Dear colleagues and friends,

Charles Kahi, MD, MS, AGAF, professor of medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis. He is also an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.

IBD can be treated with diet alone

Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), comprising Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, have emerged as global diseases. The past 3 decades have seen a rising incidence of these diseases not just in the Western hemisphere, where their prevalence has been well recognized, but also in regions of the world such as Asia and South America where they were previously rare. Whereas several possible factors have been proposed to explain this rising incidence and globalization of disease with varying degrees of supportive evidence, one of the most likely factors is a changing diet. Over the same period that the disease incidence and prevalence have risen, diets worldwide have converged with several common trends observed across countries and continents. These include reductions in dietary fiber, fruits, and vegetables, and increased intake of processed food, animal protein, fats, and sugary drinks, all of which have been linked epidemiologically to Crohn’s disease.

Treatment of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis over the past 2 decades has focused on the immunologic dysfunction observed in these patients. Successful treatment has relied on suppressing immune responses either broadly or through targeted suppression of specific immunologic pathways. By and large, whereas these approaches have enabled us to make significant progress in reducing disease-related morbidity, success has been moderate at best, with fewer than half of patients in any clinical trial achieving remission at the end of a year. Thus, this approach alone may not be sufficient for most patients with IBD.

Treatment of IBD with diet was long considered out of the mainstream and confined to the realm of anecdotes and message boards. Despite most patients believing that diet played a role in development of IBD and onset of flares and that dietary modification was helpful in relieving symptoms, physicians – who for the most part were not trained in these approaches – were not believers, and probably rightly so in the absence of any supporting data.¹ However, the parallel emergence of three bodies of literature has now brought diet back into the mainstream of IBD care (such that not a single IBD conference goes by without at least a session or two on diet). First, large prospective cohorts from Europe and North America provided robust evidence linking long-term adult dietary patterns to disease incidence in adult-onset IBD, which supports many important case-control observations made over the past 2 decades.² Second, and perhaps most important, we began understanding the role of the microbiome in the development of these diseases and recognizing its centrality to bowel inflammation. One of the key determinants of the microbiome is diet, exerting both short-term and long-term influences on the microbial structure. While microbial changes are by no means the only mechanism through which diet can influence intestinal inflammation, they are among the most important, with broad effects across many dietary components. These findings provided a robust scientific basis for investigating the role of diet. Third, while still far from the high-quality (and expensive) set-up of investigational trials of pharmacologic therapies, dietary therapy studies have also evolved to randomized controlled trial designs and investigation of mechanism-driven dietary combinations. Together, I think these three recent advances, in addition to the wealth of existing literature and anecdotal experience, have been important in moving diet (back) into the IBD mainstream.

So what evidence is there that diet is effective in the treatment of IBD? Randomized controlled trials published more than a decade ago demonstrated that exclusive enteral nutrition, wherein all table foods are eliminated from a diet and the patient relies on an elemental diet alone for nutrition, was effective in not just inducing clinical remission but also improving inflammatory biomarkers.³ With results replicated in several trials, exclusive enteral nutrition is, in many parts of the world, one of the first-line treatments for pediatric Crohn’s disease. That this has not been translated to longer-term maintenance therapy is not necessarily an indicator of lack of durable efficacy, but reflects the challenges of maintaining such a restrictive diet long term while living an active, normal life. However, more recent rigorous studies have demonstrated that the effects of exclusive enteral nutrition can be mimicked either by a selected, less-restrictive diet (such as CD-TREAT⁴), which is more sustainable, or by combining partial enteral nutrition with an elimination diet that is quite diverse (such as CDED⁵). The latter two are considerably more promising as longer-term dietary treatments for Crohn’s disease with durable efficacy in open-label studies and randomized trials.

What are my final arguments for diet being used as a treatment for IBD? With the exception of very restrictive ones, diets are generally safe. Of course, patients on restricted diets need monitoring for nutritional deficiencies, but this monitoring is likely less intense than that needed for many of our immunosuppressive therapies. Dietary therapies are not associated with an increase in risk of infections or malignancy (unlike our traditional immunosuppressive therapies), and consequently are much more likely to be accepted by our patients than what we are currently offering. In addition, the existing treatments are expensive and consequently difficult to sustain globally with the increasing burden of these diseases. On the other hand, as eating and dietary choices are a routine part of day-to-day life, dietary therapies are not likely to be associated with any excess costs.

Therefore, treating IBD with diet alone is supported by epidemiologic, mechanistic, and clinical evidence and is a safe, effective, and inexpensive alternative for our patