr. Obama’s vice president, Mr. Biden is well aware how that goes. Governing without Congress means relying on presidential orders and decrees.

In health care, Mr. Biden has a powerful policy-making tool, the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation (CMMI). The CMMI was empowered by the ACA to initiate pilot programs for new payment models.

So far, the CMMI’s work has been mainly limited to accountable care organizations, bundled payments, and patient-centered medical homes, but it could also be used to enact new federal policies that would normally require Congressional action, Mr. Levitt said.
 

Conclusion

Expectations have been very high for what President Joe Biden can do in health care. He needs to unite a very divided political system to defeat a deadly pandemic, restore Obamacare, and sign landmark legislation, such as a drug-pricing bill.

But shepherding bills through Congress will be a challenge. “You need to have accountability, unity, and civility, which is a Herculean task,” Mr. Whitlock said. “You have to keep policies off the table that could blow up the bipartisanship.”

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

President Joe Biden has come into office after an unexpected shift in Congress. On Jan. 5, Democrats scored an upset by winning two U.S. Senate seats in runoff elections in Georgia, giving them control of the Senate.

Now the Democrats have control of all three levers of power – the Senate, the House, and the presidency – for the first time since the early years of the Obama administration.

How will President Biden use this new concentration of power to shape health care policy?

Democrats’ small majorities in both houses of Congress suggest that moderation and bipartisanship will be necessary to get things done. Moreover, Mr. Biden himself is calling for bipartisanship. “On this January day,” he said in his inauguration speech, “my whole soul is in this: Bringing America together, uniting our people, uniting our nation.”

Key health care actions that Mr. Biden could pursue include the following.
 

1. Passing a new COVID-19 relief bill

Above all, Mr. Biden is focused on overcoming the COVID-19 pandemic, which has been registering record deaths recently, and getting newly released vaccines to Americans.

“Dealing with the coronavirus pandemic is one of the most important battles our administration will face, and I will be informed by science and by experts,” the president said.

“There is no question that the pandemic is the highest priority for the Biden administration,” said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. “COVID will dominate the early weeks and months of this administration. His success rests, in particular, on improving the rollout of vaccines.”

Five days before his inauguration, the president-elect unveiled the American Rescue Plan, a massive, $1.9 trillion legislative package intended to hasten rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, improve COVID-19 testing, and provide financial help to businesses and individuals, among many other things.

The bill would add $1,400 to the recently passed $600 government relief payments for each American, amounting to a $2,000 check. It would also enact many non-COVID-19 measures, such as a $15-an-hour minimum wage and measures to bolster the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

If Democrats cannot reach a deal with the Republicans, they might turn the proposal into a reconciliation bill, which could then be passed with a simple majority. However, drafting a reconciliation bill is a long, complicated process that would require removing provisions that don’t meet the requirements of reconciliation, said Hazen Marshall, a Washington lobbyist and former staffer for Sen. Mitch McConnell.

Most importantly, Mr. Marshall said, reconciliation bills bring out diehard partisanship. “They involve a sledgehammer mentality,” he says. “You’re telling the other side that their views aren’t going to matter.” The final version of the ACA, for example, was passed as a reconciliation bill, with not one Republican vote.

In the Trump years, “the last four reconciliation bills did not get any votes from the minority,” added Rodney Whitlock, PhD, a political consultant at McDermott+Consulting, who worked 21 years for Republicans in the House. “When the majority chooses to use reconciliation, it is an admission that it has no interest in working with the minority.”

Hammering out a compromise will be tough, but Robert Pearl MD, former CEO of the Permanente Medical Group and a professor at Stanford (Calif.) University, said that if anyone can do it, it would be President Biden. Having served in the Senate for 36 years, “Biden knows Congress better than any president since Lyndon Johnson,” he said. “He can reach across the aisle and get legislation passed as much as anyone could these days.”
 

2. Restoring Obamacare

Mr. Biden has vowed to undo a gradual dismantling of the ACA that went on during the Trump administration through executive orders, rule-making, and new laws. “Reinvigorating the ACA was a central part of Biden’s platform as a candidate,” Mr. Levitt said.

Each Trump action against the ACA must be undone in the same way. Presidential orders must be met with presidential orders, regulations with regulations, and legislation with legislation.

The ACA is also being challenged in the Supreme Court. Republicans under Trump passed a law that reduced the penalty for not buying health insurance under the ACA to zero. Then a group of 20 states, led by Texas, filed a lawsuit asserting that this change makes the ACA unconstitutional.

The lawsuit was heard by the Supreme Court in November. From remarks made by the justices then, it appears that the court might well uphold the law when a verdict comes down in June.

But just in case, Mr. Biden wants Congress to enact a small penalty for not buying health insurance, which would remove the basis of the lawsuit.

Mr. Biden’s choice for secretary of Health and Human Services shows his level of commitment to protecting the ACA. His HHS nominee is California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who led a group of 17 states defending the ACA in the current lawsuit.

In addition to undoing Trump’s changes, Mr. Biden plans to expand the ACA beyond the original legislation. The new COVID-19 bill contains provisions that would expand subsidies to buy insurance on the exchanges and would lower the maximum percentage of income that anyone has to pay for health insurance to 8.5%.

Dealing with Medicaid is also related to the ACA. In 2012, the Supreme Court struck down a mandate that states expand their Medicaid programs, with substantial funding from the federal government.

To date, 12 states still do not participate in the Medicaid expansion. To lure them into the expansion, the Democrat-controlled House last session passed a bill that would offer to pay the entire bill for the first 3 years of Medicaid expansion if they chose to enact an expansion.
 

3. Undoing other Trump actions in health care

In addition to changes in the ACA, Trump also enacted a number of other changes in health care that President Biden could undo. For example, Mr. Biden says he will reenter the World Health Organization (WHO) so that the United States could better coordinate a COVID-19 response with other nations. Trump exited the WHO with the stroke of a pen, and Mr. Biden can do the same in reverse.

Under Trump, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services used waivers to weaken the ACA and allow states to alter their Medicaid programs. One waiver allows Georgia to leave the ACA exchanges and put brokers in charge of buying coverage. Other waivers allow states to transform federal Medicaid payments into block grants, which several states are planning to do.

The Trump CMS has allowed several states to use Medicaid waivers to add work requirements for Medicaid recipients. The courts have blocked the work rules so far, and the Biden CMS may decide to reverse these waivers or modify them.

“Undoing waivers is normally a fairly simple thing,” Mr. Levitt said. In January, however, the Trump CMS asked some waiver states to sign new contracts in which the CMS pledges not to end a waiver without 9 months’ notice. It’s unclear how many states signed such contracts and what obligation the Biden CMS has to enforce them.

The Trump CMS also stopped reimbursing insurers for waiving deductibles and copayments for low-income customers, as directed by the ACA. Without federal reimbursement, some insurers raised premiums by as much as 20% to cover the costs. It is unclear how the Biden CMS would tackle this change.
 

4. Negotiating lower drug prices

Allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, a major plank in Mr. Biden’s campaign, would seem like a slam dunk for the Democrats. This approach is backed by 89% of Americans, including 84% of Republicans, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation survey in December.

“With that level of support, it’s hard to go wrong politically on this issue,” Mr. Levitt said.

Many Republicans, however, do not favor negotiating drug prices, and the two parties continue to be far apart on how to control drug prices. Trump signed an action that allows Americans to buy cheaper drugs abroad, an approach that Mr. Biden also supports, but it is now tied up in the courts.

“A drug pricing bill has always been difficult to pass,” Dr. Whitlock said. “The issue is popular with the public, but change does not come easily. The drug lobby is one the strongest in Washington, and now it may be even stronger, since it was the drug companies that gave us the COVID vaccines.”

Dr. Whitlock said Republicans will want Democrats to compromise on drug pricing, but he doubts they will do so. The House passed a bill to negotiate drug prices last year, which never was voted on in the Senate. “It is difficult to imagine that the Democrats will be able to move rightward from that House bill,” Dr. Whitlock said. “Democrats are likely to stand pat on drug pricing.”
 

5. Introducing a public option

President Biden’s campaign proposal for a public option – health insurance offered by the federal government – and to lower the age for Medicare eligibility from 65 years to 60 years, resulted from a compromise between two factions of the Democratic party on how to expand coverage.

Although Mr. Biden and other moderates wanted to focus on fixing the ACA, Democrats led by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont called for a single-payer system, dubbed “Medicare for all.” A public option was seen as the middle ground between the two camps.

“A public option would be a very controversial,” Dr. Whitlock said. Critics say it would pay at Medicare rates, which would reduce doctors’ reimbursements, and save very little money compared with a single-payer system.

Dr. Pearl sees similar problems with lowering the Medicare age. “This would be an expensive change that the federal government could not afford, particularly with all the spending on the pandemic,” he said. “And it would be tough on doctors and hospitals, because Medicare pays less than the private insurance payment they are now getting.”

“The public option is likely to get serious discussion within the Democratic caucus and get onto the Senate floor,” Mr. Levitt said. “The party won’t ignore it.” He notes that in the new Senate, Sen. Sanders chairs the budget committee, and from that position he is likely to push for expanding access to care.

Mr. Levitt says the Biden CMS might allow states to experiment with a statewide public option or even a single-payer model, but he concedes that states, with their budgets ravaged by COVID-19, do not currently have the money to launch such programs.
 

6. Reviving the CMS

Under President Obama, the CMS was the engine that implemented the ACA and shepherded wider use of value-based reimbursements, which reward providers for quality and outcomes rather than volume.

Under the Trump administration, CMS leadership continued to uphold value-based reimbursement, Dr. Pearl observed. “CMS leadership championed value-based payments, but they encountered a lot of pushback from doctors and hospitals and had to scale back their goals,” he said.

On the other hand, the Trump CMS took a 180-degree turn on the ACA and worked to take it apart. This took a toll on staff morale, according to Donald M. Berwick, MD, who ran the CMS under President Obama. “Many people in CMS did not feel supported during the Trump administration, and some of them left,” Dr. Berwick said.

The CMS needs experienced staff on board to write comprehensible rules and regulations that can overcome court challenges.

Having a fully functioning CMS also requires consistent leadership, which was a problem for Obama. When Mr. Obama nominated Dr. Berwick, 60 Senate votes were needed to confirm him, and Republicans would not vote for him. Mr. Obama eventually brought Dr. Berwick in as a recess appointment, but it meant he could serve for only 17 months.

Since then, Senate confirmation rules have changed so that only a simple majority is needed to confirm appointments. This is important for Biden’s nominees, Dr. Berwick said. “For a president, having your team in place means you are able to execute the policies you want,” he said. “You need to have consistent leadership.”
 

7. Potentially changing health care without Congress

Even with their newly won control of the Senate, the Democrats’ thin majorities in both houses of Congress may not be enough to pass much legislation if Republicans are solidly opposed.

Democrats in the House also have a narrow path this session in which to pass legislation. The Democratic leadership has an 11-vote majority, but it must contend with 15 moderate representatives in purple districts (where Democrats and Republicans have about equal support).

A bigger problem looms before the Democrats. In 2022, the party may well lose its majorities in both houses. Mr. Whitlock notes that the party of an incoming president normally loses seats in the first midterm election. “The last incoming president to keep both houses of Congress in his first midterm was Jimmy Carter,” he said.

If this happens, President Biden would have to govern without the support of Congress, which is what Barack Obama had to do through most of his presidency. As Mr. Obama’s vice president, Mr. Biden is well aware how that goes. Governing without Congress means relying on presidential orders and decrees.

In health care, Mr. Biden has a powerful policy-making tool, the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation (CMMI). The CMMI was empowered by the ACA to initiate pilot programs for new payment models.

So far, the CMMI’s work has been mainly limited to accountable care organizations, bundled payments, and patient-centered medical homes, but it could also be used to enact new federal policies that would normally require Congressional action, Mr. Levitt said.
 

Conclusion

Expectations have been very high for what President Joe Biden can do in health care. He needs to unite a very divided political system to defeat a deadly pandemic, restore Obamacare, and sign landmark legislation, such as a drug-pricing bill.

But shepherding bills through Congress will be a challenge. “You need to have accountability, unity, and civility, which is a Herculean task,” Mr. Whitlock said. “You have to keep policies off the table that could blow up the bipartisanship.”

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

President Joe Biden has come into office after an unexpected shift in Congress. On Jan. 5, Democrats scored an upset by winning two U.S. Senate seats in runoff elections in Georgia, giving them control of the Senate.

Now the Democrats have control of all three levers of power – the Senate, the House, and the presidency – for the first time since the early years of the Obama administration.

How will President Biden use this new concentration of power to shape health care policy?

Democrats’ small majorities in both houses of Congress suggest that moderation and bipartisanship will be necessary to get things done. Moreover, Mr. Biden himself is calling for bipartisanship. “On this January day,” he said in his inauguration speech, “my whole soul is in this: Bringing America together, uniting our people, uniting our nation.”

Key health care actions that Mr. Biden could pursue include the following.
 

1. Passing a new COVID-19 relief bill

Above all, Mr. Biden is focused on overcoming the COVID-19 pandemic, which has been registering record deaths recently, and getting newly released vaccines to Americans.

“Dealing with the coronavirus pandemic is one of the most important battles our administration will face, and I will be informed by science and by experts,” the president said.

“There is no question that the pandemic is the highest priority for the Biden administration,” said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. “COVID will dominate the early weeks and months of this administration. His success rests, in particular, on improving the rollout of vaccines.”

Five days before his inauguration, the president-elect unveiled the American Rescue Plan, a massive, $1.9 trillion legislative package intended to hasten rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, improve COVID-19 testing, and provide financial help to businesses and individuals, among many other things.

The bill would add $1,400 to the recently passed $600 government relief payments for each American, amounting to a $2,000 check. It would also enact many non-COVID-19 measures, such as a $15-an-hour minimum wage and measures to bolster the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

If Democrats cannot reach a deal with the Republicans, they might turn the proposal into a reconciliation bill, which could then be passed with a simple majority. However, drafting a reconciliation bill is a long, complicated process that would require removing provisions that don’t meet the requirements of reconciliation, said Hazen Marshall, a Washington lobbyist and former staffer for Sen. Mitch McConnell.

Most importantly, Mr. Marshall said, reconciliation bills bring out diehard partisanship. “They involve a sledgehammer mentality,” he says. “You’re telling the other side that their views aren’t going to matter.” The final version of the ACA, for example, was passed as a reconciliation bill, with not one Republican vote.

In the Trump years, “the last four reconciliation bills did not get any votes from the minority,” added Rodney Whitlock, PhD, a political consultant at McDermott+Consulting, who worked 21 years for Republicans in the House. “When the majority chooses to use reconciliation, it is an admission that it has no interest in working with the minority.”

Hammering out a compromise will be tough, but Robert Pearl MD, former CEO of the Permanente Medical Group and a professor at Stanford (Calif.) University, said that if anyone can do it, it would be President Biden. Having served in the Senate for 36 years, “Biden knows Congress better than any president since Lyndon Johnson,” he said. “He can reach across the aisle and get legislation passed as much as anyone could these days.”
 

2. Restoring Obamacare

Mr. Biden has vowed to undo a gradual dismantling of the ACA that went on during the Trump administration through executive orders, rule-making, and new laws. “Reinvigorating the ACA was a central part of Biden’s platform as a candidate,” Mr. Levitt said.

Each Trump action against the ACA must be undone in the same way. Presidential orders must be met with presidential orders, regulations with regulations, and legislation with legislation.

The ACA is also being challenged in the Supreme Court. Republicans under Trump passed a law that reduced the penalty for not buying health insurance under the ACA to zero. Then a group of 20 states, led by Texas, filed a lawsuit asserting that this change makes the ACA unconstitutional.

The lawsuit was heard by the Supreme Court in November. From remarks made by the justices then, it appears that the court might well uphold the law when a verdict comes down in June.

But just in case, Mr. Biden wants Congress to enact a small penalty for not buying health insurance, which would remove the basis of the lawsuit.

Mr. Biden’s choice for secretary of Health and Human Services shows his level of commitment to protecting the ACA. His HHS nominee is California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who led a group of 17 states defending the ACA in the current lawsuit.

In addition to undoing Trump’s changes, Mr. Biden plans to expand the ACA beyond the original legislation. The new COVID-19 bill contains provisions that would expand subsidies to buy insurance on the exchanges and would lower the maximum percentage of income that anyone has to pay for health insurance to 8.5%.

Dealing with Medicaid is also related to the ACA. In 2012, the Supreme Court struck down a mandate that states expand their Medicaid programs, with substantial funding from the federal government.

To date, 12 states still do not participate in the Medicaid expansion. To lure them into the expansion, the Democrat-controlled House last session passed a bill that would offer to pay the entire bill for the first 3 years of Medicaid expansion if they chose to enact an expansion.
 

3. Undoing other Trump actions in health care

In addition to changes in the ACA, Trump also enacted a number of other changes in health care that President Biden could undo. For example, Mr. Biden says he will reenter the World Health Organization (WHO) so that the United States could better coordinate a COVID-19 response with other nations. Trump exited the WHO with the stroke of a pen, and Mr. Biden can do the same in reverse.

Under Trump, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services used waivers to weaken the ACA and allow states to alter their Medicaid programs. One waiver allows Georgia to leave the ACA exchanges and put brokers in charge of buying coverage. Other waivers allow states to transform federal Medicaid payments into block grants, which several states are planning to do.

The Trump CMS has allowed several states to use Medicaid waivers to add work requirements for Medicaid recipients. The courts have blocked the work rules so far, and the Biden CMS may decide to reverse these waivers or modify them.

“Undoing waivers is normally a fairly simple thing,” Mr. Levitt said. In January, however, the Trump CMS asked some waiver states to sign new contracts in which the CMS pledges not to end a waiver without 9 months’ notice. It’s unclear how many states signed such contracts and what obligation the Biden CMS has to enforce them.

The Trump CMS also stopped reimbursing insurers for waiving deductibles and copayments for low-income customers, as directed by the ACA. Without federal reimbursement, some insurers raised premiums by as much as 20% to cover the costs. It is unclear how the Biden CMS would tackle this change.
 

4. Negotiating lower drug prices

Allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, a major plank in Mr. Biden’s campaign, would seem like a slam dunk for the Democrats. This approach is backed by 89% of Americans, including 84% of Republicans, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation survey in December.

“With that level of support, it’s hard to go wrong politically on this issue,” Mr. Levitt said.

Many Republicans, however, do not favor negotiating drug prices, and the two parties continue to be far apart on how to control drug prices. Trump signed an action that allows Americans to buy cheaper drugs abroad, an approach that Mr. Biden also supports, but it is now tied up in the courts.

“A drug pricing bill has always been difficult to pass,” Dr. Whitlock said. “The issue is popular with the public, but change does not come easily. The drug lobby is one the strongest in Washington, and now it may be even stronger, since it was the drug companies that gave us the COVID vaccines.”

Dr. Whitlock said Republicans will want Democrats to compromise on drug pricing, but he doubts they will do so. The House passed a bill to negotiate drug prices last year, which never was voted on in the Senate. “It is difficult to imagine that the Democrats will be able to move rightward from that House bill,” Dr. Whitlock said. “Democrats are likely to stand pat on drug pricing.”
 

5. Introducing a public option

President Biden’s campaign proposal for a public option – health insurance offered by the federal government – and to lower the age for Medicare eligibility from 65 years to 60 years, resulted from a compromise between two factions of the Democratic party on how to expand coverage.

Although Mr. Biden and other moderates wanted to focus on fixing the ACA, Democrats led by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont called for a single-payer system, dubbed “Medicare for all.” A public option was seen as the middle ground between the two camps.

“A public option would be a very controversial,” Dr. Whitlock said. Critics say it would pay at Medicare rates, which would reduce doctors’ reimbursements, and save very little money compared with a single-payer system.

Dr. Pearl sees similar problems with lowering the Medicare age. “This would be an expensive change that the federal government could not afford, particularly with all the spending on the pandemic,” he said. “And it would be tough on doctors and hospitals, because Medicare pays less than the private insurance payment they are now getting.”

“The public option is likely to get serious discussion within the Democratic caucus and get onto the Senate floor,” Mr. Levitt said. “The party won’t ignore it.” He notes that in the new Senate, Sen. Sanders chairs the budget committee, and from that position he is likely to push for expanding access to care.

Mr. Levitt says the Biden CMS might allow states to experiment with a statewide public option or even a single-payer model, but he concedes that states, with their budgets ravaged by COVID-19, do not currently have the money to launch such programs.
 

6. Reviving the CMS

Under President Obama, the CMS was the engine that implemented the ACA and shepherded wider use of value-based reimbursements, which reward providers for quality and outcomes rather than volume.

Under the Trump administration, CMS leadership continued to uphold value-based reimbursement, Dr. Pearl observed. “CMS leadership championed value-based payments, but they encountered a lot of pushback from doctors and hospitals and had to scale back their goals,” he said.

On the other hand, the Trump CMS took a 180-degree turn on the ACA and worked to take it apart. This took a toll on staff morale, according to Donald M. Berwick, MD, who ran the CMS under President Obama. “Many people in CMS did not feel supported during the Trump administration, and some of them left,” Dr. Berwick said.

The CMS needs experienced staff on board to write comprehensible rules and regulations that can overcome court challenges.

Having a fully functioning CMS also requires consistent leadership, which was a problem for Obama. When Mr. Obama nominated Dr. Berwick, 60 Senate votes were needed to confirm him, and Republicans would not vote for him. Mr. Obama eventually brought Dr. Berwick in as a recess appointment, but it meant he could serve for only 17 months.

Since then, Senate confirmation rules have changed so that only a simple majority is needed to confirm appointments. This is important for Biden’s nominees, Dr. Berwick said. “For a president, having your team in place means you are able to execute the policies you want,” he said. “You need to have consistent leadership.”
 

7. Potentially changing health care without Congress

Even with their newly won control of the Senate, the Democrats’ thin majorities in both houses of Congress may not be enough to pass much legislation if Republicans are solidly opposed.

Democrats in the House also have a narrow path this session in which to pass legislation. The Democratic leadership has an 11-vote majority, but it must contend with 15 moderate representatives in purple districts (where Democrats and Republicans have about equal support).

A bigger problem looms before the Democrats. In 2022, the party may well lose its majorities in both houses. Mr. Whitlock notes that the party of an incoming president normally loses seats in the first midterm election. “The last incoming president to keep both houses of Congress in his first midterm was Jimmy Carter,” he said.

If this happens, President Biden would have to govern without the support of Congress, which is what Barack Obama had to do through most of his presidency. As Mr. Obama’s vice president, Mr. Biden is well aware how that goes. Governing without Congress means relying on presidential orders and decrees.

In health care, Mr. Biden has a powerful policy-making tool, the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation (CMMI). The CMMI was empowered by the ACA to initiate pilot programs for new payment models.

So far, the CMMI’s work has been mainly limited to accountable care organizations, bundled payments, and patient-centered medical homes, but it could also be used to enact new federal policies that would normally require Congressional action, Mr. Levitt said.
 

Conclusion

Expectations have been very high for what President Joe Biden can do in health care. He needs to unite a very divided political system to defeat a deadly pandemic, restore Obamacare, and sign landmark legislation, such as a drug-pricing bill.

But shepherding bills through Congress will be a challenge. “You need to have accountability, unity, and civility, which is a Herculean task,” Mr. Whitlock said. “You have to keep policies off the table that could blow up the bipartisanship.”

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

A 62-year-old man presented to our skin clinic with multiple pruritic, tense, bullous lesions that manifested on his arms, abdomen, back, and upper thighs over a 1-month period. There were no lesions in his oral cavity or around his eyes, nose, or penile region. He denied dysphagia.

The patient had multiple comorbidities, including diabetes, hypertension, recent stroke, and end-stage renal disease. He was being prepared for dialysis. His medications included torsemide, warfarin, amiodarone, metoprolol, pantoprozole, atorvastatin, and nifedipine. About 3 months prior to this presentation, he was started on oral linaglipton 5 mg/d, an oral antihyperglycemic medication. He had no history of skin disease or cancer, and his family history was not significant.

Physical examination showed multiple 5-mm to 2-cm blisters and bullae on the flexural surface of both of his arms (FIGURE), back, lower abdomen, and upper thighs. His palms and soles were not involved. The lesions were nontender, tense, and filled with clear fluid. Some were intact and others were rupturing. There was no mucocutaneous involvement. Nikolsky sign was negative. There were no signs of bleeding.

The family physician (FP) obtained a 4-mm punch biopsy at the edge of a 6-mm blister for light microscopy and a 3-mm perilesional punch biopsy for direct immunofluorescence (DIF) microscopy.

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

DIF of the biopsy sample demonstrated linear deposition of complement 3 (C3) and immunoglobulin (Ig) G along the basement membrane zone. Indirect immunofluorescence on salt-split skin demonstrated linear deposition of IgG and C3 on both the roof and floor of the induced blisters. These findings and the patient’s clinical presentation met the criteria for bullous pemphigoid (BP), which is the most common autoimmune skin-blistering disease.¹

FPs are increasingly using DPP-4 inhibitors as oral antihyperglycemic agents for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Therefore, it’s important to recognize this medication class’s association with BP

BP is associated with subepidermal blistering, which can occur in reaction to a variety of triggers. Pathogenesis of this condition involves IgG anti-basement membrane autoantibody complex formation with the hemidesmosomal antigens BP230 and BP180—a process that activates C3 and the release of proteases that can be destructive to tissue along the dermo-epidermal junction.¹

Growing incidence. BP usually occurs in patients > 60 years, with no racial or gender preference.¹ The incidence rate of BP ranges from 2.4 to 21.7 new cases per 1 million individuals among various worldwide populations.² The incidence appears to have increased 1.9- to 4.3-fold over the past 2 decades.²

What you’ll see, who’s at risk

Symptoms of BP include localized areas of erythema or pruritic urticarial plaques that gradually become more extensive. A patient may have pruritis alone for an extended period prior to developing blisters and bullae. The bullae are tense and normally 1 to 7 cm in size.¹ Eruption is generalized, mostly affecting the lower abdomen, as well as the flexural parts of the extremities. The palms and soles also can be affected.

FPs should be aware of the atypical clinical variants of BP. In a review by Kridin and Ludwig, variants can be prurigo-like, eczema-like, urticaria-like, dyshidrosiform type, erosive type, and erythema annulare centrifugum–like type.² At-risk populations, such as elderly patients (> 70 years), whose pruritis manifests with or without bullous formation, should be screened for BP.^3,4

Continue to: Risk factors for BP

Risk factors for BP. Certain conditions linked to developing BP include neurologic disorders (dementia and Parkinson disease) and psychiatric disorders (unipolar and bipolar disorder).⁴ Further, it is important to note any medications that could be the cause of a patient’s BP, including dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, psychotropic medications, spironolactone, furosemide, beta-blockers, and antibiotics.³ This patient was taking a beta-blocker (metoprolol) and a DPP-4 inhibitor (linagliptin). Because he was most recently started on linagliptin, we suspected it may have had a causal role in the development of BP.

The association of DPP-4 inhibitors and BP

FPs are increasingly using DPP-4 inhibitors—including sitagliptin, vildagliptin, and linagliptin—as oral antihyperglycemic agents for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Therefore, it’s important to recognize this medication class’s association with BP.⁵ In a case-control study of 165 patients with BP, Benzaquen et al reported that 28 patients who were taking DPP-4 inhibitors had an associated increased risk for BP (adjusted odds ratio = 2.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-5.85).³

The pathophysiology of BP associated with DPP-4 inhibitors remains unclear, but mechanisms have been proposed. The DPP-4 enzyme is expressed on many cells, including keratinocytes, T cells, and endothelial cells.³ It is possible that DPP-4 inhibition at these cells could stimulate activity of inflammatory cytokines, which can lead to enhanced local eosinophil activation and trigger bullous formation. DPP-4 enzymes are also involved in forming plasmin, which is a protease that cleaves BP180.³ Inhibition of this process can affect proper cleavage of BP180, impacting its function and antigenicity.^3,6

Other conditions that also exhibit blisters

There are some skin conditions with similar presentations that need to be ruled out in the work-up.

Bullous diabeticorum is a rare, spontaneous, noninflammatory condition found in patients with diabetes.¹ Blisters usually manifest as large, tense, asymmetrical, mildly tender lesions that commonly affect the feet and lower legs but can involve the trunk. These usually develop overnight without preceding trauma. Biopsy would show both intra-­epidermal and subepidermal bulla with normal DIF findings.¹ This condition usually has an excellent prognosis.

Continue to: Pemphigus vulgaris

Pemphigus vulgaris is characterized by nonpruritic, flaccid, painful blisters. This condition usually begins with manifestation of painful oral lesions that evolve into skin blisters. Some patients can develop mucocutaneous lesions.¹ Nikolsky sign is positive in these cases. Light microscopy would show intra-­epidermal bullae.

Dermatitis herpetiformis. This condition—usually affecting middle-age patients—is associated with severe pruritis and burning. It may start with a few pruritic papules or vesicles that later evolve into urticarial papules, vesicles, or bullae. Dermatitis herpetiformis can resemble herpes simplex virus. It can also be associated with gluten-sensitive enteropathy and small bowel lymphoma.¹ DIF of a biopsy sample would show granular deposition of IgA within the tips of the dermal papillae and along the basement membrane of perilesional skin.¹

Epidermolysis bullosa acquisita is a rare, severe, chronic condition with subepidermal mucocutaneous blistering.¹ It is associated with skin fragility and spontaneous trauma-induced blisters that heal with scar formation and milia. IgG autoantibodies reacting to proteins in the basement membrane zone can cause the disease. It is also associated with Crohn disease.¹ DIF findings are similar in BP, but they are differentiated by location of IgG deposits; they can be found on the dermal side of separation in epidermolysis bullosa acquisita, as compared with the epidermal side in BP.¹

How to make the Dx in 3 steps

To effectively diagnose and classify BP, use the following 3-step method:

1. Establish the presence of 3 of 4 ­clinical characteristics: patient’s age > 60 years, absence of atrophic scars, absence of mucosal involvement, and absence of bullous lesions on the head and neck.
2. Order light microscopy. Findings should be consistent with eosinophils and neutrophils containing subepidermal bullae.
3. Order a punch biopsy to obtain a perilesional specimen. DIF of the biopsy findings should feature linear deposits of IgG with or without C3 along the dermo-epidermal junction. This step is essential for an accurate diagnosis.

Depending on the severity of disease, treatment can include the use of potent topical corticosteroids alone or in combination with systemic corticosteroids and antiinflammatory antibiotics.

There also is benefit in ordering supplemental studies, such as an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the detection of anti-BP180 or anti-BP230 IgG autoantibodies.⁷ However, for this patient, we did not order this study.

Continue to: Management focuses on steroids

Management focuses on steroids

The offending agent should be discontinued immediately. Depending on the severity of disease, treatment can include the use of potent topical corticosteroids alone or in combination with systemic corticosteroids and anti-inflammatory antibiotics (eg, doxycycline, minocycline, erythromycin).^1,7 For patients with resistant or refractory disease, consider azathioprine, methotrexate, dapsone, and chlorambucil.^1,7 Exceptional cases may benefit from the use of mycophenolate mofetil, intravenous immunoglobulin, or plasmapheresis.^1,7

For this patient, initial treatment included discontinuation of linagliption and introduction of topical clobetasol 0.05% and oral prednisone 40 mg/d for 7 days, followed by prednisone 20 mg for 7 days. He was also started on oral doxycycline 100 mg bid and oral nicotinamide 500 mg bid.

A 62-year-old man presented to our skin clinic with multiple pruritic, tense, bullous lesions that manifested on his arms, abdomen, back, and upper thighs over a 1-month period. There were no lesions in his oral cavity or around his eyes, nose, or penile region. He denied dysphagia.

The patient had multiple comorbidities, including diabetes, hypertension, recent stroke, and end-stage renal disease. He was being prepared for dialysis. His medications included torsemide, warfarin, amiodarone, metoprolol, pantoprozole, atorvastatin, and nifedipine. About 3 months prior to this presentation, he was started on oral linaglipton 5 mg/d, an oral antihyperglycemic medication. He had no history of skin disease or cancer, and his family history was not significant.

Physical examination showed multiple 5-mm to 2-cm blisters and bullae on the flexural surface of both of his arms (FIGURE), back, lower abdomen, and upper thighs. His palms and soles were not involved. The lesions were nontender, tense, and filled with clear fluid. Some were intact and others were rupturing. There was no mucocutaneous involvement. Nikolsky sign was negative. There were no signs of bleeding.

The family physician (FP) obtained a 4-mm punch biopsy at the edge of a 6-mm blister for light microscopy and a 3-mm perilesional punch biopsy for direct immunofluorescence (DIF) microscopy.

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

DIF of the biopsy sample demonstrated linear deposition of complement 3 (C3) and immunoglobulin (Ig) G along the basement membrane zone. Indirect immunofluorescence on salt-split skin demonstrated linear deposition of IgG and C3 on both the roof and floor of the induced blisters. These findings and the patient’s clinical presentation met the criteria for bullous pemphigoid (BP), which is the most common autoimmune skin-blistering disease.¹

FPs are increasingly using DPP-4 inhibitors as oral antihyperglycemic agents for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Therefore, it’s important to recognize this medication class’s association with BP

BP is associated with subepidermal blistering, which can occur in reaction to a variety of triggers. Pathogenesis of this condition involves IgG anti-basement membrane autoantibody complex formation with the hemidesmosomal antigens BP230 and BP180—a process that activates C3 and the release of proteases that can be destructive to tissue along the dermo-epidermal junction.¹

Growing incidence. BP usually occurs in patients > 60 years, with no racial or gender preference.¹ The incidence rate of BP ranges from 2.4 to 21.7 new cases per 1 million individuals among various worldwide populations.² The incidence appears to have increased 1.9- to 4.3-fold over the past 2 decades.²

What you’ll see, who’s at risk

Symptoms of BP include localized areas of erythema or pruritic urticarial plaques that gradually become more extensive. A patient may have pruritis alone for an extended period prior to developing blisters and bullae. The bullae are tense and normally 1 to 7 cm in size.¹ Eruption is generalized, mostly affecting the lower abdomen, as well as the flexural parts of the extremities. The palms and soles also can be affected.

FPs should be aware of the atypical clinical variants of BP. In a review by Kridin and Ludwig, variants can be prurigo-like, eczema-like, urticaria-like, dyshidrosiform type, erosive type, and erythema annulare centrifugum–like type.² At-risk populations, such as elderly patients (> 70 years), whose pruritis manifests with or without bullous formation, should be screened for BP.^3,4

Continue to: Risk factors for BP

Risk factors for BP. Certain conditions linked to developing BP include neurologic disorders (dementia and Parkinson disease) and psychiatric disorders (unipolar and bipolar disorder).⁴ Further, it is important to note any medications that could be the cause of a patient’s BP, including dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, psychotropic medications, spironolactone, furosemide, beta-blockers, and antibiotics.³ This patient was taking a beta-blocker (metoprolol) and a DPP-4 inhibitor (linagliptin). Because he was most recently started on linagliptin, we suspected it may have had a causal role in the development of BP.

The association of DPP-4 inhibitors and BP

FPs are increasingly using DPP-4 inhibitors—including sitagliptin, vildagliptin, and linagliptin—as oral antihyperglycemic agents for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Therefore, it’s important to recognize this medication class’s association with BP.⁵ In a case-control study of 165 patients with BP, Benzaquen et al reported that 28 patients who were taking DPP-4 inhibitors had an associated increased risk for BP (adjusted odds ratio = 2.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-5.85).³

The pathophysiology of BP associated with DPP-4 inhibitors remains unclear, but mechanisms have been proposed. The DPP-4 enzyme is expressed on many cells, including keratinocytes, T cells, and endothelial cells.³ It is possible that DPP-4 inhibition at these cells could stimulate activity of inflammatory cytokines, which can lead to enhanced local eosinophil activation and trigger bullous formation. DPP-4 enzymes are also involved in forming plasmin, which is a protease that cleaves BP180.³ Inhibition of this process can affect proper cleavage of BP180, impacting its function and antigenicity.^3,6

Other conditions that also exhibit blisters

There are some skin conditions with similar presentations that need to be ruled out in the work-up.

Bullous diabeticorum is a rare, spontaneous, noninflammatory condition found in patients with diabetes.¹ Blisters usually manifest as large, tense, asymmetrical, mildly tender lesions that commonly affect the feet and lower legs but can involve the trunk. These usually develop overnight without preceding trauma. Biopsy would show both intra-­epidermal and subepidermal bulla with normal DIF findings.¹ This condition usually has an excellent prognosis.

Continue to: Pemphigus vulgaris

Pemphigus vulgaris is characterized by nonpruritic, flaccid, painful blisters. This condition usually begins with manifestation of painful oral lesions that evolve into skin blisters. Some patients can develop mucocutaneous lesions.¹ Nikolsky sign is positive in these cases. Light microscopy would show intra-­epidermal bullae.

Dermatitis herpetiformis. This condition—usually affecting middle-age patients—is associated with severe pruritis and burning. It may start with a few pruritic papules or vesicles that later evolve into urticarial papules, vesicles, or bullae. Dermatitis herpetiformis can resemble herpes simplex virus. It can also be associated with gluten-sensitive enteropathy and small bowel lymphoma.¹ DIF of a biopsy sample would show granular deposition of IgA within the tips of the dermal papillae and along the basement membrane of perilesional skin.¹

Epidermolysis bullosa acquisita is a rare, severe, chronic condition with subepidermal mucocutaneous blistering.¹ It is associated with skin fragility and spontaneous trauma-induced blisters that heal with scar formation and milia. IgG autoantibodies reacting to proteins in the basement membrane zone can cause the disease. It is also associated with Crohn disease.¹ DIF findings are similar in BP, but they are differentiated by location of IgG deposits; they can be found on the dermal side of separation in epidermolysis bullosa acquisita, as compared with the epidermal side in BP.¹

How to make the Dx in 3 steps

To effectively diagnose and classify BP, use the following 3-step method:

1. Establish the presence of 3 of 4 ­clinical characteristics: patient’s age > 60 years, absence of atrophic scars, absence of mucosal involvement, and absence of bullous lesions on the head and neck.
2. Order light microscopy. Findings should be consistent with eosinophils and neutrophils containing subepidermal bullae.
3. Order a punch biopsy to obtain a perilesional specimen. DIF of the biopsy findings should feature linear deposits of IgG with or without C3 along the dermo-epidermal junction. This step is essential for an accurate diagnosis.

Depending on the severity of disease, treatment can include the use of potent topical corticosteroids alone or in combination with systemic corticosteroids and antiinflammatory antibiotics.

There also is benefit in ordering supplemental studies, such as an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the detection of anti-BP180 or anti-BP230 IgG autoantibodies.⁷ However, for this patient, we did not order this study.

Continue to: Management focuses on steroids

Management focuses on steroids

The offending agent should be discontinued immediately. Depending on the severity of disease, treatment can include the use of potent topical corticosteroids alone or in combination with systemic corticosteroids and anti-inflammatory antibiotics (eg, doxycycline, minocycline, erythromycin).^1,7 For patients with resistant or refractory disease, consider azathioprine, methotrexate, dapsone, and chlorambucil.^1,7 Exceptional cases may benefit from the use of mycophenolate mofetil, intravenous immunoglobulin, or plasmapheresis.^1,7

For this patient, initial treatment included discontinuation of linagliption and introduction of topical clobetasol 0.05% and oral prednisone 40 mg/d for 7 days, followed by prednisone 20 mg for 7 days. He was also started on oral doxycycline 100 mg bid and oral nicotinamide 500 mg bid.

A 62-year-old man presented to our skin clinic with multiple pruritic, tense, bullous lesions that manifested on his arms, abdomen, back, and upper thighs over a 1-month period. There were no lesions in his oral cavity or around his eyes, nose, or penile region. He denied dysphagia.

The patient had multiple comorbidities, including diabetes, hypertension, recent stroke, and end-stage renal disease. He was being prepared for dialysis. His medications included torsemide, warfarin, amiodarone, metoprolol, pantoprozole, atorvastatin, and nifedipine. About 3 months prior to this presentation, he was started on oral linaglipton 5 mg/d, an oral antihyperglycemic medication. He had no history of skin disease or cancer, and his family history was not significant.

Physical examination showed multiple 5-mm to 2-cm blisters and bullae on the flexural surface of both of his arms (FIGURE), back, lower abdomen, and upper thighs. His palms and soles were not involved. The lesions were nontender, tense, and filled with clear fluid. Some were intact and others were rupturing. There was no mucocutaneous involvement. Nikolsky sign was negative. There were no signs of bleeding.

The family physician (FP) obtained a 4-mm punch biopsy at the edge of a 6-mm blister for light microscopy and a 3-mm perilesional punch biopsy for direct immunofluorescence (DIF) microscopy.

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

DIF of the biopsy sample demonstrated linear deposition of complement 3 (C3) and immunoglobulin (Ig) G along the basement membrane zone. Indirect immunofluorescence on salt-split skin demonstrated linear deposition of IgG and C3 on both the roof and floor of the induced blisters. These findings and the patient’s clinical presentation met the criteria for bullous pemphigoid (BP), which is the most common autoimmune skin-blistering disease.¹

FPs are increasingly using DPP-4 inhibitors as oral antihyperglycemic agents for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Therefore, it’s important to recognize this medication class’s association with BP

BP is associated with subepidermal blistering, which can occur in reaction to a variety of triggers. Pathogenesis of this condition involves IgG anti-basement membrane autoantibody complex formation with the hemidesmosomal antigens BP230 and BP180—a process that activates C3 and the release of proteases that can be destructive to tissue along the dermo-epidermal junction.¹

Growing incidence. BP usually occurs in patients > 60 years, with no racial or gender preference.¹ The incidence rate of BP ranges from 2.4 to 21.7 new cases per 1 million individuals among various worldwide populations.² The incidence appears to have increased 1.9- to 4.3-fold over the past 2 decades.²

What you’ll see, who’s at risk

Symptoms of BP include localized areas of erythema or pruritic urticarial plaques that gradually become more extensive. A patient may have pruritis alone for an extended period prior to developing blisters and bullae. The bullae are tense and normally 1 to 7 cm in size.¹ Eruption is generalized, mostly affecting the lower abdomen, as well as the flexural parts of the extremities. The palms and soles also can be affected.

FPs should be aware of the atypical clinical variants of BP. In a review by Kridin and Ludwig, variants can be prurigo-like, eczema-like, urticaria-like, dyshidrosiform type, erosive type, and erythema annulare centrifugum–like type.² At-risk populations, such as elderly patients (> 70 years), whose pruritis manifests with or without bullous formation, should be screened for BP.^3,4

Continue to: Risk factors for BP

Risk factors for BP. Certain conditions linked to developing BP include neurologic disorders (dementia and Parkinson disease) and psychiatric disorders (unipolar and bipolar disorder).⁴ Further, it is important to note any medications that could be the cause of a patient’s BP, including dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, psychotropic medications, spironolactone, furosemide, beta-blockers, and antibiotics.³ This patient was taking a beta-blocker (metoprolol) and a DPP-4 inhibitor (linagliptin). Because he was most recently started on linagliptin, we suspected it may have had a causal role in the development of BP.

The association of DPP-4 inhibitors and BP

FPs are increasingly using DPP-4 inhibitors—including sitagliptin, vildagliptin, and linagliptin—as oral antihyperglycemic agents for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Therefore, it’s important to recognize this medication class’s association with BP.⁵ In a case-control study of 165 patients with BP, Benzaquen et al reported that 28 patients who were taking DPP-4 inhibitors had an associated increased risk for BP (adjusted odds ratio = 2.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-5.85).³

The pathophysiology of BP associated with DPP-4 inhibitors remains unclear, but mechanisms have been proposed. The DPP-4 enzyme is expressed on many cells, including keratinocytes, T cells, and endothelial cells.³ It is possible that DPP-4 inhibition at these cells could stimulate activity of inflammatory cytokines, which can lead to enhanced local eosinophil activation and trigger bullous formation. DPP-4 enzymes are also involved in forming plasmin, which is a protease that cleaves BP180.³ Inhibition of this process can affect proper cleavage of BP180, impacting its function and antigenicity.^3,6

Other conditions that also exhibit blisters

There are some skin conditions with similar presentations that need to be ruled out in the work-up.

Bullous diabeticorum is a rare, spontaneous, noninflammatory condition found in patients with diabetes.¹ Blisters usually manifest as large, tense, asymmetrical, mildly tender lesions that commonly affect the feet and lower legs but can involve the trunk. These usually develop overnight without preceding trauma. Biopsy would show both intra-­epidermal and subepidermal bulla with normal DIF findings.¹ This condition usually has an excellent prognosis.

Continue to: Pemphigus vulgaris

Pemphigus vulgaris is characterized by nonpruritic, flaccid, painful blisters. This condition usually begins with manifestation of painful oral lesions that evolve into skin blisters. Some patients can develop mucocutaneous lesions.¹ Nikolsky sign is positive in these cases. Light microscopy would show intra-­epidermal bullae.

Dermatitis herpetiformis. This condition—usually affecting middle-age patients—is associated with severe pruritis and burning. It may start with a few pruritic papules or vesicles that later evolve into urticarial papules, vesicles, or bullae. Dermatitis herpetiformis can resemble herpes simplex virus. It can also be associated with gluten-sensitive enteropathy and small bowel lymphoma.¹ DIF of a biopsy sample would show granular deposition of IgA within the tips of the dermal papillae and along the basement membrane of perilesional skin.¹

Epidermolysis bullosa acquisita is a rare, severe, chronic condition with subepidermal mucocutaneous blistering.¹ It is associated with skin fragility and spontaneous trauma-induced blisters that heal with scar formation and milia. IgG autoantibodies reacting to proteins in the basement membrane zone can cause the disease. It is also associated with Crohn disease.¹ DIF findings are similar in BP, but they are differentiated by location of IgG deposits; they can be found on the dermal side of separation in epidermolysis bullosa acquisita, as compared with the epidermal side in BP.¹

How to make the Dx in 3 steps

To effectively diagnose and classify BP, use the following 3-step method:

1. Establish the presence of 3 of 4 ­clinical characteristics: patient’s age > 60 years, absence of atrophic scars, absence of mucosal involvement, and absence of bullous lesions on the head and neck.
2. Order light microscopy. Findings should be consistent with eosinophils and neutrophils containing subepidermal bullae.
3. Order a punch biopsy to obtain a perilesional specimen. DIF of the biopsy findings should feature linear deposits of IgG with or without C3 along the dermo-epidermal junction. This step is essential for an accurate diagnosis.

Depending on the severity of disease, treatment can include the use of potent topical corticosteroids alone or in combination with systemic corticosteroids and antiinflammatory antibiotics.

There also is benefit in ordering supplemental studies, such as an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the detection of anti-BP180 or anti-BP230 IgG autoantibodies.⁷ However, for this patient, we did not order this study.

Continue to: Management focuses on steroids

Management focuses on steroids

The offending agent should be discontinued immediately. Depending on the severity of disease, treatment can include the use of potent topical corticosteroids alone or in combination with systemic corticosteroids and anti-inflammatory antibiotics (eg, doxycycline, minocycline, erythromycin).^1,7 For patients with resistant or refractory disease, consider azathioprine, methotrexate, dapsone, and chlorambucil.^1,7 Exceptional cases may benefit from the use of mycophenolate mofetil, intravenous immunoglobulin, or plasmapheresis.^1,7

For this patient, initial treatment included discontinuation of linagliption and introduction of topical clobetasol 0.05% and oral prednisone 40 mg/d for 7 days, followed by prednisone 20 mg for 7 days. He was also started on oral doxycycline 100 mg bid and oral nicotinamide 500 mg bid.

THE CASE

A 20-year-old man presented to our clinic with a 3-day history of nonradiating chest pain located at the center of his chest. Past medical history included idiopathic neonatal giant-cell hepatitis and subsequent liver transplant at 1 month of age; he had been followed by the transplant team without rejection or infection and was in otherwise good health prior to the chest pain.

On the day of symptom onset, he was walking inside his house and fell to his knees with a chest pain described as “a punch” to the center of the chest that lasted for a few seconds. He was able to continue his daily activities without limitation despite a constant, squeezing, centrally located chest pain. The pain worsened with cough and exertion.

A few hours later, he went to an urgent care center for evaluation. There, he reported, his chest radiograph and electrocardiogram (EKG) results were normal and he was given a diagnosis of musculoskeletal chest pain. Over the next 3 days, his chest pain persisted but did not worsen. He was taking 500 mg of naproxen every 8 hours with no improvement. No other acute or chronic medications were being taken. He had no significant family history. A review of systems was otherwise negative.

On physical exam, his vital statistics included a height of 6’4”; weight, 261 lb; body mass index, 31.8; temperature, 98.7 °F; blood pressure, 134/77 mm Hg; heart rate, 92 beats/min; respiratory rate, 18 breaths/min; and oxygen saturation, 96%. Throughout the exam, he demonstrated no acute distress, appeared well, and was talkative; however, he reported having a “constant, squeezing” chest pain that did not worsen with palpation of the chest. The rest of his physical exam was unremarkable.

Although he reported that his EKG and chest radiograph were normal 3 days prior, repeat chest radiograph and EKG were ordered due to his unexplained, active chest pain and the lack of immediate access to the prior results.

THE DIAGNOSIS

The chest radiograph (FIGURE 1A) showed a “mildly ectatic ascending thoracic aorta” that had increased since a chest radiograph from 6 years prior (FIGURE 1B) and “was concerning for an aneurysm.” Computed tomography (CT) angiography (FIGURE 2) then confirmed a 7-cm aneurysm of the ascending aorta, with findings suggestive of a retrograde ascending aortic dissection.

DISCUSSION

The average age of a patient with acute aortic dissection (AAD) is 63 years; only 7% occur in people younger than 40.¹ AAD is often accompanied by a predisposing risk factor such as a connective tissue disease, bicuspid aortic valve, longstanding hypertension, trauma, or larger aortic dimensions.^2,3 Younger patients are more likely to have predisposing risk factors of Marfan syndrome, prior aortic surgery, or a bicuspid aortic valve.³

Continue to: A literature review did not reveal...

A literature review did not reveal any known correlation between the patient’s history of giant-cell hepatitis or antirejection therapy with thoracic aortic dissection. Furthermore, liver transplant is not known to be a specific risk factor for AAD in pediatric patients or outside the immediate postoperative period. Therefore, there were no known predisposing risk factors for AAD in our patient.

The most common clinical feature of AAD is chest pain, which occurs in 75% of patients.¹ Other clinical symptoms include hypertension and diaphoresis.^2,4 However, classic clinical findings are not always displayed, making the diagnosis difficult.^2,4 The classical description of “tearing pain” is seen in only 51% of patients, and 5% to 15% of patients present without any pain.¹

Commonly missed or misdiagnosed. The diagnosis of AAD has been missed during the initial exam in 38% of patients.⁴ As seen in our case, symptoms may be initially diagnosed as musculoskeletal chest pain. Based on symptoms, AAD can be incorrectly diagnosed as an acute myocardial infarction or vascular embolization.^2,4

Every hour after symptom onset, the mortality rate of untreated AAD increases 1% to 2%,with no difference based on age.^3,4 Different reports have shown mortality rates between 7% and 30%.⁴

Effective imaging is crucial to the diagnosis and treatment of AAD, given the occurrence of atypical presentation, missed diagnosis, and high mortality rate.⁴ A chest radiograph will show a widened mediastinum, but the preferred diagnostic tests are a CT or transthoracic echocardiogram.^2,4 Once the diagnosis of AAD is confirmed, an aortic angiogram is the preferred test to determine the extent of the dissection prior to surgical treatment.²

Continue to: Classification dictates treatment

Classification dictates treatment. AAD is classified based on where the dissection of the aorta occurs. If the dissection involves the ascending aorta, it is classified as a type A AAD and should immediately be treated with emergent surgery in order to prevent complications including myocardial infarction, cardiac tamponade, and aortic rupture.^2,4,5 If the dissection is limited to the descending aorta, it is classified as a type B AAD and can be medically managed by controlling pain and lowering blood pressure; if symptoms persist, surgical management may be required.² After hospital discharge, AAD patients are followed closely with medical therapy, serial imaging, and reoperation if necessary.⁴

Our patient underwent emergent surgery for aortic root/ascending aortic replacement with a mechanical valve. He tolerated the procedure well. Surgical tissue pathology of the aortic segment showed a wall of elastic vessel with medial degeneration and dissection, and the tissue pathology of the aorta leaflets showed valvular tissue with myxoid degeneration.

THE TAKEAWAY

It is critical to keep AAD in the differential diagnosis of a patient presenting with acute onset of chest pain, as AAD often has an atypical presentation and can easily be misdiagnosed. Effective imaging is crucial to diagnosis, and immediate treatment is essential to patient survival.

CORRESPONDENCE
Rachel A. Reedy, PA, University of Florida, Department of General Pediatrics, 7046 SW Archer Road, Gainesville, FL 32608; [email protected]

THE CASE

A 20-year-old man presented to our clinic with a 3-day history of nonradiating chest pain located at the center of his chest. Past medical history included idiopathic neonatal giant-cell hepatitis and subsequent liver transplant at 1 month of age; he had been followed by the transplant team without rejection or infection and was in otherwise good health prior to the chest pain.

On the day of symptom onset, he was walking inside his house and fell to his knees with a chest pain described as “a punch” to the center of the chest that lasted for a few seconds. He was able to continue his daily activities without limitation despite a constant, squeezing, centrally located chest pain. The pain worsened with cough and exertion.

A few hours later, he went to an urgent care center for evaluation. There, he reported, his chest radiograph and electrocardiogram (EKG) results were normal and he was given a diagnosis of musculoskeletal chest pain. Over the next 3 days, his chest pain persisted but did not worsen. He was taking 500 mg of naproxen every 8 hours with no improvement. No other acute or chronic medications were being taken. He had no significant family history. A review of systems was otherwise negative.

On physical exam, his vital statistics included a height of 6’4”; weight, 261 lb; body mass index, 31.8; temperature, 98.7 °F; blood pressure, 134/77 mm Hg; heart rate, 92 beats/min; respiratory rate, 18 breaths/min; and oxygen saturation, 96%. Throughout the exam, he demonstrated no acute distress, appeared well, and was talkative; however, he reported having a “constant, squeezing” chest pain that did not worsen with palpation of the chest. The rest of his physical exam was unremarkable.

Although he reported that his EKG and chest radiograph were normal 3 days prior, repeat chest radiograph and EKG were ordered due to his unexplained, active chest pain and the lack of immediate access to the prior results.

THE DIAGNOSIS

The chest radiograph (FIGURE 1A) showed a “mildly ectatic ascending thoracic aorta” that had increased since a chest radiograph from 6 years prior (FIGURE 1B) and “was concerning for an aneurysm.” Computed tomography (CT) angiography (FIGURE 2) then confirmed a 7-cm aneurysm of the ascending aorta, with findings suggestive of a retrograde ascending aortic dissection.

DISCUSSION

The average age of a patient with acute aortic dissection (AAD) is 63 years; only 7% occur in people younger than 40.¹ AAD is often accompanied by a predisposing risk factor such as a connective tissue disease, bicuspid aortic valve, longstanding hypertension, trauma, or larger aortic dimensions.^2,3 Younger patients are more likely to have predisposing risk factors of Marfan syndrome, prior aortic surgery, or a bicuspid aortic valve.³

Continue to: A literature review did not reveal...

A literature review did not reveal any known correlation between the patient’s history of giant-cell hepatitis or antirejection therapy with thoracic aortic dissection. Furthermore, liver transplant is not known to be a specific risk factor for AAD in pediatric patients or outside the immediate postoperative period. Therefore, there were no known predisposing risk factors for AAD in our patient.

The most common clinical feature of AAD is chest pain, which occurs in 75% of patients.¹ Other clinical symptoms include hypertension and diaphoresis.^2,4 However, classic clinical findings are not always displayed, making the diagnosis difficult.^2,4 The classical description of “tearing pain” is seen in only 51% of patients, and 5% to 15% of patients present without any pain.¹

Commonly missed or misdiagnosed. The diagnosis of AAD has been missed during the initial exam in 38% of patients.⁴ As seen in our case, symptoms may be initially diagnosed as musculoskeletal chest pain. Based on symptoms, AAD can be incorrectly diagnosed as an acute myocardial infarction or vascular embolization.^2,4

Every hour after symptom onset, the mortality rate of untreated AAD increases 1% to 2%,with no difference based on age.^3,4 Different reports have shown mortality rates between 7% and 30%.⁴

Effective imaging is crucial to the diagnosis and treatment of AAD, given the occurrence of atypical presentation, missed diagnosis, and high mortality rate.⁴ A chest radiograph will show a widened mediastinum, but the preferred diagnostic tests are a CT or transthoracic echocardiogram.^2,4 Once the diagnosis of AAD is confirmed, an aortic angiogram is the preferred test to determine the extent of the dissection prior to surgical treatment.²

Continue to: Classification dictates treatment

Classification dictates treatment. AAD is classified based on where the dissection of the aorta occurs. If the dissection involves the ascending aorta, it is classified as a type A AAD and should immediately be treated with emergent surgery in order to prevent complications including myocardial infarction, cardiac tamponade, and aortic rupture.^2,4,5 If the dissection is limited to the descending aorta, it is classified as a type B AAD and can be medically managed by controlling pain and lowering blood pressure; if symptoms persist, surgical management may be required.² After hospital discharge, AAD patients are followed closely with medical therapy, serial imaging, and reoperation if necessary.⁴

Our patient underwent emergent surgery for aortic root/ascending aortic replacement with a mechanical valve. He tolerated the procedure well. Surgical tissue pathology of the aortic segment showed a wall of elastic vessel with medial degeneration and dissection, and the tissue pathology of the aorta leaflets showed valvular tissue with myxoid degeneration.

THE TAKEAWAY

It is critical to keep AAD in the differential diagnosis of a patient presenting with acute onset of chest pain, as AAD often has an atypical presentation and can easily be misdiagnosed. Effective imaging is crucial to diagnosis, and immediate treatment is essential to patient survival.

CORRESPONDENCE
Rachel A. Reedy, PA, University of Florida, Department of General Pediatrics, 7046 SW Archer Road, Gainesville, FL 32608; [email protected]

THE CASE

A 20-year-old man presented to our clinic with a 3-day history of nonradiating chest pain located at the center of his chest. Past medical history included idiopathic neonatal giant-cell hepatitis and subsequent liver transplant at 1 month of age; he had been followed by the transplant team without rejection or infection and was in otherwise good health prior to the chest pain.

On the day of symptom onset, he was walking inside his house and fell to his knees with a chest pain described as “a punch” to the center of the chest that lasted for a few seconds. He was able to continue his daily activities without limitation despite a constant, squeezing, centrally located chest pain. The pain worsened with cough and exertion.

A few hours later, he went to an urgent care center for evaluation. There, he reported, his chest radiograph and electrocardiogram (EKG) results were normal and he was given a diagnosis of musculoskeletal chest pain. Over the next 3 days, his chest pain persisted but did not worsen. He was taking 500 mg of naproxen every 8 hours with no improvement. No other acute or chronic medications were being taken. He had no significant family history. A review of systems was otherwise negative.

On physical exam, his vital statistics included a height of 6’4”; weight, 261 lb; body mass index, 31.8; temperature, 98.7 °F; blood pressure, 134/77 mm Hg; heart rate, 92 beats/min; respiratory rate, 18 breaths/min; and oxygen saturation, 96%. Throughout the exam, he demonstrated no acute distress, appeared well, and was talkative; however, he reported having a “constant, squeezing” chest pain that did not worsen with palpation of the chest. The rest of his physical exam was unremarkable.

Although he reported that his EKG and chest radiograph were normal 3 days prior, repeat chest radiograph and EKG were ordered due to his unexplained, active chest pain and the lack of immediate access to the prior results.

THE DIAGNOSIS

The chest radiograph (FIGURE 1A) showed a “mildly ectatic ascending thoracic aorta” that had increased since a chest radiograph from 6 years prior (FIGURE 1B) and “was concerning for an aneurysm.” Computed tomography (CT) angiography (FIGURE 2) then confirmed a 7-cm aneurysm of the ascending aorta, with findings suggestive of a retrograde ascending aortic dissection.

DISCUSSION

The average age of a patient with acute aortic dissection (AAD) is 63 years; only 7% occur in people younger than 40.¹ AAD is often accompanied by a predisposing risk factor such as a connective tissue disease, bicuspid aortic valve, longstanding hypertension, trauma, or larger aortic dimensions.^2,3 Younger patients are more likely to have predisposing risk factors of Marfan syndrome, prior aortic surgery, or a bicuspid aortic valve.³

Continue to: A literature review did not reveal...

A literature review did not reveal any known correlation between the patient’s history of giant-cell hepatitis or antirejection therapy with thoracic aortic dissection. Furthermore, liver transplant is not known to be a specific risk factor for AAD in pediatric patients or outside the immediate postoperative period. Therefore, there were no known predisposing risk factors for AAD in our patient.

The most common clinical feature of AAD is chest pain, which occurs in 75% of patients.¹ Other clinical symptoms include hypertension and diaphoresis.^2,4 However, classic clinical findings are not always displayed, making the diagnosis difficult.^2,4 The classical description of “tearing pain” is seen in only 51% of patients, and 5% to 15% of patients present without any pain.¹

Commonly missed or misdiagnosed. The diagnosis of AAD has been missed during the initial exam in 38% of patients.⁴ As seen in our case, symptoms may be initially diagnosed as musculoskeletal chest pain. Based on symptoms, AAD can be incorrectly diagnosed as an acute myocardial infarction or vascular embolization.^2,4

Every hour after symptom onset, the mortality rate of untreated AAD increases 1% to 2%,with no difference based on age.^3,4 Different reports have shown mortality rates between 7% and 30%.⁴

Effective imaging is crucial to the diagnosis and treatment of AAD, given the occurrence of atypical presentation, missed diagnosis, and high mortality rate.⁴ A chest radiograph will show a widened mediastinum, but the preferred diagnostic tests are a CT or transthoracic echocardiogram.^2,4 Once the diagnosis of AAD is confirmed, an aortic angiogram is the preferred test to determine the extent of the dissection prior to surgical treatment.²

Continue to: Classification dictates treatment

Classification dictates treatment. AAD is classified based on where the dissection of the aorta occurs. If the dissection involves the ascending aorta, it is classified as a type A AAD and should immediately be treated with emergent surgery in order to prevent complications including myocardial infarction, cardiac tamponade, and aortic rupture.^2,4,5 If the dissection is limited to the descending aorta, it is classified as a type B AAD and can be medically managed by controlling pain and lowering blood pressure; if symptoms persist, surgical management may be required.² After hospital discharge, AAD patients are followed closely with medical therapy, serial imaging, and reoperation if necessary.⁴

Our patient underwent emergent surgery for aortic root/ascending aortic replacement with a mechanical valve. He tolerated the procedure well. Surgical tissue pathology of the aortic segment showed a wall of elastic vessel with medial degeneration and dissection, and the tissue pathology of the aorta leaflets showed valvular tissue with myxoid degeneration.

THE TAKEAWAY

It is critical to keep AAD in the differential diagnosis of a patient presenting with acute onset of chest pain, as AAD often has an atypical presentation and can easily be misdiagnosed. Effective imaging is crucial to diagnosis, and immediate treatment is essential to patient survival.

CORRESPONDENCE
Rachel A. Reedy, PA, University of Florida, Department of General Pediatrics, 7046 SW Archer Road, Gainesville, FL 32608; [email protected]

Across this period of the pandemic, we’ve spent considerable attention focusing on adaptations to clinical care for pregnant and postpartum women across the board. From the start, this has included a shift to telemedicine for the majority of our patients who come to see us with psychiatric disorders either before, during, or after pregnancy.

Specific issues for perinatal patients since the early days of COVID-19 have included the shifts in women’s plans with respect to delivery as well as the limitation on women’s ability to configure the types of support that they had originally planned on with family, friends, and others during delivery. Telemedicine again helped, at least in part, to fill that void by having online digital support by individuals or groups for both pregnant and postpartum women. These supports were always available, but quickly scaled up during the first 6-9 months of the pandemic and have likely seen their greatest increase in participation in the history of support groups for pregnant and postpartum women.

Similarly, at our own center, we have seen a dramatic increase across the last 10 months in requests for consultation by women with psychiatric disorders who have hopes and plans to conceive, to those who are pregnant or post partum and who are trying to sustain emotional well-being despite the added burden of the pandemic. As we heard similar stories regarding interactions with perinatal patients from reproductive psychiatrists across the country, my colleagues and I had to set up an additional resource, Virtual Rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, which has been mentioned in previous columns, which has only grown during the last 6 months of the pandemic. We have colleagues across the country joining us from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. on Wednesdays after our own faculty rounds, where we perform case reviews of our own patients, and invite our colleagues to share cases that are then reviewed with expert panelists together with our own faculty in a collaborative environment. Feedback from the community of clinicians has indicated that these virtual rounds have been invaluable to their efforts in taking care of women with perinatal psychiatric issues, particularly during the pandemic.

Of particular note during consultations on our service is the number of women coming to see us for questions about the reproductive safety of the medications on which they are maintained. Hundreds of women present to the center each year for the most up-to-date information regarding the reproductive safety of the most commonly used psychiatric medications in reproductive-age women, including antidepressants (SSRIs, serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor), mood stabilizers, lithium, lamotrigine, and atypical antipsychotics, as well as other medicines used to treat symptoms that have been a particular issue during the pandemic, such as insomnia and anxiety (benzodiazepines, nonbenzodiazepines, sedative hypnotics, and medicines such as gabapentin).

While consultation regarding risk of fetal exposure to psychotropics has been the cornerstone of our clinical work for 25 years, it has taken on a particularly critical dimension during the pandemic given the wish that women stay euthymic during the pandemic to limit the possibility of patients needing to present in a clinical space that would increase their risk for COVID-19, and to also minimize their risk for postpartum depression. (Psychiatric disorder during pregnancy remains the strongest predictor of emergence or worsening of underlying illness during the postpartum period.)

It is also noteworthy that, during a pandemic year, publications in reproductive psychiatry have been numerous, and we continue to make an effort at our own center to keep up with this and to share with our colleagues our impression of that literature using the weekly blog at womensmentalhealth.org. Last year brought the largest audience to the blog and visits to womensmentalhealth.org in the history of our center.

A case recently at our center presents a unique opportunity to review a confusing question in reproductive psychiatry over the last 15 years. A woman with a longstanding history of mixed anxiety and depression recently came to see us on a regimen of escitalopram and low-dose benzodiazepine. She was doing well, and she and her husband of 4 years were hopeful about starting to try to conceive despite the pandemic. We reviewed the reproductive safety data of the medicines on which she was maintained and made plans to follow-up as her plans galvanized. She notified me several months later that she had become pregnant but had experienced an early miscarriage. The patient was obviously upset and, as she reflected on her decision to maintain treatment with SSRI during her attempts to conceive and across a very early pregnancy, she queried about the extent to which her SSRI use might have contributed to her miscarriage.

The question about the possible association of antidepressant use during pregnancy and increased risk for miscarriage goes back at least 15 years when there were reports of an increased risk of miscarriage in women taking SSRIs during pregnancy. In that early work, there was an apparent increase in miscarriage in women taking SSRIs relative to a control group, but the rate did not exceed the prevalence of miscarriage in the general population. Since those early reports, we are lucky to have had multiple investigators look very closely at this issue, including one meta-analysis of 11 studies done approximately 8 years ago that failed to show an increased risk of miscarriage in the setting of first trimester exposure to SSRIs.

What has been most problematic methodologically, however, has been the failure to account for the potential role of depression in models that predict risk. A subsequent large epidemiologic study from Denmark evaluating over a million women has looked at this question further. The authors found a slightly increased risk of spontaneous abortion associated with the use of antidepressants (12.0% in women with antidepressant exposure vs. 11.1% in women with no exposure). However, looking only at women with a diagnosis of depression, the adjusted risk ratio for spontaneous abortion after any antidepressant exposure was 1.00 (95% confidence interval, 0.80-1.24). Thus, the researchers concluded that exposure to depression – but not exposure to antidepressant – is associated with a slightly higher risk of miscarriage.

Even more recently, a follow-up study examining this question supports the large epidemiologic study by Kjaersgaard and colleagues. For most readers, this effectively answers this very important question for women about rates of miscarriage associated with fetal exposure to SSRIs.

For the patient who presented at the center, reassuring her with this information felt particularly good, especially within the context of the pandemic. After several months of trying to conceive, she again became pregnant and delivered without difficulty. What was palpable in that clinical scenario, as it relates to the practice of reproductive psychiatry during the pandemic, is the even-greater emotional valence that questions about using psychiatric medications during pregnancy has taken on across these past months. While attention and thoughtful consideration about the relative risks of using psychiatric medications during pregnancy should be standard clinical practice, the level of anxiety associated with decisions to sustain or to discontinue treatment during pregnancy seems to have increased for some patients during the pandemic.

Even as the COVID-19 vaccine initiative across the United States is rolled out, 2021 will continue to be a complicated time for women and families. We still need to be vigilant. In addition to screening for perinatal depression during pregnancy and the postpartum period, we should be equally mindful of screening and treating perinatal anxiety, particularly during this challenging time. The challenge to keep pregnant and postpartum women well is perhaps even greater now, 10 months into the pandemic, than it was when we were in crisis mode in March 2020. As clinicians, we need to mobilize the spectrum of both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatment options to sustain emotional well-being among women planning to conceive as well as those who are pregnant or postpartum as we navigate our way to safer times.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

Across this period of the pandemic, we’ve spent considerable attention focusing on adaptations to clinical care for pregnant and postpartum women across the board. From the start, this has included a shift to telemedicine for the majority of our patients who come to see us with psychiatric disorders either before, during, or after pregnancy.

Specific issues for perinatal patients since the early days of COVID-19 have included the shifts in women’s plans with respect to delivery as well as the limitation on women’s ability to configure the types of support that they had originally planned on with family, friends, and others during delivery. Telemedicine again helped, at least in part, to fill that void by having online digital support by individuals or groups for both pregnant and postpartum women. These supports were always available, but quickly scaled up during the first 6-9 months of the pandemic and have likely seen their greatest increase in participation in the history of support groups for pregnant and postpartum women.

Similarly, at our own center, we have seen a dramatic increase across the last 10 months in requests for consultation by women with psychiatric disorders who have hopes and plans to conceive, to those who are pregnant or post partum and who are trying to sustain emotional well-being despite the added burden of the pandemic. As we heard similar stories regarding interactions with perinatal patients from reproductive psychiatrists across the country, my colleagues and I had to set up an additional resource, Virtual Rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, which has been mentioned in previous columns, which has only grown during the last 6 months of the pandemic. We have colleagues across the country joining us from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. on Wednesdays after our own faculty rounds, where we perform case reviews of our own patients, and invite our colleagues to share cases that are then reviewed with expert panelists together with our own faculty in a collaborative environment. Feedback from the community of clinicians has indicated that these virtual rounds have been invaluable to their efforts in taking care of women with perinatal psychiatric issues, particularly during the pandemic.

Of particular note during consultations on our service is the number of women coming to see us for questions about the reproductive safety of the medications on which they are maintained. Hundreds of women present to the center each year for the most up-to-date information regarding the reproductive safety of the most commonly used psychiatric medications in reproductive-age women, including antidepressants (SSRIs, serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor), mood stabilizers, lithium, lamotrigine, and atypical antipsychotics, as well as other medicines used to treat symptoms that have been a particular issue during the pandemic, such as insomnia and anxiety (benzodiazepines, nonbenzodiazepines, sedative hypnotics, and medicines such as gabapentin).

While consultation regarding risk of fetal exposure to psychotropics has been the cornerstone of our clinical work for 25 years, it has taken on a particularly critical dimension during the pandemic given the wish that women stay euthymic during the pandemic to limit the possibility of patients needing to present in a clinical space that would increase their risk for COVID-19, and to also minimize their risk for postpartum depression. (Psychiatric disorder during pregnancy remains the strongest predictor of emergence or worsening of underlying illness during the postpartum period.)

It is also noteworthy that, during a pandemic year, publications in reproductive psychiatry have been numerous, and we continue to make an effort at our own center to keep up with this and to share with our colleagues our impression of that literature using the weekly blog at womensmentalhealth.org. Last year brought the largest audience to the blog and visits to womensmentalhealth.org in the history of our center.

A case recently at our center presents a unique opportunity to review a confusing question in reproductive psychiatry over the last 15 years. A woman with a longstanding history of mixed anxiety and depression recently came to see us on a regimen of escitalopram and low-dose benzodiazepine. She was doing well, and she and her husband of 4 years were hopeful about starting to try to conceive despite the pandemic. We reviewed the reproductive safety data of the medicines on which she was maintained and made plans to follow-up as her plans galvanized. She notified me several months later that she had become pregnant but had experienced an early miscarriage. The patient was obviously upset and, as she reflected on her decision to maintain treatment with SSRI during her attempts to conceive and across a very early pregnancy, she queried about the extent to which her SSRI use might have contributed to her miscarriage.

The question about the possible association of antidepressant use during pregnancy and increased risk for miscarriage goes back at least 15 years when there were reports of an increased risk of miscarriage in women taking SSRIs during pregnancy. In that early work, there was an apparent increase in miscarriage in women taking SSRIs relative to a control group, but the rate did not exceed the prevalence of miscarriage in the general population. Since those early reports, we are lucky to have had multiple investigators look very closely at this issue, including one meta-analysis of 11 studies done approximately 8 years ago that failed to show an increased risk of miscarriage in the setting of first trimester exposure to SSRIs.

What has been most problematic methodologically, however, has been the failure to account for the potential role of depression in models that predict risk. A subsequent large epidemiologic study from Denmark evaluating over a million women has looked at this question further. The authors found a slightly increased risk of spontaneous abortion associated with the use of antidepressants (12.0% in women with antidepressant exposure vs. 11.1% in women with no exposure). However, looking only at women with a diagnosis of depression, the adjusted risk ratio for spontaneous abortion after any antidepressant exposure was 1.00 (95% confidence interval, 0.80-1.24). Thus, the researchers concluded that exposure to depression – but not exposure to antidepressant – is associated with a slightly higher risk of miscarriage.

Even more recently, a follow-up study examining this question supports the large epidemiologic study by Kjaersgaard and colleagues. For most readers, this effectively answers this very important question for women about rates of miscarriage associated with fetal exposure to SSRIs.

For the patient who presented at the center, reassuring her with this information felt particularly good, especially within the context of the pandemic. After several months of trying to conceive, she again became pregnant and delivered without difficulty. What was palpable in that clinical scenario, as it relates to the practice of reproductive psychiatry during the pandemic, is the even-greater emotional valence that questions about using psychiatric medications during pregnancy has taken on across these past months. While attention and thoughtful consideration about the relative risks of using psychiatric medications during pregnancy should be standard clinical practice, the level of anxiety associated with decisions to sustain or to discontinue treatment during pregnancy seems to have increased for some patients during the pandemic.

Even as the COVID-19 vaccine initiative across the United States is rolled out, 2021 will continue to be a complicated time for women and families. We still need to be vigilant. In addition to screening for perinatal depression during pregnancy and the postpartum period, we should be equally mindful of screening and treating perinatal anxiety, particularly during this challenging time. The challenge to keep pregnant and postpartum women well is perhaps even greater now, 10 months into the pandemic, than it was when we were in crisis mode in March 2020. As clinicians, we need to mobilize the spectrum of both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatment options to sustain emotional well-being among women planning to conceive as well as those who are pregnant or postpartum as we navigate our way to safer times.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

Across this period of the pandemic, we’ve spent considerable attention focusing on adaptations to clinical care for pregnant and postpartum women across the board. From the start, this has included a shift to telemedicine for the majority of our patients who come to see us with psychiatric disorders either before, during, or after pregnancy.

Specific issues for perinatal patients since the early days of COVID-19 have included the shifts in women’s plans with respect to delivery as well as the limitation on women’s ability to configure the types of support that they had originally planned on with family, friends, and others during delivery. Telemedicine again helped, at least in part, to fill that void by having online digital support by individuals or groups for both pregnant and postpartum women. These supports were always available, but quickly scaled up during the first 6-9 months of the pandemic and have likely seen their greatest increase in participation in the history of support groups for pregnant and postpartum women.

Similarly, at our own center, we have seen a dramatic increase across the last 10 months in requests for consultation by women with psychiatric disorders who have hopes and plans to conceive, to those who are pregnant or post partum and who are trying to sustain emotional well-being despite the added burden of the pandemic. As we heard similar stories regarding interactions with perinatal patients from reproductive psychiatrists across the country, my colleagues and I had to set up an additional resource, Virtual Rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, which has been mentioned in previous columns, which has only grown during the last 6 months of the pandemic. We have colleagues across the country joining us from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. on Wednesdays after our own faculty rounds, where we perform case reviews of our own patients, and invite our colleagues to share cases that are then reviewed with expert panelists together with our own faculty in a collaborative environment. Feedback from the community of clinicians has indicated that these virtual rounds have been invaluable to their efforts in taking care of women with perinatal psychiatric issues, particularly during the pandemic.

Of particular note during consultations on our service is the number of women coming to see us for questions about the reproductive safety of the medications on which they are maintained. Hundreds of women present to the center each year for the most up-to-date information regarding the reproductive safety of the most commonly used psychiatric medications in reproductive-age women, including antidepressants (SSRIs, serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor), mood stabilizers, lithium, lamotrigine, and atypical antipsychotics, as well as other medicines used to treat symptoms that have been a particular issue during the pandemic, such as insomnia and anxiety (benzodiazepines, nonbenzodiazepines, sedative hypnotics, and medicines such as gabapentin).

While consultation regarding risk of fetal exposure to psychotropics has been the cornerstone of our clinical work for 25 years, it has taken on a particularly critical dimension during the pandemic given the wish that women stay euthymic during the pandemic to limit the possibility of patients needing to present in a clinical space that would increase their risk for COVID-19, and to also minimize their risk for postpartum depression. (Psychiatric disorder during pregnancy remains the strongest predictor of emergence or worsening of underlying illness during the postpartum period.)

It is also noteworthy that, during a pandemic year, publications in reproductive psychiatry have been numerous, and we continue to make an effort at our own center to keep up with this and to share with our colleagues our impression of that literature using the weekly blog at womensmentalhealth.org. Last year brought the largest audience to the blog and visits to womensmentalhealth.org in the history of our center.

A case recently at our center presents a unique opportunity to review a confusing question in reproductive psychiatry over the last 15 years. A woman with a longstanding history of mixed anxiety and depression recently came to see us on a regimen of escitalopram and low-dose benzodiazepine. She was doing well, and she and her husband of 4 years were hopeful about starting to try to conceive despite the pandemic. We reviewed the reproductive safety data of the medicines on which she was maintained and made plans to follow-up as her plans galvanized. She notified me several months later that she had become pregnant but had experienced an early miscarriage. The patient was obviously upset and, as she reflected on her decision to maintain treatment with SSRI during her attempts to conceive and across a very early pregnancy, she queried about the extent to which her SSRI use might have contributed to her miscarriage.

The question about the possible association of antidepressant use during pregnancy and increased risk for miscarriage goes back at least 15 years when there were reports of an increased risk of miscarriage in women taking SSRIs during pregnancy. In that early work, there was an apparent increase in miscarriage in women taking SSRIs relative to a control group, but the rate did not exceed the prevalence of miscarriage in the general population. Since those early reports, we are lucky to have had multiple investigators look very closely at this issue, including one meta-analysis of 11 studies done approximately 8 years ago that failed to show an increased risk of miscarriage in the setting of first trimester exposure to SSRIs.

What has been most problematic methodologically, however, has been the failure to account for the potential role of depression in models that predict risk. A subsequent large epidemiologic study from Denmark evaluating over a million women has looked at this question further. The authors found a slightly increased risk of spontaneous abortion associated with the use of antidepressants (12.0% in women with antidepressant exposure vs. 11.1% in women with no exposure). However, looking only at women with a diagnosis of depression, the adjusted risk ratio for spontaneous abortion after any antidepressant exposure was 1.00 (95% confidence interval, 0.80-1.24). Thus, the researchers concluded that exposure to depression – but not exposure to antidepressant – is associated with a slightly higher risk of miscarriage.

Even more recently, a follow-up study examining this question supports the large epidemiologic study by Kjaersgaard and colleagues. For most readers, this effectively answers this very important question for women about rates of miscarriage associated with fetal exposure to SSRIs.

For the patient who presented at the center, reassuring her with this information felt particularly good, especially within the context of the pandemic. After several months of trying to conceive, she again became pregnant and delivered without difficulty. What was palpable in that clinical scenario, as it relates to the practice of reproductive psychiatry during the pandemic, is the even-greater emotional valence that questions about using psychiatric medications during pregnancy has taken on across these past months. While attention and thoughtful consideration about the relative risks of using psychiatric medications during pregnancy should be standard clinical practice, the level of anxiety associated with decisions to sustain or to discontinue treatment during pregnancy seems to have increased for some patients during the pandemic.

Even as the COVID-19 vaccine initiative across the United States is rolled out, 2021 will continue to be a complicated time for women and families. We still need to be vigilant. In addition to screening for perinatal depression during pregnancy and the postpartum period, we should be equally mindful of screening and treating perinatal anxiety, particularly during this challenging time. The challenge to keep pregnant and postpartum women well is perhaps even greater now, 10 months into the pandemic, than it was when we were in crisis mode in March 2020. As clinicians, we need to mobilize the spectrum of both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatment options to sustain emotional well-being among women planning to conceive as well as those who are pregnant or postpartum as we navigate our way to safer times.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

This moment, for which I am so grateful and fortunate, represents a link in a remarkable chain of events that spans decades and represents the acme of human achievement.

Courtesy Barry Aaronson, MD

My gratitude starts with scientists who years before this pandemic, perfected the ability to extract DNA from viruses, sequence it, and transcribe it to RNA. From there my gratitude goes to scientists who years ago developed an ingenious animal model for mRNA vaccines. The next link of gratitude is for scientists who at the start of this year quickly identified a deadly novel coronavirus and to scientists who rapidly sequenced its villainous DNA.

Next, I give thanks to scientists who promptly identified the segment of that DNA that codes for the spike proteins that the virus uses to invade our cells. And then I am grateful to the scientists who made the mRNA that corresponds to that specific DNA sequence, and to the scientists who figured out how create a lipid womb to protect that precious mRNA payload during its perilous journey from factory floor to the depths of our deltoid musculature.

I am no less grateful to the brave people who volunteered for the Pfizer trial, taking the risk of being the first humans ever to participate in an mRNA trial with stakes so high, and to the investigators who ran that trial and the scientists at Pfizer, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Western Coalition who reviewed the data and approved the vaccine without bowing to political pressure.

My gratitude extends to the factory workers who manufactured the vaccine in mass quantities, and the workers who manufactured the equipment that those factories rely on, and the pilots of planes and drivers of trucks who transported the vaccine to my hospital in Seattle, and to the workers who made those planes and trucks that carried that precious cargo. And the workers who devised super-cold storage systems and the workers who built those systems, and the people who fed them and clothed them and housed them so that they could do this life-saving work.

And to the leaders at my hospital who devised our immunization plan, and the ethicists who figured out who should go first (thanks Nancy), and the workers who made the glass vials to hold the vaccine, the plastic syringes to deliver it precisely, and surgically sharp needles so that there would be no pain whatsoever when those beautiful little mRNA filled lipid particles got injected into my left deltoid muscle by a highly skilled and compassionate nurse.

From there, the miracle of nature takes hold causing my cells to transcribe that RNA into spike proteins which will trigger my magical B-cells and T-cells to recognize that nasty spike protein as foreign in case it ever shows its ugly head to my respiratory mucosa, where these cells and the antibodies and chemicals they produce would stomp that wretched virus down without me ever knowing it or missing a beat, and keep me safe not only to live and thrive another day but also hopefully prevent me from spreading the virus to those I love and others I don’t even know but pass within just feet of.

For these miracles of nature and the chain of human toil and genius involving innumerable individuals over many years, many whom will never be thanked or recognized, I am truly and forever grateful.

Dr. Aaronson is a hospitalist and chief medical informatics officer at Virginia Mason Medical Center in Seattle.

This moment, for which I am so grateful and fortunate, represents a link in a remarkable chain of events that spans decades and represents the acme of human achievement.

Courtesy Barry Aaronson, MD

My gratitude starts with scientists who years before this pandemic, perfected the ability to extract DNA from viruses, sequence it, and transcribe it to RNA. From there my gratitude goes to scientists who years ago developed an ingenious animal model for mRNA vaccines. The next link of gratitude is for scientists who at the start of this year quickly identified a deadly novel coronavirus and to scientists who rapidly sequenced its villainous DNA.

Next, I give thanks to scientists who promptly identified the segment of that DNA that codes for the spike proteins that the virus uses to invade our cells. And then I am grateful to the scientists who made the mRNA that corresponds to that specific DNA sequence, and to the scientists who figured out how create a lipid womb to protect that precious mRNA payload during its perilous journey from factory floor to the depths of our deltoid musculature.

I am no less grateful to the brave people who volunteered for the Pfizer trial, taking the risk of being the first humans ever to participate in an mRNA trial with stakes so high, and to the investigators who ran that trial and the scientists at Pfizer, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Western Coalition who reviewed the data and approved the vaccine without bowing to political pressure.

My gratitude extends to the factory workers who manufactured the vaccine in mass quantities, and the workers who manufactured the equipment that those factories rely on, and the pilots of planes and drivers of trucks who transported the vaccine to my hospital in Seattle, and to the workers who made those planes and trucks that carried that precious cargo. And the workers who devised super-cold storage systems and the workers who built those systems, and the people who fed them and clothed them and housed them so that they could do this life-saving work.

And to the leaders at my hospital who devised our immunization plan, and the ethicists who figured out who should go first (thanks Nancy), and the workers who made the glass vials to hold the vaccine, the plastic syringes to deliver it precisely, and surgically sharp needles so that there would be no pain whatsoever when those beautiful little mRNA filled lipid particles got injected into my left deltoid muscle by a highly skilled and compassionate nurse.

From there, the miracle of nature takes hold causing my cells to transcribe that RNA into spike proteins which will trigger my magical B-cells and T-cells to recognize that nasty spike protein as foreign in case it ever shows its ugly head to my respiratory mucosa, where these cells and the antibodies and chemicals they produce would stomp that wretched virus down without me ever knowing it or missing a beat, and keep me safe not only to live and thrive another day but also hopefully prevent me from spreading the virus to those I love and others I don’t even know but pass within just feet of.

For these miracles of nature and the chain of human toil and genius involving innumerable individuals over many years, many whom will never be thanked or recognized, I am truly and forever grateful.

Dr. Aaronson is a hospitalist and chief medical informatics officer at Virginia Mason Medical Center in Seattle.

This moment, for which I am so grateful and fortunate, represents a link in a remarkable chain of events that spans decades and represents the acme of human achievement.

Courtesy Barry Aaronson, MD

My gratitude starts with scientists who years before this pandemic, perfected the ability to extract DNA from viruses, sequence it, and transcribe it to RNA. From there my gratitude goes to scientists who years ago developed an ingenious animal model for mRNA vaccines. The next link of gratitude is for scientists who at the start of this year quickly identified a deadly novel coronavirus and to scientists who rapidly sequenced its villainous DNA.

Next, I give thanks to scientists who promptly identified the segment of that DNA that codes for the spike proteins that the virus uses to invade our cells. And then I am grateful to the scientists who made the mRNA that corresponds to that specific DNA sequence, and to the scientists who figured out how create a lipid womb to protect that precious mRNA payload during its perilous journey from factory floor to the depths of our deltoid musculature.

I am no less grateful to the brave people who volunteered for the Pfizer trial, taking the risk of being the first humans ever to participate in an mRNA trial with stakes so high, and to the investigators who ran that trial and the scientists at Pfizer, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Western Coalition who reviewed the data and approved the vaccine without bowing to political pressure.

My gratitude extends to the factory workers who manufactured the vaccine in mass quantities, and the workers who manufactured the equipment that those factories rely on, and the pilots of planes and drivers of trucks who transported the vaccine to my hospital in Seattle, and to the workers who made those planes and trucks that carried that precious cargo. And the workers who devised super-cold storage systems and the workers who built those systems, and the people who fed them and clothed them and housed them so that they could do this life-saving work.

And to the leaders at my hospital who devised our immunization plan, and the ethicists who figured out who should go first (thanks Nancy), and the workers who made the glass vials to hold the vaccine, the plastic syringes to deliver it precisely, and surgically sharp needles so that there would be no pain whatsoever when those beautiful little mRNA filled lipid particles got injected into my left deltoid muscle by a highly skilled and compassionate nurse.

From there, the miracle of nature takes hold causing my cells to transcribe that RNA into spike proteins which will trigger my magical B-cells and T-cells to recognize that nasty spike protein as foreign in case it ever shows its ugly head to my respiratory mucosa, where these cells and the antibodies and chemicals they produce would stomp that wretched virus down without me ever knowing it or missing a beat, and keep me safe not only to live and thrive another day but also hopefully prevent me from spreading the virus to those I love and others I don’t even know but pass within just feet of.

For these miracles of nature and the chain of human toil and genius involving innumerable individuals over many years, many whom will never be thanked or recognized, I am truly and forever grateful.

Dr. Aaronson is a hospitalist and chief medical informatics officer at Virginia Mason Medical Center in Seattle.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 57-year-old man who was given a diagnosis of T2D a year ago presents for an office visit. His hemoglobin A1C level at diagnosis was 8.3%. He is otherwise healthy and has been adhering well to a plan of metformin 1000 mg twice daily, regular exercise, and a low-­carbohydrate diet you recommended. His most recent hemoglobin A1C is 7.3%. He is pleased with his progress, so he is discouraged when you tell him that he is not yet at goal. He asks if there are other things that he can do to further lower his hemoglobin A1C. What can you recommend for him?

According to the National Diabetes Statistics Report, 2020 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 34.1 million US adults ≥ 18 years of age (13% of the adult population) have diabetes, 50% of whom have a hemoglobin A1C > 7%. The report also states that approximately 88 million US adults—more than one-third of the population—have prediabetes.²

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) estimated that diabetes-related health care costs in the United States for 2017 totaled $237 billion, an increase of 26% from 2012. More than $30 billion of this expense comes directly from diabetes medications; the remainder of these costs are related to lost wages, clinic visits, hospitalizations, and treatment for diabetic complications and comorbidities. After controlling for age and gender, medical expenditures for people with diabetes are 2.3 times higher than for those without diabetes.³

The 2019 ADA Nutrition Therapy for Adults With Diabetes or Prediabetes: A Consensus Report makes general recommendations concerning fiber intake for patients with diabetes or prediabetes, stating that these patients should consume approximately 14 g of fiber for every 1000 kcal consumed, giving preference to whole-food sources rather than supplements.⁴ The report indicates that some studies have shown hemoglobin A1C reductions of 0.2% to 0.3% with daily fiber intake exceeding 50 g. However, this level of intake can cause unpleasant gastrointestinal adverse effects, including bloating, diarrhea, and flatulence.^4,5

STUDY SUMMARY

Effect on A1C exceeded the FDA threshold for new drugs

This systematic review and meta-analysis searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify randomized controlled trials that studied the effects of viscous fiber supplementation on glycemic control in patients with T2D. Eligible studies included those that: (1) had a duration ≥ 3 weeks; (2) allowed isolation of the viscous fiber effects; and (3) reported at least 1 of the following glycemic measures: hemoglobin A1C (n = 1148 patients), fasting glucose (n = 1394), fasting insulin (n = 228), homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR; n = 652), and fructosamine (n = 23).

As an adjunct to standard of care, viscous fiber supplements significantly improved hemoglobin A1C and other glycemic markers in patients with T2D.

Data were pooled using the generic inverse variance method and expressed as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed and quantified (Cochran Q and I² statistics, respectively). I² ≥ 50% indicates substantial heterogeneity. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to evaluate the overall strength of evidence.

Twenty-eight eligible studies were compared. The median age of included patients was 60 years. The median dose of viscous fiber was 13.1 g/d (range, 2.55-21). Viscous fiber type varied between the studies and included psyllium, guar gum, β-glucan, and konjac, and was consumed in powder, tablet, capsule, and limited food-based forms (in 1 of the included studies). The median trial duration was 8 weeks, with 11 trials lasting ≥ 12 weeks.

Continue to: The study found...

The study found moderate-grade evidence that, when added to standard of care, viscous fiber supplementation reduced hemoglobin A1C (MD = –0.58%; 95% CI, –0.88 to –0.28; P = .0002; I² = 91%), fasting glucose (MD = –14.8 mg/dL; 95% CI, –23.8 to –5.58; P = .001; I² = 92%), and HOMA-IR (MD = –1.89; 95% CI, –3.45 to –0.33; P = .02; I² = 94%) compared with control. The effect on hemoglobin A1C exceeds the ≥ 0.3% threshold established by the US Food and Drug Administration for new antihyperglycemic drug development. There was no significant effect on fasting insulin or fructosamine, although the sample size for fructosamine was small. No significant evidence of a dose-dependent response effect was found. The studies had substantial heterogeneity. No evaluation of potential or real harm was noted in the analysis.

WHAT’S NEW

Potential glycemic benefit without large dietary increase

The glucose-lowering effects of increased fiber intake have often been hypothesized, but this meta-analysis is the first to focus specifically on the effect of viscous fiber supplements in patients with T2D. Prior meta-analyses, including those cited in the 2019 ADA recommendations mentioned above, included primarily whole-food dietary sources of fiber in the treatment arms and generally had more modest effects on outcomes.^4,6,7

By focusing on viscous fiber supplements, this study isolated the effect of these supplements vs fiber-rich dietary changes. It illustrates a greater potential benefit with supplements than whole-food dietary ­sources of fiber, and at a lower dose of fiber than was seen in prior studies without requiring substantial increases in caloric intake. Viscous fiber supplementation is a potential adjunct to the usual evidence-based standards of care for glycemic control in patients with T2D.

CAVEATS

Limited study durations may raise uncertainty about long-term benefits

This meta-analysis does have its limitations. The heterogeneity among the studies analyzed makes it difficult to establish a single recommendation regarding dose, type, and brand of fiber to be used. Only 11 of the 28 studies lasted longer than 12 weeks, with a median duration of 8 weeks, making any long-term effects on hemoglobin A1C unknown. No adverse effects or reactions were described to evaluate safety and tolerability of the viscous fiber supplementation. No patient-oriented outcomes were reported.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Patients may not be eager to supplement with viscous fiber

The biggest challenge to implementation is patient compliance. Some forms of supplemental fiber are less palatable than others and may cause unpleasant gastrointestinal adverse effects, which may be an impediment for some patients. Cost may also be an issue for some patients. Diabetes medications can be expensive; however, they are often covered, at least partially, by medical insurance. Over-the-counter supplements are unlikely to be covered for most patients.

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 57-year-old man who was given a diagnosis of T2D a year ago presents for an office visit. His hemoglobin A1C level at diagnosis was 8.3%. He is otherwise healthy and has been adhering well to a plan of metformin 1000 mg twice daily, regular exercise, and a low-­carbohydrate diet you recommended. His most recent hemoglobin A1C is 7.3%. He is pleased with his progress, so he is discouraged when you tell him that he is not yet at goal. He asks if there are other things that he can do to further lower his hemoglobin A1C. What can you recommend for him?

According to the National Diabetes Statistics Report, 2020 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 34.1 million US adults ≥ 18 years of age (13% of the adult population) have diabetes, 50% of whom have a hemoglobin A1C > 7%. The report also states that approximately 88 million US adults—more than one-third of the population—have prediabetes.²

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) estimated that diabetes-related health care costs in the United States for 2017 totaled $237 billion, an increase of 26% from 2012. More than $30 billion of this expense comes directly from diabetes medications; the remainder of these costs are related to lost wages, clinic visits, hospitalizations, and treatment for diabetic complications and comorbidities. After controlling for age and gender, medical expenditures for people with diabetes are 2.3 times higher than for those without diabetes.³

The 2019 ADA Nutrition Therapy for Adults With Diabetes or Prediabetes: A Consensus Report makes general recommendations concerning fiber intake for patients with diabetes or prediabetes, stating that these patients should consume approximately 14 g of fiber for every 1000 kcal consumed, giving preference to whole-food sources rather than supplements.⁴ The report indicates that some studies have shown hemoglobin A1C reductions of 0.2% to 0.3% with daily fiber intake exceeding 50 g. However, this level of intake can cause unpleasant gastrointestinal adverse effects, including bloating, diarrhea, and flatulence.^4,5

STUDY SUMMARY

Effect on A1C exceeded the FDA threshold for new drugs

This systematic review and meta-analysis searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify randomized controlled trials that studied the effects of viscous fiber supplementation on glycemic control in patients with T2D. Eligible studies included those that: (1) had a duration ≥ 3 weeks; (2) allowed isolation of the viscous fiber effects; and (3) reported at least 1 of the following glycemic measures: hemoglobin A1C (n = 1148 patients), fasting glucose (n = 1394), fasting insulin (n = 228), homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR; n = 652), and fructosamine (n = 23).

As an adjunct to standard of care, viscous fiber supplements significantly improved hemoglobin A1C and other glycemic markers in patients with T2D.

Data were pooled using the generic inverse variance method and expressed as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed and quantified (Cochran Q and I² statistics, respectively). I² ≥ 50% indicates substantial heterogeneity. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to evaluate the overall strength of evidence.

Twenty-eight eligible studies were compared. The median age of included patients was 60 years. The median dose of viscous fiber was 13.1 g/d (range, 2.55-21). Viscous fiber type varied between the studies and included psyllium, guar gum, β-glucan, and konjac, and was consumed in powder, tablet, capsule, and limited food-based forms (in 1 of the included studies). The median trial duration was 8 weeks, with 11 trials lasting ≥ 12 weeks.

Continue to: The study found...

The study found moderate-grade evidence that, when added to standard of care, viscous fiber supplementation reduced hemoglobin A1C (MD = –0.58%; 95% CI, –0.88 to –0.28; P = .0002; I² = 91%), fasting glucose (MD = –14.8 mg/dL; 95% CI, –23.8 to –5.58; P = .001; I² = 92%), and HOMA-IR (MD = –1.89; 95% CI, –3.45 to –0.33; P = .02; I² = 94%) compared with control. The effect on hemoglobin A1C exceeds the ≥ 0.3% threshold established by the US Food and Drug Administration for new antihyperglycemic drug development. There was no significant effect on fasting insulin or fructosamine, although the sample size for fructosamine was small. No significant evidence of a dose-dependent response effect was found. The studies had substantial heterogeneity. No evaluation of potential or real harm was noted in the analysis.

WHAT’S NEW

Potential glycemic benefit without large dietary increase

The glucose-lowering effects of increased fiber intake have often been hypothesized, but this meta-analysis is the first to focus specifically on the effect of viscous fiber supplements in patients with T2D. Prior meta-analyses, including those cited in the 2019 ADA recommendations mentioned above, included primarily whole-food dietary sources of fiber in the treatment arms and generally had more modest effects on outcomes.^4,6,7

By focusing on viscous fiber supplements, this study isolated the effect of these supplements vs fiber-rich dietary changes. It illustrates a greater potential benefit with supplements than whole-food dietary ­sources of fiber, and at a lower dose of fiber than was seen in prior studies without requiring substantial increases in caloric intake. Viscous fiber supplementation is a potential adjunct to the usual evidence-based standards of care for glycemic control in patients with T2D.

CAVEATS

Limited study durations may raise uncertainty about long-term benefits

This meta-analysis does have its limitations. The heterogeneity among the studies analyzed makes it difficult to establish a single recommendation regarding dose, type, and brand of fiber to be used. Only 11 of the 28 studies lasted longer than 12 weeks, with a median duration of 8 weeks, making any long-term effects on hemoglobin A1C unknown. No adverse effects or reactions were described to evaluate safety and tolerability of the viscous fiber supplementation. No patient-oriented outcomes were reported.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Patients may not be eager to supplement with viscous fiber

The biggest challenge to implementation is patient compliance. Some forms of supplemental fiber are less palatable than others and may cause unpleasant gastrointestinal adverse effects, which may be an impediment for some patients. Cost may also be an issue for some patients. Diabetes medications can be expensive; however, they are often covered, at least partially, by medical insurance. Over-the-counter supplements are unlikely to be covered for most patients.

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 57-year-old man who was given a diagnosis of T2D a year ago presents for an office visit. His hemoglobin A1C level at diagnosis was 8.3%. He is otherwise healthy and has been adhering well to a plan of metformin 1000 mg twice daily, regular exercise, and a low-­carbohydrate diet you recommended. His most recent hemoglobin A1C is 7.3%. He is pleased with his progress, so he is discouraged when you tell him that he is not yet at goal. He asks if there are other things that he can do to further lower his hemoglobin A1C. What can you recommend for him?

According to the National Diabetes Statistics Report, 2020 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 34.1 million US adults ≥ 18 years of age (13% of the adult population) have diabetes, 50% of whom have a hemoglobin A1C > 7%. The report also states that approximately 88 million US adults—more than one-third of the population—have prediabetes.²

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) estimated that diabetes-related health care costs in the United States for 2017 totaled $237 billion, an increase of 26% from 2012. More than $30 billion of this expense comes directly from diabetes medications; the remainder of these costs are related to lost wages, clinic visits, hospitalizations, and treatment for diabetic complications and comorbidities. After controlling for age and gender, medical expenditures for people with diabetes are 2.3 times higher than for those without diabetes.³

The 2019 ADA Nutrition Therapy for Adults With Diabetes or Prediabetes: A Consensus Report makes general recommendations concerning fiber intake for patients with diabetes or prediabetes, stating that these patients should consume approximately 14 g of fiber for every 1000 kcal consumed, giving preference to whole-food sources rather than supplements.⁴ The report indicates that some studies have shown hemoglobin A1C reductions of 0.2% to 0.3% with daily fiber intake exceeding 50 g. However, this level of intake can cause unpleasant gastrointestinal adverse effects, including bloating, diarrhea, and flatulence.^4,5

STUDY SUMMARY

Effect on A1C exceeded the FDA threshold for new drugs

This systematic review and meta-analysis searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify randomized controlled trials that studied the effects of viscous fiber supplementation on glycemic control in patients with T2D. Eligible studies included those that: (1) had a duration ≥ 3 weeks; (2) allowed isolation of the viscous fiber effects; and (3) reported at least 1 of the following glycemic measures: hemoglobin A1C (n = 1148 patients), fasting glucose (n = 1394), fasting insulin (n = 228), homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR; n = 652), and fructosamine (n = 23).

As an adjunct to standard of care, viscous fiber supplements significantly improved hemoglobin A1C and other glycemic markers in patients with T2D.

Data were pooled using the generic inverse variance method and expressed as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed and quantified (Cochran Q and I² statistics, respectively). I² ≥ 50% indicates substantial heterogeneity. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to evaluate the overall strength of evidence.

Twenty-eight eligible studies were compared. The median age of included patients was 60 years. The median dose of viscous fiber was 13.1 g/d (range, 2.55-21). Viscous fiber type varied between the studies and included psyllium, guar gum, β-glucan, and konjac, and was consumed in powder, tablet, capsule, and limited food-based forms (in 1 of the included studies). The median trial duration was 8 weeks, with 11 trials lasting ≥ 12 weeks.

Continue to: The study found...

The study found moderate-grade evidence that, when added to standard of care, viscous fiber supplementation reduced hemoglobin A1C (MD = –0.58%; 95% CI, –0.88 to –0.28; P = .0002; I² = 91%), fasting glucose (MD = –14.8 mg/dL; 95% CI, –23.8 to –5.58; P = .001; I² = 92%), and HOMA-IR (MD = –1.89; 95% CI, –3.45 to –0.33; P = .02; I² = 94%) compared with control. The effect on hemoglobin A1C exceeds the ≥ 0.3% threshold established by the US Food and Drug Administration for new antihyperglycemic drug development. There was no significant effect on fasting insulin or fructosamine, although the sample size for fructosamine was small. No significant evidence of a dose-dependent response effect was found. The studies had substantial heterogeneity. No evaluation of potential or real harm was noted in the analysis.

WHAT’S NEW

Potential glycemic benefit without large dietary increase

The glucose-lowering effects of increased fiber intake have often been hypothesized, but this meta-analysis is the first to focus specifically on the effect of viscous fiber supplements in patients with T2D. Prior meta-analyses, including those cited in the 2019 ADA recommendations mentioned above, included primarily whole-food dietary sources of fiber in the treatment arms and generally had more modest effects on outcomes.^4,6,7

By focusing on viscous fiber supplements, this study isolated the effect of these supplements vs fiber-rich dietary changes. It illustrates a greater potential benefit with supplements than whole-food dietary ­sources of fiber, and at a lower dose of fiber than was seen in prior studies without requiring substantial increases in caloric intake. Viscous fiber supplementation is a potential adjunct to the usual evidence-based standards of care for glycemic control in patients with T2D.

CAVEATS

Limited study durations may raise uncertainty about long-term benefits

This meta-analysis does have its limitations. The heterogeneity among the studies analyzed makes it difficult to establish a single recommendation regarding dose, type, and brand of fiber to be used. Only 11 of the 28 studies lasted longer than 12 weeks, with a median duration of 8 weeks, making any long-term effects on hemoglobin A1C unknown. No adverse effects or reactions were described to evaluate safety and tolerability of the viscous fiber supplementation. No patient-oriented outcomes were reported.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Patients may not be eager to supplement with viscous fiber

The biggest challenge to implementation is patient compliance. Some forms of supplemental fiber are less palatable than others and may cause unpleasant gastrointestinal adverse effects, which may be an impediment for some patients. Cost may also be an issue for some patients. Diabetes medications can be expensive; however, they are often covered, at least partially, by medical insurance. Over-the-counter supplements are unlikely to be covered for most patients.

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.

THE CASE

Emily T.* is a 15-year-old, cisgender, homeless runaway. While on the streets, she was lured to a hotel where a “pimp” informed her she was going to work for him. She repeatedly tried to leave, but he would strike her, so she eventually succumbed. She was forced to have sex with several men and rarely allowed to use condoms.

On 1 occasion, when she went to a hospital with her pimp to visit a patient, her aunt (a nurse on duty at that facility) saw Ms. T and called the police. The pimp was arrested. Ms. T was interviewed by the police and gave a statement but refused a forensic exam.

Because of her involvement with the pimp, she was incarcerated. In prison, she was seen by a physician. On evaluation, she reported difficulty sleeping, flashbacks, and feelings of shame and guilt.¹

● How would you proceed with this patient?

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

Child and adolescent sex trafficking is defined as the sexual exploitation of minors through force, fraud, or coercion. Specifically, it includes the recruitment, harboring, transportation, or advertising of a minor, and includes the exchange of anything of value in return for sexual activity. Commercial sexual exploitation and sex trafficking against minors include crimes such as prostitution; survival sex (exchanging sex/sexual acts for money or something of value, such as shelter, food, or drugs); pornography; sex tourism, mail-order-bride trade, and early marriage; or sexual performances (peep shows or strip clubs).²

Providing optimal care for children and adolescents exploited by sex trafficking depends on knowing risk factors, having an awareness of recommended screening and assessment tools, and employing a trauma-­informed approach to interviews, examination, and support.²

Continue to: Recognize clues to trafficking

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) offers a framework for trafficking prevention. Health care providers are encouraged to use the CDC Social-Ecological Model which describes targeted prevention strategies at the individual, relationship, community, and societal levels.³

Risk factors for entering trafficking. Younger age increases a child’s vulnerability to exploitation, due to a lack of maturity, limited cognitive development, and ease of deception. The mean age of trafficking survivors is 15 years.⁴ History of child abuse and other traumatic experiences can lead children to run away from home. It is estimated that, once on the streets, most teens will be recruited by a trafficker within 48 hours.⁵ Poor self-esteem, depression, substance abuse, history of truancy, and early sexual maturation also increase the risk of becoming involved in trafficking (TABLE 1).^2,6-8

Clinical findings suggestive of trafficking. Many physicians grasp the critical role they play in confronting trafficking, but they lack specific training, experience, and assessment tools.³ Notably, in 1 retrospective study, 46% of victims had been seen by a provider within the previous 2 months.⁶ One of the major challenges to identifying survivors of trafficking is to recognize critical signs, of which there are many (TABLE 1^2,6-8). Often these include a history of sexual assault, multiple pregnancies, requests for contraception at an early age, or evidence of physical injury.

Screen to identify trafficking

Universal, validated screening tools to accurately identify trafficked youth is an area of growing research. Some tools have been validated, but only for specific populations such as homeless or incarcerated youth or in emergency department (ED) patients. Tools for sex trafficking identification that may be useful in primary care include the Child Sex Trafficking (CST) screen validated in ED settings (TABLE 2),⁹ the Commercial Sexual Exploitation-Identification Tool (CSE-IT) in multiple settings (TABLE 3),^10,11 and the Quick Youth Indicators for Trafficking (QYIT) in homeless youth (TABLE 4).¹¹ The QYIT is the first validated labor and sex trafficking screening tool in homeless young adults. Children who screen positive for sex trafficking should be further assessed using a comprehensive tool.

Barriers to effective recognition of trafficked individuals. Financial factors limit access to health care. Also, survivors have cited multiple barriers for health professionals that prevent identification of survivors’ trafficked status.^12,13 Once in the medical setting, disclosure is impacted by time constraints, fear of judgment by clinicians, and the risk of re-traumatization. Survivors have also cited lack of privacy, control strategies by their traffickers, lack of provider empathy, and fear of police as barriers to disclosure.¹⁴

Continue to: The medical impact of trafficking

The medical impact of trafficking

Sexual exploitation is a traumatic experience that is known to cause harm across multiple domains including serious physical injuries related to violence, as well as reproductive and mental health consequences.^15,16

Acute and chronic illnesses. In an initial evaluation, assess the survivor’s acute medical conditions (TABLE 5).^15,16 Common acute issues include physical injuries due to assault, infections, and reproductive complications.¹⁷ Health concerns can also result from stressors such as deprivation of food and sleep, hazardous living conditions, and limited access to care.¹⁷

Suspect possible sex trafficking when a patient has a history of sexual assault and multiple pregnancies, requests contraception at an early age, and/or has evidence of physical injury.

As part of caring for sex-trafficking survivors, assess for, and treat, chronic health issues such as pain, gastrointestinal complaints, poor dental care, malnutrition, and fatigue.^16,18 Substance use, as well as chronic mental health concerns (eg, anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD]) may also influence the clinical presentation.

Physical injuries. A cross-sectional study of female survivors of sex trafficking in the United States found that 89% sustained physical injury resulting from violence, including fractures, open wounds, head injury, dental problems, burns, and anogenital trauma.^16,17 In many cases, acute injury may not be present in the clinical setting since care is often delayed, but a full examination can reveal signs of prior trauma.¹⁶

Reproductive health concerns. Significant, long-term impact on reproductive health can result due to forced penetration by multiple perpetrators, sodomy, and sex without protection or lubricants. Survivors are therefore at high risk for unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted infections (STIs), pelvic pain, and infertility.¹⁶

Continue to: Psychological effects and trauma exposure

Psychological effects and trauma exposure. Survivors often have experienced abuse and neglect prior to commercial exploitation, and they may exhibit long-term sequelae. Survivors may present with major depression, anxiety, panic attacks, suicidality, addiction, PTSD, or aggression.¹⁶ Long-term sequelae for patients can include dysfunctional relationships due to an inability to trust, self-destructive behaviors, and significant shame.^2,18

Care and treatment of trafficked youth

Initial presentation may occur in a variety of health care settings. Use a trauma-informed approach emphasizing physical and emotional safety and positive relationships, to reduce risk to the survivor, staff, and providers.¹⁹ Establishing trust and rapport may provide better short-term safety, as well as help build stronger long-term relationships that can lead to better health outcomes.

Clinical examination. Provide traumatized patients with a sense of safety, control, and autonomy in the health care setting. During the physical exam, be aware of the impact of re-traumatization as patients are asked to undress, endure sensitive examinations, and undergo invasive procedures. Explain the examination, ask for permission at each step, and use slow movements. Allow the patient to guide certain sensitive exams.¹⁵ Adopt an approach that recognizes the impact of trauma, avoids revictimization, and acknowledges the resilience of survivors.²⁰

Treatment plan. After the initial exam, treat acute physical injuries and determine if any further testing is needed. Offer emergency contraception, STI prophylaxis, pre-exposure prophylaxis, and vaccines.¹⁵ After assessing patient readiness, offer local resources, identify safe methods for communication, identify individuals who could intervene in a crisis, and consider a safety plan (TABLE 6).

Coordination of care. Consider referrals to behavioral health services, substance recovery centers, food programs, housing resources, and a primary care clinic.¹⁵ ED clinicians may be asked to complete a sexual or physical assault forensic examination. After obtaining informed consent, one needs to¹⁹

• document skin signs such as scars, bites, strangulation marks, and tattoos. Note the size, shape, color, location, and other characteristics of each lesion.
• perform an oral, genital, and rectal examination and use a sexual assault evidence kit as indicated.
• use body diagrams and take photographs of all injuries/physical findings.
• order diagnostic testing as appropriate (eg, imaging to assess fractures).

Continue to: THE CASE

THE CASE

During Ms. T’s incarceration, she was tested for STIs and treated for gonorrhea, trichomonas, and bacterial vaginosis. She was educated about sexual health, was counseled on contraception, and accepted condoms. She was referred to a therapist and given information on additional community resources she could contact upon her release.

During a physical examination, explain the process, ask for permission at each step, use slow movements, and allow the patient to guide certain sensitive exams.

A year after her release, she was incarcerated again. She also had an unplanned pregnancy. With the support she received from community programs, social workers, and her primary care provider, she moved in with her family, where she is currently living. She denies any ongoing trafficking activity.

CORRESPONDENCE
Piali Basu, DO, MPH, UCSF Primary Care, 185 Berry Street, Lobby 1, Suite 1000, San Francisco, CA 94107; [email protected]

THE CASE

Emily T.* is a 15-year-old, cisgender, homeless runaway. While on the streets, she was lured to a hotel where a “pimp” informed her she was going to work for him. She repeatedly tried to leave, but he would strike her, so she eventually succumbed. She was forced to have sex with several men and rarely allowed to use condoms.

On 1 occasion, when she went to a hospital with her pimp to visit a patient, her aunt (a nurse on duty at that facility) saw Ms. T and called the police. The pimp was arrested. Ms. T was interviewed by the police and gave a statement but refused a forensic exam.

Because of her involvement with the pimp, she was incarcerated. In prison, she was seen by a physician. On evaluation, she reported difficulty sleeping, flashbacks, and feelings of shame and guilt.¹

● How would you proceed with this patient?

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

Child and adolescent sex trafficking is defined as the sexual exploitation of minors through force, fraud, or coercion. Specifically, it includes the recruitment, harboring, transportation, or advertising of a minor, and includes the exchange of anything of value in return for sexual activity. Commercial sexual exploitation and sex trafficking against minors include crimes such as prostitution; survival sex (exchanging sex/sexual acts for money or something of value, such as shelter, food, or drugs); pornography; sex tourism, mail-order-bride trade, and early marriage; or sexual performances (peep shows or strip clubs).²

Providing optimal care for children and adolescents exploited by sex trafficking depends on knowing risk factors, having an awareness of recommended screening and assessment tools, and employing a trauma-­informed approach to interviews, examination, and support.²

Continue to: Recognize clues to trafficking

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) offers a framework for trafficking prevention. Health care providers are encouraged to use the CDC Social-Ecological Model which describes targeted prevention strategies at the individual, relationship, community, and societal levels.³

Risk factors for entering trafficking. Younger age increases a child’s vulnerability to exploitation, due to a lack of maturity, limited cognitive development, and ease of deception. The mean age of trafficking survivors is 15 years.⁴ History of child abuse and other traumatic experiences can lead children to run away from home. It is estimated that, once on the streets, most teens will be recruited by a trafficker within 48 hours.⁵ Poor self-esteem, depression, substance abuse, history of truancy, and early sexual maturation also increase the risk of becoming involved in trafficking (TABLE 1).^2,6-8

Clinical findings suggestive of trafficking. Many physicians grasp the critical role they play in confronting trafficking, but they lack specific training, experience, and assessment tools.³ Notably, in 1 retrospective study, 46% of victims had been seen by a provider within the previous 2 months.⁶ One of the major challenges to identifying survivors of trafficking is to recognize critical signs, of which there are many (TABLE 1^2,6-8). Often these include a history of sexual assault, multiple pregnancies, requests for contraception at an early age, or evidence of physical injury.

Screen to identify trafficking

Universal, validated screening tools to accurately identify trafficked youth is an area of growing research. Some tools have been validated, but only for specific populations such as homeless or incarcerated youth or in emergency department (ED) patients. Tools for sex trafficking identification that may be useful in primary care include the Child Sex Trafficking (CST) screen validated in ED settings (TABLE 2),⁹ the Commercial Sexual Exploitation-Identification Tool (CSE-IT) in multiple settings (TABLE 3),^10,11 and the Quick Youth Indicators for Trafficking (QYIT) in homeless youth (TABLE 4).¹¹ The QYIT is the first validated labor and sex trafficking screening tool in homeless young adults. Children who screen positive for sex trafficking should be further assessed using a comprehensive tool.

Barriers to effective recognition of trafficked individuals. Financial factors limit access to health care. Also, survivors have cited multiple barriers for health professionals that prevent identification of survivors’ trafficked status.^12,13 Once in the medical setting, disclosure is impacted by time constraints, fear of judgment by clinicians, and the risk of re-traumatization. Survivors have also cited lack of privacy, control strategies by their traffickers, lack of provider empathy, and fear of police as barriers to disclosure.¹⁴

Continue to: The medical impact of trafficking

The medical impact of trafficking

Sexual exploitation is a traumatic experience that is known to cause harm across multiple domains including serious physical injuries related to violence, as well as reproductive and mental health consequences.^15,16

Acute and chronic illnesses. In an initial evaluation, assess the survivor’s acute medical conditions (TABLE 5).^15,16 Common acute issues include physical injuries due to assault, infections, and reproductive complications.¹⁷ Health concerns can also result from stressors such as deprivation of food and sleep, hazardous living conditions, and limited access to care.¹⁷

Suspect possible sex trafficking when a patient has a history of sexual assault and multiple pregnancies, requests contraception at an early age, and/or has evidence of physical injury.

As part of caring for sex-trafficking survivors, assess for, and treat, chronic health issues such as pain, gastrointestinal complaints, poor dental care, malnutrition, and fatigue.^16,18 Substance use, as well as chronic mental health concerns (eg, anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD]) may also influence the clinical presentation.

Physical injuries. A cross-sectional study of female survivors of sex trafficking in the United States found that 89% sustained physical injury resulting from violence, including fractures, open wounds, head injury, dental problems, burns, and anogenital trauma.^16,17 In many cases, acute injury may not be present in the clinical setting since care is often delayed, but a full examination can reveal signs of prior trauma.¹⁶

Reproductive health concerns. Significant, long-term impact on reproductive health can result due to forced penetration by multiple perpetrators, sodomy, and sex without protection or lubricants. Survivors are therefore at high risk for unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted infections (STIs), pelvic pain, and infertility.¹⁶

Continue to: Psychological effects and trauma exposure

Psychological effects and trauma exposure. Survivors often have experienced abuse and neglect prior to commercial exploitation, and they may exhibit long-term sequelae. Survivors may present with major depression, anxiety, panic attacks, suicidality, addiction, PTSD, or aggression.¹⁶ Long-term sequelae for patients can include dysfunctional relationships due to an inability to trust, self-destructive behaviors, and significant shame.^2,18

Care and treatment of trafficked youth

Initial presentation may occur in a variety of health care settings. Use a trauma-informed approach emphasizing physical and emotional safety and positive relationships, to reduce risk to the survivor, staff, and providers.¹⁹ Establishing trust and rapport may provide better short-term safety, as well as help build stronger long-term relationships that can lead to better health outcomes.

Clinical examination. Provide traumatized patients with a sense of safety, control, and autonomy in the health care setting. During the physical exam, be aware of the impact of re-traumatization as patients are asked to undress, endure sensitive examinations, and undergo invasive procedures. Explain the examination, ask for permission at each step, and use slow movements. Allow the patient to guide certain sensitive exams.¹⁵ Adopt an approach that recognizes the impact of trauma, avoids revictimization, and acknowledges the resilience of survivors.²⁰

Treatment plan. After the initial exam, treat acute physical injuries and determine if any further testing is needed. Offer emergency contraception, STI prophylaxis, pre-exposure prophylaxis, and vaccines.¹⁵ After assessing patient readiness, offer local resources, identify safe methods for communication, identify individuals who could intervene in a crisis, and consider a safety plan (TABLE 6).

Coordination of care. Consider referrals to behavioral health services, substance recovery centers, food programs, housing resources, and a primary care clinic.¹⁵ ED clinicians may be asked to complete a sexual or physical assault forensic examination. After obtaining informed consent, one needs to¹⁹

• document skin signs such as scars, bites, strangulation marks, and tattoos. Note the size, shape, color, location, and other characteristics of each lesion.
• perform an oral, genital, and rectal examination and use a sexual assault evidence kit as indicated.
• use body diagrams and take photographs of all injuries/physical findings.
• order diagnostic testing as appropriate (eg, imaging to assess fractures).

Continue to: THE CASE

THE CASE

During Ms. T’s incarceration, she was tested for STIs and treated for gonorrhea, trichomonas, and bacterial vaginosis. She was educated about sexual health, was counseled on contraception, and accepted condoms. She was referred to a therapist and given information on additional community resources she could contact upon her release.

During a physical examination, explain the process, ask for permission at each step, use slow movements, and allow the patient to guide certain sensitive exams.

A year after her release, she was incarcerated again. She also had an unplanned pregnancy. With the support she received from community programs, social workers, and her primary care provider, she moved in with her family, where she is currently living. She denies any ongoing trafficking activity.

CORRESPONDENCE
Piali Basu, DO, MPH, UCSF Primary Care, 185 Berry Street, Lobby 1, Suite 1000, San Francisco, CA 94107; [email protected]

THE CASE

Emily T.* is a 15-year-old, cisgender, homeless runaway. While on the streets, she was lured to a hotel where a “pimp” informed her she was going to work for him. She repeatedly tried to leave, but he would strike her, so she eventually succumbed. She was forced to have sex with several men and rarely allowed to use condoms.

On 1 occasion, when she went to a hospital with her pimp to visit a patient, her aunt (a nurse on duty at that facility) saw Ms. T and called the police. The pimp was arrested. Ms. T was interviewed by the police and gave a statement but refused a forensic exam.

Because of her involvement with the pimp, she was incarcerated. In prison, she was seen by a physician. On evaluation, she reported difficulty sleeping, flashbacks, and feelings of shame and guilt.¹

● How would you proceed with this patient?

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

Child and adolescent sex trafficking is defined as the sexual exploitation of minors through force, fraud, or coercion. Specifically, it includes the recruitment, harboring, transportation, or advertising of a minor, and includes the exchange of anything of value in return for sexual activity. Commercial sexual exploitation and sex trafficking against minors include crimes such as prostitution; survival sex (exchanging sex/sexual acts for money or something of value, such as shelter, food, or drugs); pornography; sex tourism, mail-order-bride trade, and early marriage; or sexual performances (peep shows or strip clubs).²

Providing optimal care for children and adolescents exploited by sex trafficking depends on knowing risk factors, having an awareness of recommended screening and assessment tools, and employing a trauma-­informed approach to interviews, examination, and support.²

Continue to: Recognize clues to trafficking

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) offers a framework for trafficking prevention. Health care providers are encouraged to use the CDC Social-Ecological Model which describes targeted prevention strategies at the individual, relationship, community, and societal levels.³

Risk factors for entering trafficking. Younger age increases a child’s vulnerability to exploitation, due to a lack of maturity, limited cognitive development, and ease of deception. The mean age of trafficking survivors is 15 years.⁴ History of child abuse and other traumatic experiences can lead children to run away from home. It is estimated that, once on the streets, most teens will be recruited by a trafficker within 48 hours.⁵ Poor self-esteem, depression, substance abuse, history of truancy, and early sexual maturation also increase the risk of becoming involved in trafficking (TABLE 1).^2,6-8

Clinical findings suggestive of trafficking. Many physicians grasp the critical role they play in confronting trafficking, but they lack specific training, experience, and assessment tools.³ Notably, in 1 retrospective study, 46% of victims had been seen by a provider within the previous 2 months.⁶ One of the major challenges to identifying survivors of trafficking is to recognize critical signs, of which there are many (TABLE 1^2,6-8). Often these include a history of sexual assault, multiple pregnancies, requests for contraception at an early age, or evidence of physical injury.

Screen to identify trafficking

Universal, validated screening tools to accurately identify trafficked youth is an area of growing research. Some tools have been validated, but only for specific populations such as homeless or incarcerated youth or in emergency department (ED) patients. Tools for sex trafficking identification that may be useful in primary care include the Child Sex Trafficking (CST) screen validated in ED settings (TABLE 2),⁹ the Commercial Sexual Exploitation-Identification Tool (CSE-IT) in multiple settings (TABLE 3),^10,11 and the Quick Youth Indicators for Trafficking (QYIT) in homeless youth (TABLE 4).¹¹ The QYIT is the first validated labor and sex trafficking screening tool in homeless young adults. Children who screen positive for sex trafficking should be further assessed using a comprehensive tool.

Barriers to effective recognition of trafficked individuals. Financial factors limit access to health care. Also, survivors have cited multiple barriers for health professionals that prevent identification of survivors’ trafficked status.^12,13 Once in the medical setting, disclosure is impacted by time constraints, fear of judgment by clinicians, and the risk of re-traumatization. Survivors have also cited lack of privacy, control strategies by their traffickers, lack of provider empathy, and fear of police as barriers to disclosure.¹⁴

Continue to: The medical impact of trafficking

The medical impact of trafficking

Sexual exploitation is a traumatic experience that is known to cause harm across multiple domains including serious physical injuries related to violence, as well as reproductive and mental health consequences.^15,16

Acute and chronic illnesses. In an initial evaluation, assess the survivor’s acute medical conditions (TABLE 5).^15,16 Common acute issues include physical injuries due to assault, infections, and reproductive complications.¹⁷ Health concerns can also result from stressors such as deprivation of food and sleep, hazardous living conditions, and limited access to care.¹⁷

Suspect possible sex trafficking when a patient has a history of sexual assault and multiple pregnancies, requests contraception at an early age, and/or has evidence of physical injury.

As part of caring for sex-trafficking survivors, assess for, and treat, chronic health issues such as pain, gastrointestinal complaints, poor dental care, malnutrition, and fatigue.^16,18 Substance use, as well as chronic mental health concerns (eg, anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD]) may also influence the clinical presentation.

Physical injuries. A cross-sectional study of female survivors of sex trafficking in the United States found that 89% sustained physical injury resulting from violence, including fractures, open wounds, head injury, dental problems, burns, and anogenital trauma.^16,17 In many cases, acute injury may not be present in the clinical setting since care is often delayed, but a full examination can reveal signs of prior trauma.¹⁶

Reproductive health concerns. Significant, long-term impact on reproductive health can result due to forced penetration by multiple perpetrators, sodomy, and sex without protection or lubricants. Survivors are therefore at high risk for unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted infections (STIs), pelvic pain, and infertility.¹⁶

Continue to: Psychological effects and trauma exposure

Psychological effects and trauma exposure. Survivors often have experienced abuse and neglect prior to commercial exploitation, and they may exhibit long-term sequelae. Survivors may present with major depression, anxiety, panic attacks, suicidality, addiction, PTSD, or aggression.¹⁶ Long-term sequelae for patients can include dysfunctional relationships due to an inability to trust, self-destructive behaviors, and significant shame.^2,18

Care and treatment of trafficked youth

Initial presentation may occur in a variety of health care settings. Use a trauma-informed approach emphasizing physical and emotional safety and positive relationships, to reduce risk to the survivor, staff, and providers.¹⁹ Establishing trust and rapport may provide better short-term safety, as well as help build stronger long-term relationships that can lead to better health outcomes.

Clinical examination. Provide traumatized patients with a sense of safety, control, and autonomy in the health care setting. During the physical exam, be aware of the impact of re-traumatization as patients are asked to undress, endure sensitive examinations, and undergo invasive procedures. Explain the examination, ask for permission at each step, and use slow movements. Allow the patient to guide certain sensitive exams.¹⁵ Adopt an approach that recognizes the impact of trauma, avoids revictimization, and acknowledges the resilience of survivors.²⁰

Treatment plan. After the initial exam, treat acute physical injuries and determine if any further testing is needed. Offer emergency contraception, STI prophylaxis, pre-exposure prophylaxis, and vaccines.¹⁵ After assessing patient readiness, offer local resources, identify safe methods for communication, identify individuals who could intervene in a crisis, and consider a safety plan (TABLE 6).

Coordination of care. Consider referrals to behavioral health services, substance recovery centers, food programs, housing resources, and a primary care clinic.¹⁵ ED clinicians may be asked to complete a sexual or physical assault forensic examination. After obtaining informed consent, one needs to¹⁹

• document skin signs such as scars, bites, strangulation marks, and tattoos. Note the size, shape, color, location, and other characteristics of each lesion.
• perform an oral, genital, and rectal examination and use a sexual assault evidence kit as indicated.
• use body diagrams and take photographs of all injuries/physical findings.
• order diagnostic testing as appropriate (eg, imaging to assess fractures).

Continue to: THE CASE

THE CASE

During Ms. T’s incarceration, she was tested for STIs and treated for gonorrhea, trichomonas, and bacterial vaginosis. She was educated about sexual health, was counseled on contraception, and accepted condoms. She was referred to a therapist and given information on additional community resources she could contact upon her release.

During a physical examination, explain the process, ask for permission at each step, use slow movements, and allow the patient to guide certain sensitive exams.

A year after her release, she was incarcerated again. She also had an unplanned pregnancy. With the support she received from community programs, social workers, and her primary care provider, she moved in with her family, where she is currently living. She denies any ongoing trafficking activity.

CORRESPONDENCE
Piali Basu, DO, MPH, UCSF Primary Care, 185 Berry Street, Lobby 1, Suite 1000, San Francisco, CA 94107; [email protected]

Atopic dermatitis (AD), also known as eczema, is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that is well known for its relapsing, pruritic rash in children and adults. Less recognized are its associated conditions—allergic rhinitis, asthma, food allergies, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), depression, and anxiety—and its burden on patients and their families. In fact, families that have children with AD report lower overall quality of life than those with otherwise healthy children.¹ Given AD’s prevalence across age groups and its effect on the family, family physicians are uniquely positioned to diagnose, care for, and counsel patients with AD and its associated maladies.

The prevalence and pathogenesis of AD

AD affects up to 20% of children and 5% of adults in the United States.² AD typically manifests before a child reaches age 5 (often in the first 6 months of life), and it is slightly more common in females (1.3:1). A family history of atopy (eczema, asthma, allergic rhinitis) is common. In fact, children with one atopic parent have a 2- to 3-fold increased risk of atopic dermatitis; those with 2 atopic parents have a 3- to 5-fold increased risk.³

The pathophysiology of AD is complex, culminating in impaired barrier function of the skin and transepidermal water loss resulting in dry and inflamed skin. Additionally, alterations in a cell-mediated immune response leading to an immunoglobulin (Ig) E-mediated hypersensitivity is also theorized to play a role in the development of AD.

Signs and symptoms

Signs at birth. Physical signs of atopic dermatitis typically appear between birth and 6 months. In infancy, lesions generally occur on the scalp, face (FIGURES 1A and 1B), neck, and extensor surfaces of the extremities. Lesions are typically papules and vesicles, sometimes accompanied by serous exudate and crusting. Eczematous lesions typically spare the groin and diaper area, and their presence in this area should raise suspicion for an alternative diagnosis.

Beginning at age 2 years, eczematous lesions are more commonly limited to the folds of the flexor surfaces. Instead of the weeping and crusting lesions seen in infancy, eczema in older children manifests as dry, lichenified papules and plaques in areas that are typically affected in adults: the wrist, hands, ankles, and popliteal and antecubital fossa.²

Although lesions in adults are similar to those of childhood, they may manifest in a more localized area (hand or eyelid, for example). As is the case in childhood, the lesions are dry, sometimes lichenified, and found on the flexural surfaces (FIGURES 2A and 2B).²

Symptom triggers are unproven

While anecdotal reports cite various triggers for AD flares, a systematic review found little scientific evidence to substantiate identifiable triggers.⁴ Triggers often cited and studied are foods, dust mite exposure, airborne allergens, detergents, sunlight, fabrics, bacterial infections, and stress. While as many as one-third of people with AD who also have confirmed dust mite allergy report worsening of symptoms when exposed to dust, a Cochrane review of 7 randomized controlled trials totaling 324 adults and children with eczema found that efforts at dust mite mitigation (laundering of bed covers, increased vacuuming, spraying for mites) were not effective in reducing symptoms.⁵

Continue to: How quality of life diminishes with AD

How quality of life diminishes with AD

AD substantially lessens quality of life. For children, the most distressing physical symptoms include itching that inhibits sleep and provokes scratching, pain, and bleeding. Emotional distress can cause irritability, crying, and uncooperativeness with treatments. Parents also report that they frequently restrict their children from activities, such as playing in the heat or swimming, that may lead to worsening of their eczema.⁶

The loss of sleep associated with AD is not completely understood but is likely multifactorial. Pruritus and scratching leading to sleeplessness is the most obvious culprit, but an altered circadian rhythm, immune system response, and changes in skin physiology are also likely factors.⁷ Whatever the cause, sleep disturbance is reported in as many as 60% of patients with AD, and the degree of sleep disturbance is proportional to increases in disease severity and worsening of quality-of-life scores.⁸ Lost sleep is not limited to patients; parents of children with AD also report significant loss of sleep and subsequent decreased work productivity and quality of life.⁹

Children with AD are often the target of bullying.¹⁰ A 2015 survey by the National Eczema Association indicates that 1 in 5 children reported being bullied due to their AD.¹¹

Associated conditions and comorbidities

AD increases patients’ risks for other illnesses, due either to their underlying atopy or to the effects of AD symptoms (TABLE^12-17).

Atopic march

Atopic march—the clinical succession of AD, allergic rhinitis, and asthma—is a well-­established clinical progression. The presence of all 3 conditions appears to be more common in children diagnosed with AD before 2 years of age.¹² Typically, allergic rhinitis manifests at around age 4, and asthma develops between ages 6 and 8. The severity of AD predicts progression. Compared with an 8% chance of asthma developing among the general population, children with mild AD have a 20% to 30% chance of developing asthma, and those with severe AD have about a 70% chance.¹²

Continue to: Food allergies

Patients with AD are at higher risk for food-induced anaphylaxis, with up to one-third of AD patients having an IgE-mediated food allergy.¹³ While it is theorized that the impaired skin barrier of an atopic child may allow for early sensitization and allergy development, a landmark 2015 study demonstrated that early allergen introduction (specifically, peanuts) may serve as a preventive strategy in those at high risk of food allergies.¹⁴ Current guidelines recommend that physicians be aware of the increased possibility of food allergies in those with AD, and consider evaluating a child for milk, egg, peanut, wheat, and soy allergy if the child is younger than 5 years and has eczema that does not resolve with treatment, or has eczema and a history of an allergic reaction to a specific food.¹⁵

Interestingly, despite the strong association between AD and food allergies, it is not clear that food allergies trigger atopic flares; as such, elimination diets are not universally recommended in those without a proven food allergy.

Psychiatric diagnoses

Children with AD have an increased prevalence of several psychiatric conditions, including ADHD, depression, anxiety, conduct disorder, and autism when compared with peers who do not have AD, and the probability correlates with the severity of AD.¹⁶ While there is a clear link—secondary to nocturnal pruritis—between AD and sleep deprivation, it is not clear whether the sleep deprivation leads to an increase in these psychiatric conditions or if AD is an independent risk factor.

Consider recommending bleach baths in cases of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis with frequent bacterial infections.

What we do know is that one of the strongest associations between AD and a psychiatric condition is with ADHD, with a recent pooled meta-analysis showing a 46% increase in risk.¹⁷ The incidence of depression among children with AD appears to correlate with the severity of AD symptoms: estimated at 5% with mild AD, 7% with moderate disease, and 14% with severe disease (compared with 3% without AD). Similar incremental increases are seen when correlating AD and anxiety.¹⁶

Nonpharmacologic care

Bathing

Bathing habits are critical to controlling AD. While bathing serves to both hydrate the skin and remove allergens, the water’s evaporation off the skin surface can lead to increased transepidermal water loss. Combining bathing and immediate application of a moisturizer improves skin hydration in patients with AD vs bathing alone.¹⁸ Thus, consensus guidelines recommend once-daily bathing (bath or shower) to remove scale and crust, followed by immediate application of a moisturizing emollient.¹⁹

Continue to: Emollients

Application of moisturizing emollients is the mainstay of nonpharmacologic care of AD, and there is strong evidence that their regimented use reduces disease burden and the need for prescription treatment.¹⁹ Emollient creams and ointments help retain moisture and improve the skin’s barrier. While ointments may provide a better barrier, patients tend to prefer creams as they are less greasy than ointments.

Emollient therapy may also help prevent development of AD, especially in those infants thought to be at high risk with a family history of atopy. In a multinational randomized controlled trial, infants who received daily full-body application of emollient beginning at 3 weeks of life were significantly less likely than controls to develop AD by 6 months.²⁰ While the mechanism of action is not clearly understood, it is believed that early emollient use prevents skin dehydration and maintains the skin’s barrier integrity, thus decreasing allergen epidermal penetration and subsequent inflammation.

Bleach bath

A bleach bath, prepared by adding 1/2 cup of unconcentrated bleach (5.25% sodium hypochlorite) to a standard 40-gallon bathtub, produces a chlorine mixture equivalent to an average swimming pool. Soaking in a bleach bath for 10 minutes once or twice weekly is thought to reduce inflammation and bacteria on the skin, but studies of its efficacy in improving atopic symptoms are mixed.

In a pooled analysis of 5 studies evaluating bleach baths vs standard baths, there was no significant difference in disease severity at 4 weeks.²¹ Thus, while bleach baths were effective in decreasing disease severity, they appeared to be no more effective than a standard water bath.²¹ Bleach baths may be helpful, however, in cases of moderate-to-severe disease with frequent bacterial infections.¹⁹

Pharmacologic therapy

Steroids

For symptoms refractory to nonpharmacologic skin care, topical steroids are the initial pharmacologic treatment for AD.19 Choose steroid potency based on symptom severity and disease location. Low- to medium-potency is appropriate for mild disease, and medium- to high-potency is useful for ­moderate-to-severe symptoms. High-­potency steroids are generally avoided on the face and skin folds; however, they can be used for short periods in these areas to induce remission. They must then be quickly tapered and discontinued.

Continue to: Frequency

Frequency. Topical corticosteroids are typically applied twice daily, although recent studies indicate that once-daily application is just as efficacious.²² In addition to treatment of an acute flare, topical steroids are useful as maintenance therapy for patients with recurrent outbreaks in the same anatomical site. Guidelines suggest once- or twice-weekly application of a medium-potency steroid to prolong time between flares.¹⁹

For children, a practical guide is for caregivers to apply the amount of steroid covering 1 adult fingertip to an area of the child’s skin equal to that of 2 adult palms.²³ Topical steroids are generally well tolerated and have a good safety profile. Adverse effects are proportional to the amount and duration of use and include purpura, telangiectasias, striae, and skin atrophy. The risk of skin atrophy increases with higher potency steroids, occlusion (covering affected area after steroid application), use on thin-skinned areas, and older patient age.²⁴

A Cochrane review found that efforts at dust mite mitigation (laundering of bed covers, increased vacuuming, spraying for mites) were not effective in reducing symptoms of atopic dermatitis.

Reassure patients/parents about the safety of topical steroids, as fears regarding the potential adverse effects can limit compliance. In one study of 200 patients with AD, 72.5% of respondents expressed fear of using steroids on their own skin or that of their child, and 24% admitted being noncompliant with therapy based on these concerns.²⁵

Treating flares. Oral steroids are sometimes needed to abort or control an AD flare in older children and adults. A tapering course of prednisone over 5 to 7 days, transitioning to medium- to high-dose topical steroids, may be needed to achieve symptom control.

Topical calcineurin inhibitors

Topical calcineurin inhibitors, including tacrolimus and pimecrolimus, are generally second-line therapy to topical corticosteroids. However, as nonsteroidal agents, topical calcineurin inhibitors do not cause skin atrophy and can be a first-line option in areas where atrophy is more common (face, eyelids, neck, and skin folds).²⁶

Continue to: A Cochrane review found...

Interestingly, despite the strong association between atopic dermatitis and food allergies, it is not clear that food allergies trigger atopic flares.

A Cochrane review found tacrolimus 0.1% to be better than low‐potency topical corticosteroids on the face and neck areas, while results were equivocal when compared with moderate‐potency topical corticosteroids on the trunk and extremities (no difference based on physician assessment, but marginal benefit favoring tacrolimus based on participant scoring).²⁷ When compared head-to-head, tacrolimus was more effective than pimecrolimus, although tacrolimus has a higher rate of local irritation. The most common adverse effects are stinging and burning at the application site, although these adverse effects generally improve with repeated application.

There have been long-term safety concerns with topical calcineurin inhibitors—chiefly a 2006 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) black box warning regarding a possible link between topical calcineurin inhibitors and cancer. However, while there may be a slight increased risk of lymphoma in AD patients, a recent meta-analysis did not find an association between topical calcineurin inhibitors use and lymphoma.²⁸ Given the initial concern—and pending additional data—the FDA currently recommends reserving topical calcineurin inhibitors for second-line therapy and only for the minimum amount of time to induce improvement. It also recommends avoiding their use in patients younger than 2 years and in those with compromised immune systems.

Cisaborole

Cisaborole, a topical phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitor, received FDA approval in 2016 for mild-to-moderate AD. By inhibiting PDE4, the drug limits inflammation. In a multicenter randomized trial, patients applying cisaborole 2% twice a day noted reductions in pruritus, inflammation, excoriation, and lichenification.²⁹ Adverse effects are minimal and limited to application site irritation.

Systemic treatments

While beyond the care of a family physician, symptoms refractory to conservative, nonpharmacologic measures and combinations of topical pharmaceuticals can be treated with systemic immunomodulators such as cyclosporine, azathioprine, and methotrexate. Phototherapy is also effective in patients with more widespread skin involvement. Dupilumab, an injectable monoclonal antibody that binds to interleukin-4 receptor and inhibits inflammation, is approved to treat moderate-to-severe AD in adults.³⁰

Ineffective therapies: Oral montelukast and probiotics

While oral antihistamines are frequently prescribed and used, there are no studies evaluating the use of antihistamines (H1) as monotherapy for AD.³¹ Nonetheless, while not altering the disease process, the sedative effect of antihistamines may palliate the nocturnal pruritus frequently associated with AD. Although nonsedating antihistamines may still have a role for atopic patients with concurrent seasonal and environmental allergies, there is no evidence to support their use in the treatment of AD.

Continue to: Data are limited...

Data are limited on the effectiveness of leukotriene receptor antagonists for AD, and all studies meeting inclusion for a Cochrane review assessed oral montelukast. The review found no benefit with the use of montelukast 10 mg in terms of severity of disease, pruritus, or need for topical steroids.³²

A practical guide is for caregivers to apply the amount of steroid covering 1 adult fingertip to an area of the child’s skin equal to that of 2 adult palms.

A systematic review investigating the benefit of probiotics for the treatment of AD found no improvement in patient-rated eczema scores for quality of life.³³ Additionally, a review of 11 randomized controlled trials including 596 participants found no evidence to suggest efficacy of fish oil, zinc, selenium, vitamin D, vitamin E, pyridoxine, sea buckthorn oil, hempseed oil, or sunflower oil in the treatment of AD.³⁴

Education can reduce AD severity

Family physicians can be a source of education and support for patients and families of patients with AD. Support programs for adults with AD—including education, relaxation techniques, and cognitive behavioral therapy—have been shown to decrease disease severity.³⁵ Comparable improvement in disease severity has been demonstrated in children with AD when similar education is provided to them and their families.

CORRESPONDENCE
Franklin Berkey, DO, Penn State Health, 1850 East Park Avenue, Suite 207, State College, PA 16803; fberkey@ pennstatehealth.psu.edu.

Atopic dermatitis (AD), also known as eczema, is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that is well known for its relapsing, pruritic rash in children and adults. Less recognized are its associated conditions—allergic rhinitis, asthma, food allergies, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), depression, and anxiety—and its burden on patients and their families. In fact, families that have children with AD report lower overall quality of life than those with otherwise healthy children.¹ Given AD’s prevalence across age groups and its effect on the family, family physicians are uniquely positioned to diagnose, care for, and counsel patients with AD and its associated maladies.

The prevalence and pathogenesis of AD

AD affects up to 20% of children and 5% of adults in the United States.² AD typically manifests before a child reaches age 5 (often in the first 6 months of life), and it is slightly more common in females (1.3:1). A family history of atopy (eczema, asthma, allergic rhinitis) is common. In fact, children with one atopic parent have a 2- to 3-fold increased risk of atopic dermatitis; those with 2 atopic parents have a 3- to 5-fold increased risk.³

The pathophysiology of AD is complex, culminating in impaired barrier function of the skin and transepidermal water loss resulting in dry and inflamed skin. Additionally, alterations in a cell-mediated immune response leading to an immunoglobulin (Ig) E-mediated hypersensitivity is also theorized to play a role in the development of AD.

Signs and symptoms

Signs at birth. Physical signs of atopic dermatitis typically appear between birth and 6 months. In infancy, lesions generally occur on the scalp, face (FIGURES 1A and 1B), neck, and extensor surfaces of the extremities. Lesions are typically papules and vesicles, sometimes accompanied by serous exudate and crusting. Eczematous lesions typically spare the groin and diaper area, and their presence in this area should raise suspicion for an alternative diagnosis.

Beginning at age 2 years, eczematous lesions are more commonly limited to the folds of the flexor surfaces. Instead of the weeping and crusting lesions seen in infancy, eczema in older children manifests as dry, lichenified papules and plaques in areas that are typically affected in adults: the wrist, hands, ankles, and popliteal and antecubital fossa.²

Although lesions in adults are similar to those of childhood, they may manifest in a more localized area (hand or eyelid, for example). As is the case in childhood, the lesions are dry, sometimes lichenified, and found on the flexural surfaces (FIGURES 2A and 2B).²

Symptom triggers are unproven

While anecdotal reports cite various triggers for AD flares, a systematic review found little scientific evidence to substantiate identifiable triggers.⁴ Triggers often cited and studied are foods, dust mite exposure, airborne allergens, detergents, sunlight, fabrics, bacterial infections, and stress. While as many as one-third of people with AD who also have confirmed dust mite allergy report worsening of symptoms when exposed to dust, a Cochrane review of 7 randomized controlled trials totaling 324 adults and children with eczema found that efforts at dust mite mitigation (laundering of bed covers, increased vacuuming, spraying for mites) were not effective in reducing symptoms.⁵

Continue to: How quality of life diminishes with AD

How quality of life diminishes with AD

AD substantially lessens quality of life. For children, the most distressing physical symptoms include itching that inhibits sleep and provokes scratching, pain, and bleeding. Emotional distress can cause irritability, crying, and uncooperativeness with treatments. Parents also report that they frequently restrict their children from activities, such as playing in the heat or swimming, that may lead to worsening of their eczema.⁶

The loss of sleep associated with AD is not completely understood but is likely multifactorial. Pruritus and scratching leading to sleeplessness is the most obvious culprit, but an altered circadian rhythm, immune system response, and changes in skin physiology are also likely factors.⁷ Whatever the cause, sleep disturbance is reported in as many as 60% of patients with AD, and the degree of sleep disturbance is proportional to increases in disease severity and worsening of quality-of-life scores.⁸ Lost sleep is not limited to patients; parents of children with AD also report significant loss of sleep and subsequent decreased work productivity and quality of life.⁹

Children with AD are often the target of bullying.¹⁰ A 2015 survey by the National Eczema Association indicates that 1 in 5 children reported being bullied due to their AD.¹¹

Associated conditions and comorbidities

AD increases patients’ risks for other illnesses, due either to their underlying atopy or to the effects of AD symptoms (TABLE^12-17).

Atopic march

Atopic march—the clinical succession of AD, allergic rhinitis, and asthma—is a well-­established clinical progression. The presence of all 3 conditions appears to be more common in children diagnosed with AD before 2 years of age.¹² Typically, allergic rhinitis manifests at around age 4, and asthma develops between ages 6 and 8. The severity of AD predicts progression. Compared with an 8% chance of asthma developing among the general population, children with mild AD have a 20% to 30% chance of developing asthma, and those with severe AD have about a 70% chance.¹²

Continue to: Food allergies

Patients with AD are at higher risk for food-induced anaphylaxis, with up to one-third of AD patients having an IgE-mediated food allergy.¹³ While it is theorized that the impaired skin barrier of an atopic child may allow for early sensitization and allergy development, a landmark 2015 study demonstrated that early allergen introduction (specifically, peanuts) may serve as a preventive strategy in those at high risk of food allergies.¹⁴ Current guidelines recommend that physicians be aware of the increased possibility of food allergies in those with AD, and consider evaluating a child for milk, egg, peanut, wheat, and soy allergy if the child is younger than 5 years and has eczema that does not resolve with treatment, or has eczema and a history of an allergic reaction to a specific food.¹⁵

Interestingly, despite the strong association between AD and food allergies, it is not clear that food allergies trigger atopic flares; as such, elimination diets are not universally recommended in those without a proven food allergy.

Psychiatric diagnoses

Children with AD have an increased prevalence of several psychiatric conditions, including ADHD, depression, anxiety, conduct disorder, and autism when compared with peers who do not have AD, and the probability correlates with the severity of AD.¹⁶ While there is a clear link—secondary to nocturnal pruritis—between AD and sleep deprivation, it is not clear whether the sleep deprivation leads to an increase in these psychiatric conditions or if AD is an independent risk factor.

Consider recommending bleach baths in cases of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis with frequent bacterial infections.

What we do know is that one of the strongest associations between AD and a psychiatric condition is with ADHD, with a recent pooled meta-analysis showing a 46% increase in risk.¹⁷ The incidence of depression among children with AD appears to correlate with the severity of AD symptoms: estimated at 5% with mild AD, 7% with moderate disease, and 14% with severe disease (compared with 3% without AD). Similar incremental increases are seen when correlating AD and anxiety.¹⁶

Nonpharmacologic care

Bathing

Bathing habits are critical to controlling AD. While bathing serves to both hydrate the skin and remove allergens, the water’s evaporation off the skin surface can lead to increased transepidermal water loss. Combining bathing and immediate application of a moisturizer improves skin hydration in patients with AD vs bathing alone.¹⁸ Thus, consensus guidelines recommend once-daily bathing (bath or shower) to remove scale and crust, followed by immediate application of a moisturizing emollient.¹⁹

Continue to: Emollients

Application of moisturizing emollients is the mainstay of nonpharmacologic care of AD, and there is strong evidence that their regimented use reduces disease burden and the need for prescription treatment.¹⁹ Emollient creams and ointments help retain moisture and improve the skin’s barrier. While ointments may provide a better barrier, patients tend to prefer creams as they are less greasy than ointments.

Emollient therapy may also help prevent development of AD, especially in those infants thought to be at high risk with a family history of atopy. In a multinational randomized controlled trial, infants who received daily full-body application of emollient beginning at 3 weeks of life were significantly less likely than controls to develop AD by 6 months.²⁰ While the mechanism of action is not clearly understood, it is believed that early emollient use prevents skin dehydration and maintains the skin’s barrier integrity, thus decreasing allergen epidermal penetration and subsequent inflammation.

Bleach bath

A bleach bath, prepared by adding 1/2 cup of unconcentrated bleach (5.25% sodium hypochlorite) to a standard 40-gallon bathtub, produces a chlorine mixture equivalent to an average swimming pool. Soaking in a bleach bath for 10 minutes once or twice weekly is thought to reduce inflammation and bacteria on the skin, but studies of its efficacy in improving atopic symptoms are mixed.

In a pooled analysis of 5 studies evaluating bleach baths vs standard baths, there was no significant difference in disease severity at 4 weeks.²¹ Thus, while bleach baths were effective in decreasing disease severity, they appeared to be no more effective than a standard water bath.²¹ Bleach baths may be helpful, however, in cases of moderate-to-severe disease with frequent bacterial infections.¹⁹

Pharmacologic therapy

Steroids

For symptoms refractory to nonpharmacologic skin care, topical steroids are the initial pharmacologic treatment for AD.19 Choose steroid potency based on symptom severity and disease location. Low- to medium-potency is appropriate for mild disease, and medium- to high-potency is useful for ­moderate-to-severe symptoms. High-­potency steroids are generally avoided on the face and skin folds; however, they can be used for short periods in these areas to induce remission. They must then be quickly tapered and discontinued.

Continue to: Frequency

Frequency. Topical corticosteroids are typically applied twice daily, although recent studies indicate that once-daily application is just as efficacious.²² In addition to treatment of an acute flare, topical steroids are useful as maintenance therapy for patients with recurrent outbreaks in the same anatomical site. Guidelines suggest once- or twice-weekly application of a medium-potency steroid to prolong time between flares.¹⁹

For children, a practical guide is for caregivers to apply the amount of steroid covering 1 adult fingertip to an area of the child’s skin equal to that of 2 adult palms.²³ Topical steroids are generally well tolerated and have a good safety profile. Adverse effects are proportional to the amount and duration of use and include purpura, telangiectasias, striae, and skin atrophy. The risk of skin atrophy increases with higher potency steroids, occlusion (covering affected area after steroid application), use on thin-skinned areas, and older patient age.²⁴

A Cochrane review found that efforts at dust mite mitigation (laundering of bed covers, increased vacuuming, spraying for mites) were not effective in reducing symptoms of atopic dermatitis.

Reassure patients/parents about the safety of topical steroids, as fears regarding the potential adverse effects can limit compliance. In one study of 200 patients with AD, 72.5% of respondents expressed fear of using steroids on their own skin or that of their child, and 24% admitted being noncompliant with therapy based on these concerns.²⁵

Treating flares. Oral steroids are sometimes needed to abort or control an AD flare in older children and adults. A tapering course of prednisone over 5 to 7 days, transitioning to medium- to high-dose topical steroids, may be needed to achieve symptom control.

Topical calcineurin inhibitors

Topical calcineurin inhibitors, including tacrolimus and pimecrolimus, are generally second-line therapy to topical corticosteroids. However, as nonsteroidal agents, topical calcineurin inhibitors do not cause skin atrophy and can be a first-line option in areas where atrophy is more common (face, eyelids, neck, and skin folds).²⁶

Continue to: A Cochrane review found...

Interestingly, despite the strong association between atopic dermatitis and food allergies, it is not clear that food allergies trigger atopic flares.

A Cochrane review found tacrolimus 0.1% to be better than low‐potency topical corticosteroids on the face and neck areas, while results were equivocal when compared with moderate‐potency topical corticosteroids on the trunk and extremities (no difference based on physician assessment, but marginal benefit favoring tacrolimus based on participant scoring).²⁷ When compared head-to-head, tacrolimus was more effective than pimecrolimus, although tacrolimus has a higher rate of local irritation. The most common adverse effects are stinging and burning at the application site, although these adverse effects generally improve with repeated application.

There have been long-term safety concerns with topical calcineurin inhibitors—chiefly a 2006 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) black box warning regarding a possible link between topical calcineurin inhibitors and cancer. However, while there may be a slight increased risk of lymphoma in AD patients, a recent meta-analysis did not find an association between topical calcineurin inhibitors use and lymphoma.²⁸ Given the initial concern—and pending additional data—the FDA currently recommends reserving topical calcineurin inhibitors for second-line therapy and only for the minimum amount of time to induce improvement. It also recommends avoiding their use in patients younger than 2 years and in those with compromised immune systems.

Cisaborole

Cisaborole, a topical phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitor, received FDA approval in 2016 for mild-to-moderate AD. By inhibiting PDE4, the drug limits inflammation. In a multicenter randomized trial, patients applying cisaborole 2% twice a day noted reductions in pruritus, inflammation, excoriation, and lichenification.²⁹ Adverse effects are minimal and limited to application site irritation.

Systemic treatments

While beyond the care of a family physician, symptoms refractory to conservative, nonpharmacologic measures and combinations of topical pharmaceuticals can be treated with systemic immunomodulators such as cyclosporine, azathioprine, and methotrexate. Phototherapy is also effective in patients with more widespread skin involvement. Dupilumab, an injectable monoclonal antibody that binds to interleukin-4 receptor and inhibits inflammation, is approved to treat moderate-to-severe AD in adults.³⁰

Ineffective therapies: Oral montelukast and probiotics

While oral antihistamines are frequently prescribed and used, there are no studies evaluating the use of antihistamines (H1) as monotherapy for AD.³¹ Nonetheless, while not altering the disease process, the sedative effect of antihistamines may palliate the nocturnal pruritus frequently associated with AD. Although nonsedating antihistamines may still have a role for atopic patients with concurrent seasonal and environmental allergies, there is no evidence to support their use in the treatment of AD.

Continue to: Data are limited...

Data are limited on the effectiveness of leukotriene receptor antagonists for AD, and all studies meeting inclusion for a Cochrane review assessed oral montelukast. The review found no benefit with the use of montelukast 10 mg in terms of severity of disease, pruritus, or need for topical steroids.³²

A practical guide is for caregivers to apply the amount of steroid covering 1 adult fingertip to an area of the child’s skin equal to that of 2 adult palms.

A systematic review investigating the benefit of probiotics for the treatment of AD found no improvement in patient-rated eczema scores for quality of life.³³ Additionally, a review of 11 randomized controlled trials including 596 participants found no evidence to suggest efficacy of fish oil, zinc, selenium, vitamin D, vitamin E, pyridoxine, sea buckthorn oil, hempseed oil, or sunflower oil in the treatment of AD.³⁴

Education can reduce AD severity

Family physicians can be a source of education and support for patients and families of patients with AD. Support programs for adults with AD—including education, relaxation techniques, and cognitive behavioral therapy—have been shown to decrease disease severity.³⁵ Comparable improvement in disease severity has been demonstrated in children with AD when similar education is provided to them and their families.

CORRESPONDENCE
Franklin Berkey, DO, Penn State Health, 1850 East Park Avenue, Suite 207, State College, PA 16803; fberkey@ pennstatehealth.psu.edu.

Atopic dermatitis (AD), also known as eczema, is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that is well known for its relapsing, pruritic rash in children and adults. Less recognized are its associated conditions—allergic rhinitis, asthma, food allergies, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), depression, and anxiety—and its burden on patients and their families. In fact, families that have children with AD report lower overall quality of life than those with otherwise healthy children.¹ Given AD’s prevalence across age groups and its effect on the family, family physicians are uniquely positioned to diagnose, care for, and counsel patients with AD and its associated maladies.

The prevalence and pathogenesis of AD

AD affects up to 20% of children and 5% of adults in the United States.² AD typically manifests before a child reaches age 5 (often in the first 6 months of life), and it is slightly more common in females (1.3:1). A family history of atopy (eczema, asthma, allergic rhinitis) is common. In fact, children with one atopic parent have a 2- to 3-fold increased risk of atopic dermatitis; those with 2 atopic parents have a 3- to 5-fold increased risk.³

The pathophysiology of AD is complex, culminating in impaired barrier function of the skin and transepidermal water loss resulting in dry and inflamed skin. Additionally, alterations in a cell-mediated immune response leading to an immunoglobulin (Ig) E-mediated hypersensitivity is also theorized to play a role in the development of AD.

Signs and symptoms

Signs at birth. Physical signs of atopic dermatitis typically appear between birth and 6 months. In infancy, lesions generally occur on the scalp, face (FIGURES 1A and 1B), neck, and extensor surfaces of the extremities. Lesions are typically papules and vesicles, sometimes accompanied by serous exudate and crusting. Eczematous lesions typically spare the groin and diaper area, and their presence in this area should raise suspicion for an alternative diagnosis.

Beginning at age 2 years, eczematous lesions are more commonly limited to the folds of the flexor surfaces. Instead of the weeping and crusting lesions seen in infancy, eczema in older children manifests as dry, lichenified papules and plaques in areas that are typically affected in adults: the wrist, hands, ankles, and popliteal and antecubital fossa.²

Although lesions in adults are similar to those of childhood, they may manifest in a more localized area (hand or eyelid, for example). As is the case in childhood, the lesions are dry, sometimes lichenified, and found on the flexural surfaces (FIGURES 2A and 2B).²

Symptom triggers are unproven

While anecdotal reports cite various triggers for AD flares, a systematic review found little scientific evidence to substantiate identifiable triggers.⁴ Triggers often cited and studied are foods, dust mite exposure, airborne allergens, detergents, sunlight, fabrics, bacterial infections, and stress. While as many as one-third of people with AD who also have confirmed dust mite allergy report worsening of symptoms when exposed to dust, a Cochrane review of 7 randomized controlled trials totaling 324 adults and children with eczema found that efforts at dust mite mitigation (laundering of bed covers, increased vacuuming, spraying for mites) were not effective in reducing symptoms.⁵

Continue to: How quality of life diminishes with AD

How quality of life diminishes with AD

AD substantially lessens quality of life. For children, the most distressing physical symptoms include itching that inhibits sleep and provokes scratching, pain, and bleeding. Emotional distress can cause irritability, crying, and uncooperativeness with treatments. Parents also report that they frequently restrict their children from activities, such as playing in the heat or swimming, that may lead to worsening of their eczema.⁶

The loss of sleep associated with AD is not completely understood but is likely multifactorial. Pruritus and scratching leading to sleeplessness is the most obvious culprit, but an altered circadian rhythm, immune system response, and changes in skin physiology are also likely factors.⁷ Whatever the cause, sleep disturbance is reported in as many as 60% of patients with AD, and the degree of sleep disturbance is proportional to increases in disease severity and worsening of quality-of-life scores.⁸ Lost sleep is not limited to patients; parents of children with AD also report significant loss of sleep and subsequent decreased work productivity and quality of life.⁹

Children with AD are often the target of bullying.¹⁰ A 2015 survey by the National Eczema Association indicates that 1 in 5 children reported being bullied due to their AD.¹¹

Associated conditions and comorbidities

AD increases patients’ risks for other illnesses, due either to their underlying atopy or to the effects of AD symptoms (TABLE^12-17).

Atopic march

Atopic march—the clinical succession of AD, allergic rhinitis, and asthma—is a well-­established clinical progression. The presence of all 3 conditions appears to be more common in children diagnosed with AD before 2 years of age.¹² Typically, allergic rhinitis manifests at around age 4, and asthma develops between ages 6 and 8. The severity of AD predicts progression. Compared with an 8% chance of asthma developing among the general population, children with mild AD have a 20% to 30% chance of developing asthma, and those with severe AD have about a 70% chance.¹²

Continue to: Food allergies

Patients with AD are at higher risk for food-induced anaphylaxis, with up to one-third of AD patients having an IgE-mediated food allergy.¹³ While it is theorized that the impaired skin barrier of an atopic child may allow for early sensitization and allergy development, a landmark 2015 study demonstrated that early allergen introduction (specifically, peanuts) may serve as a preventive strategy in those at high risk of food allergies.¹⁴ Current guidelines recommend that physicians be aware of the increased possibility of food allergies in those with AD, and consider evaluating a child for milk, egg, peanut, wheat, and soy allergy if the child is younger than 5 years and has eczema that does not resolve with treatment, or has eczema and a history of an allergic reaction to a specific food.¹⁵

Interestingly, despite the strong association between AD and food allergies, it is not clear that food allergies trigger atopic flares; as such, elimination diets are not universally recommended in those without a proven food allergy.

Psychiatric diagnoses

Children with AD have an increased prevalence of several psychiatric conditions, including ADHD, depression, anxiety, conduct disorder, and autism when compared with peers who do not have AD, and the probability correlates with the severity of AD.¹⁶ While there is a clear link—secondary to nocturnal pruritis—between AD and sleep deprivation, it is not clear whether the sleep deprivation leads to an increase in these psychiatric conditions or if AD is an independent risk factor.

Consider recommending bleach baths in cases of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis with frequent bacterial infections.

What we do know is that one of the strongest associations between AD and a psychiatric condition is with ADHD, with a recent pooled meta-analysis showing a 46% increase in risk.¹⁷ The incidence of depression among children with AD appears to correlate with the severity of AD symptoms: estimated at 5% with mild AD, 7% with moderate disease, and 14% with severe disease (compared with 3% without AD). Similar incremental increases are seen when correlating AD and anxiety.¹⁶

Nonpharmacologic care

Bathing

Bathing habits are critical to controlling AD. While bathing serves to both hydrate the skin and remove allergens, the water’s evaporation off the skin surface can lead to increased transepidermal water loss. Combining bathing and immediate application of a moisturizer improves skin hydration in patients with AD vs bathing alone.¹⁸ Thus, consensus guidelines recommend once-daily bathing (bath or shower) to remove scale and crust, followed by immediate application of a moisturizing emollient.¹⁹

Continue to: Emollients

Application of moisturizing emollients is the mainstay of nonpharmacologic care of AD, and there is strong evidence that their regimented use reduces disease burden and the need for prescription treatment.¹⁹ Emollient creams and ointments help retain moisture and improve the skin’s barrier. While ointments may provide a better barrier, patients tend to prefer creams as they are less greasy than ointments.

Emollient therapy may also help prevent development of AD, especially in those infants thought to be at high risk with a family history of atopy. In a multinational randomized controlled trial, infants who received daily full-body application of emollient beginning at 3 weeks of life were significantly less likely than controls to develop AD by 6 months.²⁰ While the mechanism of action is not clearly understood, it is believed that early emollient use prevents skin dehydration and maintains the skin’s barrier integrity, thus decreasing allergen epidermal penetration and subsequent inflammation.

Bleach bath

A bleach bath, prepared by adding 1/2 cup of unconcentrated bleach (5.25% sodium hypochlorite) to a standard 40-gallon bathtub, produces a chlorine mixture equivalent to an average swimming pool. Soaking in a bleach bath for 10 minutes once or twice weekly is thought to reduce inflammation and bacteria on the skin, but studies of its efficacy in improving atopic symptoms are mixed.

In a pooled analysis of 5 studies evaluating bleach baths vs standard baths, there was no significant difference in disease severity at 4 weeks.²¹ Thus, while bleach baths were effective in decreasing disease severity, they appeared to be no more effective than a standard water bath.²¹ Bleach baths may be helpful, however, in cases of moderate-to-severe disease with frequent bacterial infections.¹⁹

Pharmacologic therapy

Steroids

For symptoms refractory to nonpharmacologic skin care, topical steroids are the initial pharmacologic treatment for AD.19 Choose steroid potency based on symptom severity and disease location. Low- to medium-potency is appropriate for mild disease, and medium- to high-potency is useful for ­moderate-to-severe symptoms. High-­potency steroids are generally avoided on the face and skin folds; however, they can be used for short periods in these areas to induce remission. They must then be quickly tapered and discontinued.

Continue to: Frequency

Frequency. Topical corticosteroids are typically applied twice daily, although recent studies indicate that once-daily application is just as efficacious.²² In addition to treatment of an acute flare, topical steroids are useful as maintenance therapy for patients with recurrent outbreaks in the same anatomical site. Guidelines suggest once- or twice-weekly application of a medium-potency steroid to prolong time between flares.¹⁹

For children, a practical guide is for caregivers to apply the amount of steroid covering 1 adult fingertip to an area of the child’s skin equal to that of 2 adult palms.²³ Topical steroids are generally well tolerated and have a good safety profile. Adverse effects are proportional to the amount and duration of use and include purpura, telangiectasias, striae, and skin atrophy. The risk of skin atrophy increases with higher potency steroids, occlusion (covering affected area after steroid application), use on thin-skinned areas, and older patient age.²⁴

A Cochrane review found that efforts at dust mite mitigation (laundering of bed covers, increased vacuuming, spraying for mites) were not effective in reducing symptoms of atopic dermatitis.

Reassure patients/parents about the safety of topical steroids, as fears regarding the potential adverse effects can limit compliance. In one study of 200 patients with AD, 72.5% of respondents expressed fear of using steroids on their own skin or that of their child, and 24% admitted being noncompliant with therapy based on these concerns.²⁵

Treating flares. Oral steroids are sometimes needed to abort or control an AD flare in older children and adults. A tapering course of prednisone over 5 to 7 days, transitioning to medium- to high-dose topical steroids, may be needed to achieve symptom control.

Topical calcineurin inhibitors

Topical calcineurin inhibitors, including tacrolimus and pimecrolimus, are generally second-line therapy to topical corticosteroids. However, as nonsteroidal agents, topical calcineurin inhibitors do not cause skin atrophy and can be a first-line option in areas where atrophy is more common (face, eyelids, neck, and skin folds).²⁶

Continue to: A Cochrane review found...

Interestingly, despite the strong association between atopic dermatitis and food allergies, it is not clear that food allergies trigger atopic flares.

A Cochrane review found tacrolimus 0.1% to be better than low‐potency topical corticosteroids on the face and neck areas, while results were equivocal when compared with moderate‐potency topical corticosteroids on the trunk and extremities (no difference based on physician assessment, but marginal benefit favoring tacrolimus based on participant scoring).²⁷ When compared head-to-head, tacrolimus was more effective than pimecrolimus, although tacrolimus has a higher rate of local irritation. The most common adverse effects are stinging and burning at the application site, although these adverse effects generally improve with repeated application.

There have been long-term safety concerns with topical calcineurin inhibitors—chiefly a 2006 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) black box warning regarding a possible link between topical calcineurin inhibitors and cancer. However, while there may be a slight increased risk of lymphoma in AD patients, a recent meta-analysis did not find an association between topical calcineurin inhibitors use and lymphoma.²⁸ Given the initial concern—and pending additional data—the FDA currently recommends reserving topical calcineurin inhibitors for second-line therapy and only for the minimum amount of time to induce improvement. It also recommends avoiding their use in patients younger than 2 years and in those with compromised immune systems.

Cisaborole

Cisaborole, a topical phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitor, received FDA approval in 2016 for mild-to-moderate AD. By inhibiting PDE4, the drug limits inflammation. In a multicenter randomized trial, patients applying cisaborole 2% twice a day noted reductions in pruritus, inflammation, excoriation, and lichenification.²⁹ Adverse effects are minimal and limited to application site irritation.

Systemic treatments

While beyond the care of a family physician, symptoms refractory to conservative, nonpharmacologic measures and combinations of topical pharmaceuticals can be treated with systemic immunomodulators such as cyclosporine, azathioprine, and methotrexate. Phototherapy is also effective in patients with more widespread skin involvement. Dupilumab, an injectable monoclonal antibody that binds to interleukin-4 receptor and inhibits inflammation, is approved to treat moderate-to-severe AD in adults.³⁰

Ineffective therapies: Oral montelukast and probiotics

While oral antihistamines are frequently prescribed and used, there are no studies evaluating the use of antihistamines (H1) as monotherapy for AD.³¹ Nonetheless, while not altering the disease process, the sedative effect of antihistamines may palliate the nocturnal pruritus frequently associated with AD. Although nonsedating antihistamines may still have a role for atopic patients with concurrent seasonal and environmental allergies, there is no evidence to support their use in the treatment of AD.

Continue to: Data are limited...

Data are limited on the effectiveness of leukotriene receptor antagonists for AD, and all studies meeting inclusion for a Cochrane review assessed oral montelukast. The review found no benefit with the use of montelukast 10 mg in terms of severity of disease, pruritus, or need for topical steroids.³²

A practical guide is for caregivers to apply the amount of steroid covering 1 adult fingertip to an area of the child’s skin equal to that of 2 adult palms.

A systematic review investigating the benefit of probiotics for the treatment of AD found no improvement in patient-rated eczema scores for quality of life.³³ Additionally, a review of 11 randomized controlled trials including 596 participants found no evidence to suggest efficacy of fish oil, zinc, selenium, vitamin D, vitamin E, pyridoxine, sea buckthorn oil, hempseed oil, or sunflower oil in the treatment of AD.³⁴

Education can reduce AD severity

Family physicians can be a source of education and support for patients and families of patients with AD. Support programs for adults with AD—including education, relaxation techniques, and cognitive behavioral therapy—have been shown to decrease disease severity.³⁵ Comparable improvement in disease severity has been demonstrated in children with AD when similar education is provided to them and their families.

CORRESPONDENCE
Franklin Berkey, DO, Penn State Health, 1850 East Park Avenue, Suite 207, State College, PA 16803; fberkey@ pennstatehealth.psu.edu.

Repeated intravenous infusions of ketamine provide rapid relief for patients with posttraumatic stress disorder, new research suggests.

In what investigators are calling the first randomized controlled trial of repeated ketamine administration for chronic PTSD, 30 patients received six infusions of ketamine or midazolam (used as a psychoactive placebo) over 2 consecutive weeks. 

Between baseline and week 2, those receiving ketamine showed significantly greater improvement than those receiving midazolam. Total scores on the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5) for the first group were almost 12 points lower than the latter group at week 2, meeting the study’s primary outcome measure.

In addition, 67% vs. 20% of the patients, respectively, were considered to be treatment responders; time to loss of response for those in the ketamine group was 28 days.

Although the overall findings were as expected, “what was surprising was how robust the results were,” lead author Adriana Feder, MD, associate professor of psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai, New York, told this news organization.

It was also a bit surprising that, in a study of just 30 participants, “we were able to show such a clear difference” between the two treatment groups, said Dr. Feder, who is also a coinventor on issued patents for the use of ketamine as therapy for PTSD, and codirector of the Ehrenkranz Lab for the Study of Human Resilience at Mount Sinai.

The findings were published online Jan. 5 in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
 

Unmet need

Ketamine is a glutamate N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist that was first approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for anesthetic use in 1970. It has also been shown to be effective for treatment-resistant depression.

PTSD has a lifetime prevalence of about 6% in the United States. “While trauma-focused psychotherapies have the most empirical support, they are limited by significant rates of nonresponse, partial response, and treatment dropout,” the investigators write. Also, there are “few available pharmacotherapies for PTSD, and their efficacy is insufficient,” they add.  

“There’s a real need for new treatment interventions that are effective for PTSD and also work rapidly, because it can take weeks to months for currently available treatments to work for PTSD,” Dr. Feder said.

The researchers previously conducted a “proof-of-concept” randomized controlled trial of single infusions of ketamine for chronic PTSD. Results published in 2014 in JAMA Psychiatry showed significant reduction in PTSD symptoms 24 hours after infusion.

For the current study, the investigative team wanted to assess whether ketamine was viable as a longer-term treatment.

“We were encouraged by our initial promising findings” of the earlier trial, Dr. Feder said. “We wanted to do the second study to see if ketamine really works for PTSD, to see if we could replicate the rapid improvement and also examine whether a course of six infusions over 2 weeks could maintain the improvement.”

Thirty patients (aged 18-70; mean age, 39 years) with chronic PTSD from civilian or military trauma were enrolled (mean PTSD duration, 15 years).

The most cited primary trauma was sexual assault or molestation (n = 13), followed by physical assault or abuse (n = 8), witnessing a violent assault or death (n = 4), witnessing the 9/11 attacks (n = 3), and combat exposure (n = 2).

During the 2-week treatment phase, half of the patients were randomly assigned to receive six infusions of ketamine hydrochloride at a dose of 0.5 mg/kg (86.7% women; mean CAPS-5 score, 42), while the other half received six infusions of midazolam at a dose of 0.045 mg/kg (66.7% women; mean CAPS-5 score, 40).

In addition to the primary outcome measure of 2-week changes on the CAPS-5, secondary outcomes included score changes on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R).

Treatment response was defined as a 30% or more improvement in symptoms on the CAPS-5. A number of measures were also used to assess potential treatment-related adverse events (AEs).
 

Safe, effective

Results showed significantly lower total CAPS-5 scores for the ketamine group vs. the midazolam group at week 1 (score difference, 8.8 points; P = .03) and at week 2 (score difference, 11.88 points; P = .004).

Those receiving ketamine also showed improvements in three of the four PTSD symptom clusters on the CAPS-5: avoidance (P < .0001), negative mood and cognitions (P = .02), and intrusions (P = .03). The fourth symptom cluster – arousal and reactivity – did not show a significant improvement.

In addition, the ketamine group showed significantly greater improvement scores on the MADRS at both week 1 and week 2.

Treatment response at 2 weeks was achieved by 10 members of the ketamine group and by three members of the midazolam group (P = .03).

Secondary analyses showed rapid improvement in the treatment responders within the ketamine group, with a mean change of 26 points on the total IES-R score between baseline and 24 hours after their first infusion, and a mean change of 13.4 points on the MADRS total past-24-hour score, a 53% improvement on average.

“A response at 2 weeks is very rapid but they got better sometimes within the first day,” Dr. Feder noted.

There were no serious AEs reported. Although some dissociative symptoms occurred during ketamine infusions, with the highest levels reported at the end of the infusion, these symptoms had resolved by the next assessment, conducted 2 hours after infusion.

The most frequently reported AE in the ketamine group, compared with midazolam, after the start of infusions was blurred vision (53% vs. 0%), followed by dizziness (33% vs. 13%), fatigue (33% vs. 87%), headache (27% vs. 13%), and nausea or vomiting (20% vs. 7%).
 

‘Large-magnitude improvement’

The overall findings show that, in this patient population, “repeated intravenous ketamine infusions administered over 2 weeks were associated with a large-magnitude, clinically significant improvement in PTSD symptoms,” the investigators write.

The results “were very satisfying,” added Dr. Feder. “It was heartening also to hear what some of the participants would say. Some told us about how their symptoms and feelings had changed during the course of treatment with ketamine, where they felt stronger and better able to cope with their trauma and memories.”

She noted, however, that this was not a study designed to specifically assess ketamine in treatment-resistant PTSD. “Some patients had had multiple treatments before that hadn’t worked, while others had not received treatment before. Efficacy for treatment-resistant PTSD is an important question for future research,” Dr. Feder said.

Other areas worth future exploration include treatment efficacy in patients with different types of trauma and whether outcomes can last longer in patients receiving ketamine plus psychotherapy treatment, she noted.

“I don’t want to ignore the fact that currently available treatments work for a number of people with chronic PTSD. But because there are many more for whom [the treatments] don’t work, or they’re insufficiently helped by those treatments, this is certainly one potentially very promising approach that can be added” to a clinician’s toolbox, Dr. Feder said.
 

Speaks to clinical utility

Commenting for this news organization, Gerard Sanacora, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, called this a “very solid and well-designed” study.

“It definitely builds on what’s been found in the past, but it’s a critical piece of information speaking to the clinical utility of this treatment for PTSD,” said Dr. Sanacora, who is also director of the Yale Depression Research Program and was not involved with the current research.

He agreed with the investigators that PTSD has long been a condition that is difficult to treat.

“It’s an area that has a great unmet need for treatment options. Beyond that, as ketamine is becoming more widely used, there’s increasing demand for off-label uses. This [study] actually provides some evidence that there may be efficacy there,” Dr. Sanacora said.

Although he cautioned that this was a small study, and thus further research with a larger patient population will be needed, it provides a compelling foundation to build upon.

“This study provides clear evidence to support a larger study to really give a definitive statement on the efficacy and safety of its use for PTSD. I don’t think this is the study that provides that definitive evidence, but it is a very strong indication, and it very strongly supports the initiation of a large study to address that,” said Dr. Sanacora.

He noted that, although he’s used the term “cautious optimism” for studies in the past, he has “real optimism” that ketamine will be effective for PTSD based on the results of this current study.

“We still need some more data to really convince us of that before we can say with any clear statement that it is effective and safe, but I’m very optimistic,” Dr. Sanacora concluded. “I think the data are very strong.”

The study was funded by the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation, Mount Sinai Innovation Partners and the Mount Sinai i3 Accelerator, Gerald and Glenda Greenwald, and the Ehrenkranz Laboratory for Human Resilience. Dr. Feder is a coinventor on issued patents for the use of ketamine as therapy for PTSD. A list of all disclosures for the other study authors are listed in the original article.

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

Repeated intravenous infusions of ketamine provide rapid relief for patients with posttraumatic stress disorder, new research suggests.

In what investigators are calling the first randomized controlled trial of repeated ketamine administration for chronic PTSD, 30 patients received six infusions of ketamine or midazolam (used as a psychoactive placebo) over 2 consecutive weeks. 

Between baseline and week 2, those receiving ketamine showed significantly greater improvement than those receiving midazolam. Total scores on the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5) for the first group were almost 12 points lower than the latter group at week 2, meeting the study’s primary outcome measure.

In addition, 67% vs. 20% of the patients, respectively, were considered to be treatment responders; time to loss of response for those in the ketamine group was 28 days.

Although the overall findings were as expected, “what was surprising was how robust the results were,” lead author Adriana Feder, MD, associate professor of psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai, New York, told this news organization.

It was also a bit surprising that, in a study of just 30 participants, “we were able to show such a clear difference” between the two treatment groups, said Dr. Feder, who is also a coinventor on issued patents for the use of ketamine as therapy for PTSD, and codirector of the Ehrenkranz Lab for the Study of Human Resilience at Mount Sinai.

The findings were published online Jan. 5 in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
 

Unmet need

Ketamine is a glutamate N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist that was first approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for anesthetic use in 1970. It has also been shown to be effective for treatment-resistant depression.

PTSD has a lifetime prevalence of about 6% in the United States. “While trauma-focused psychotherapies have the most empirical support, they are limited by significant rates of nonresponse, partial response, and treatment dropout,” the investigators write. Also, there are “few available pharmacotherapies for PTSD, and their efficacy is insufficient,” they add.  

“There’s a real need for new treatment interventions that are effective for PTSD and also work rapidly, because it can take weeks to months for currently available treatments to work for PTSD,” Dr. Feder said.

The researchers previously conducted a “proof-of-concept” randomized controlled trial of single infusions of ketamine for chronic PTSD. Results published in 2014 in JAMA Psychiatry showed significant reduction in PTSD symptoms 24 hours after infusion.

For the current study, the investigative team wanted to assess whether ketamine was viable as a longer-term treatment.

“We were encouraged by our initial promising findings” of the earlier trial, Dr. Feder said. “We wanted to do the second study to see if ketamine really works for PTSD, to see if we could replicate the rapid improvement and also examine whether a course of six infusions over 2 weeks could maintain the improvement.”

Thirty patients (aged 18-70; mean age, 39 years) with chronic PTSD from civilian or military trauma were enrolled (mean PTSD duration, 15 years).

The most cited primary trauma was sexual assault or molestation (n = 13), followed by physical assault or abuse (n = 8), witnessing a violent assault or death (n = 4), witnessing the 9/11 attacks (n = 3), and combat exposure (n = 2).

During the 2-week treatment phase, half of the patients were randomly assigned to receive six infusions of ketamine hydrochloride at a dose of 0.5 mg/kg (86.7% women; mean CAPS-5 score, 42), while the other half received six infusions of midazolam at a dose of 0.045 mg/kg (66.7% women; mean CAPS-5 score, 40).

In addition to the primary outcome measure of 2-week changes on the CAPS-5, secondary outcomes included score changes on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R).

Treatment response was defined as a 30% or more improvement in symptoms on the CAPS-5. A number of measures were also used to assess potential treatment-related adverse events (AEs).
 

Safe, effective

Results showed significantly lower total CAPS-5 scores for the ketamine group vs. the midazolam group at week 1 (score difference, 8.8 points; P = .03) and at week 2 (score difference, 11.88 points; P = .004).

Those receiving ketamine also showed improvements in three of the four PTSD symptom clusters on the CAPS-5: avoidance (P < .0001), negative mood and cognitions (P = .02), and intrusions (P = .03). The fourth symptom cluster – arousal and reactivity – did not show a significant improvement.

In addition, the ketamine group showed significantly greater improvement scores on the MADRS at both week 1 and week 2.

Treatment response at 2 weeks was achieved by 10 members of the ketamine group and by three members of the midazolam group (P = .03).

Secondary analyses showed rapid improvement in the treatment responders within the ketamine group, with a mean change of 26 points on the total IES-R score between baseline and 24 hours after their first infusion, and a mean change of 13.4 points on the MADRS total past-24-hour score, a 53% improvement on average.

“A response at 2 weeks is very rapid but they got better sometimes within the first day,” Dr. Feder noted.

There were no serious AEs reported. Although some dissociative symptoms occurred during ketamine infusions, with the highest levels reported at the end of the infusion, these symptoms had resolved by the next assessment, conducted 2 hours after infusion.

The most frequently reported AE in the ketamine group, compared with midazolam, after the start of infusions was blurred vision (53% vs. 0%), followed by dizziness (33% vs. 13%), fatigue (33% vs. 87%), headache (27% vs. 13%), and nausea or vomiting (20% vs. 7%).
 

‘Large-magnitude improvement’

The overall findings show that, in this patient population, “repeated intravenous ketamine infusions administered over 2 weeks were associated with a large-magnitude, clinically significant improvement in PTSD symptoms,” the investigators write.

The results “were very satisfying,” added Dr. Feder. “It was heartening also to hear what some of the participants would say. Some told us about how their symptoms and feelings had changed during the course of treatment with ketamine, where they felt stronger and better able to cope with their trauma and memories.”

She noted, however, that this was not a study designed to specifically assess ketamine in treatment-resistant PTSD. “Some patients had had multiple treatments before that hadn’t worked, while others had not received treatment before. Efficacy for treatment-resistant PTSD is an important question for future research,” Dr. Feder said.

Other areas worth future exploration include treatment efficacy in patients with different types of trauma and whether outcomes can last longer in patients receiving ketamine plus psychotherapy treatment, she noted.

“I don’t want to ignore the fact that currently available treatments work for a number of people with chronic PTSD. But because there are many more for whom [the treatments] don’t work, or they’re insufficiently helped by those treatments, this is certainly one potentially very promising approach that can be added” to a clinician’s toolbox, Dr. Feder said.
 

Speaks to clinical utility

Commenting for this news organization, Gerard Sanacora, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, called this a “very solid and well-designed” study.

“It definitely builds on what’s been found in the past, but it’s a critical piece of information speaking to the clinical utility of this treatment for PTSD,” said Dr. Sanacora, who is also director of the Yale Depression Research Program and was not involved with the current research.

He agreed with the investigators that PTSD has long been a condition that is difficult to treat.

“It’s an area that has a great unmet need for treatment options. Beyond that, as ketamine is becoming more widely used, there’s increasing demand for off-label uses. This [study] actually provides some evidence that there may be efficacy there,” Dr. Sanacora said.

Although he cautioned that this was a small study, and thus further research with a larger patient population will be needed, it provides a compelling foundation to build upon.

“This study provides clear evidence to support a larger study to really give a definitive statement on the efficacy and safety of its use for PTSD. I don’t think this is the study that provides that definitive evidence, but it is a very strong indication, and it very strongly supports the initiation of a large study to address that,” said Dr. Sanacora.

He noted that, although he’s used the term “cautious optimism” for studies in the past, he has “real optimism” that ketamine will be effective for PTSD based on the results of this current study.

“We still need some more data to really convince us of that before we can say with any clear statement that it is effective and safe, but I’m very optimistic,” Dr. Sanacora concluded. “I think the data are very strong.”

The study was funded by the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation, Mount Sinai Innovation Partners and the Mount Sinai i3 Accelerator, Gerald and Glenda Greenwald, and the Ehrenkranz Laboratory for Human Resilience. Dr. Feder is a coinventor on issued patents for the use of ketamine as therapy for PTSD. A list of all disclosures for the other study authors are listed in the original article.

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

Repeated intravenous infusions of ketamine provide rapid relief for patients with posttraumatic stress disorder, new research suggests.

In what investigators are calling the first randomized controlled trial of repeated ketamine administration for chronic PTSD, 30 patients received six infusions of ketamine or midazolam (used as a psychoactive placebo) over 2 consecutive weeks. 

Between baseline and week 2, those receiving ketamine showed significantly greater improvement than those receiving midazolam. Total scores on the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5) for the first group were almost 12 points lower than the latter group at week 2, meeting the study’s primary outcome measure.

In addition, 67% vs. 20% of the patients, respectively, were considered to be treatment responders; time to loss of response for those in the ketamine group was 28 days.

Although the overall findings were as expected, “what was surprising was how robust the results were,” lead author Adriana Feder, MD, associate professor of psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai, New York, told this news organization.

It was also a bit surprising that, in a study of just 30 participants, “we were able to show such a clear difference” between the two treatment groups, said Dr. Feder, who is also a coinventor on issued patents for the use of ketamine as therapy for PTSD, and codirector of the Ehrenkranz Lab for the Study of Human Resilience at Mount Sinai.

The findings were published online Jan. 5 in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
 

Unmet need

Ketamine is a glutamate N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist that was first approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for anesthetic use in 1970. It has also been shown to be effective for treatment-resistant depression.

PTSD has a lifetime prevalence of about 6% in the United States. “While trauma-focused psychotherapies have the most empirical support, they are limited by significant rates of nonresponse, partial response, and treatment dropout,” the investigators write. Also, there are “few available pharmacotherapies for PTSD, and their efficacy is insufficient,” they add.  

“There’s a real need for new treatment interventions that are effective for PTSD and also work rapidly, because it can take weeks to months for currently available treatments to work for PTSD,” Dr. Feder said.

The researchers previously conducted a “proof-of-concept” randomized controlled trial of single infusions of ketamine for chronic PTSD. Results published in 2014 in JAMA Psychiatry showed significant reduction in PTSD symptoms 24 hours after infusion.

For the current study, the investigative team wanted to assess whether ketamine was viable as a longer-term treatment.

“We were encouraged by our initial promising findings” of the earlier trial, Dr. Feder said. “We wanted to do the second study to see if ketamine really works for PTSD, to see if we could replicate the rapid improvement and also examine whether a course of six infusions over 2 weeks could maintain the improvement.”

Thirty patients (aged 18-70; mean age, 39 years) with chronic PTSD from civilian or military trauma were enrolled (mean PTSD duration, 15 years).

The most cited primary trauma was sexual assault or molestation (n = 13), followed by physical assault or abuse (n = 8), witnessing a violent assault or death (n = 4), witnessing the 9/11 attacks (n = 3), and combat exposure (n = 2).

During the 2-week treatment phase, half of the patients were randomly assigned to receive six infusions of ketamine hydrochloride at a dose of 0.5 mg/kg (86.7% women; mean CAPS-5 score, 42), while the other half received six infusions of midazolam at a dose of 0.045 mg/kg (66.7% women; mean CAPS-5 score, 40).

In addition to the primary outcome measure of 2-week changes on the CAPS-5, secondary outcomes included score changes on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R).

Treatment response was defined as a 30% or more improvement in symptoms on the CAPS-5. A number of measures were also used to assess potential treatment-related adverse events (AEs).
 

Safe, effective

Results showed significantly lower total CAPS-5 scores for the ketamine group vs. the midazolam group at week 1 (score difference, 8.8 points; P = .03) and at week 2 (score difference, 11.88 points; P = .004).

Those receiving ketamine also showed improvements in three of the four PTSD symptom clusters on the CAPS-5: avoidance (P < .0001), negative mood and cognitions (P = .02), and intrusions (P = .03). The fourth symptom cluster – arousal and reactivity – did not show a significant improvement.

In addition, the ketamine group showed significantly greater improvement scores on the MADRS at both week 1 and week 2.

Treatment response at 2 weeks was achieved by 10 members of the ketamine group and by three members of the midazolam group (P = .03).

Secondary analyses showed rapid improvement in the treatment responders within the ketamine group, with a mean change of 26 points on the total IES-R score between baseline and 24 hours after their first infusion, and a mean change of 13.4 points on the MADRS total past-24-hour score, a 53% improvement on average.

“A response at 2 weeks is very rapid but they got better sometimes within the first day,” Dr. Feder noted.

There were no serious AEs reported. Although some dissociative symptoms occurred during ketamine infusions, with the highest levels reported at the end of the infusion, these symptoms had resolved by the next assessment, conducted 2 hours after infusion.

The most frequently reported AE in the ketamine group, compared with midazolam, after the start of infusions was blurred vision (53% vs. 0%), followed by dizziness (33% vs. 13%), fatigue (33% vs. 87%), headache (27% vs. 13%), and nausea or vomiting (20% vs. 7%).
 

‘Large-magnitude improvement’

The overall findings show that, in this patient population, “repeated intravenous ketamine infusions administered over 2 weeks were associated with a large-magnitude, clinically significant improvement in PTSD symptoms,” the investigators write.

The results “were very satisfying,” added Dr. Feder. “It was heartening also to hear what some of the participants would say. Some told us about how their symptoms and feelings had changed during the course of treatment with ketamine, where they felt stronger and better able to cope with their trauma and memories.”

She noted, however, that this was not a study designed to specifically assess ketamine in treatment-resistant PTSD. “Some patients had had multiple treatments before that hadn’t worked, while others had not received treatment before. Efficacy for treatment-resistant PTSD is an important question for future research,” Dr. Feder said.

Other areas worth future exploration include treatment efficacy in patients with different types of trauma and whether outcomes can last longer in patients receiving ketamine plus psychotherapy treatment, she noted.

“I don’t want to ignore the fact that currently available treatments work for a number of people with chronic PTSD. But because there are many more for whom [the treatments] don’t work, or they’re insufficiently helped by those treatments, this is certainly one potentially very promising approach that can be added” to a clinician’s toolbox, Dr. Feder said.
 

Speaks to clinical utility

Commenting for this news organization, Gerard Sanacora, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, called this a “very solid and well-designed” study.

“It definitely builds on what’s been found in the past, but it’s a critical piece of information speaking to the clinical utility of this treatment for PTSD,” said Dr. Sanacora, who is also director of the Yale Depression Research Program and was not involved with the current research.

He agreed with the investigators that PTSD has long been a condition that is difficult to treat.

“It’s an area that has a great unmet need for treatment options. Beyond that, as ketamine is becoming more widely used, there’s increasing demand for off-label uses. This [study] actually provides some evidence that there may be efficacy there,” Dr. Sanacora said.

Although he cautioned that this was a small study, and thus further research with a larger patient population will be needed, it provides a compelling foundation to build upon.

“This study provides clear evidence to support a larger study to really give a definitive statement on the efficacy and safety of its use for PTSD. I don’t think this is the study that provides that definitive evidence, but it is a very strong indication, and it very strongly supports the initiation of a large study to address that,” said Dr. Sanacora.

He noted that, although he’s used the term “cautious optimism” for studies in the past, he has “real optimism” that ketamine will be effective for PTSD based on the results of this current study.

“We still need some more data to really convince us of that before we can say with any clear statement that it is effective and safe, but I’m very optimistic,” Dr. Sanacora concluded. “I think the data are very strong.”

The study was funded by the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation, Mount Sinai Innovation Partners and the Mount Sinai i3 Accelerator, Gerald and Glenda Greenwald, and the Ehrenkranz Laboratory for Human Resilience. Dr. Feder is a coinventor on issued patents for the use of ketamine as therapy for PTSD. A list of all disclosures for the other study authors are listed in the original article.

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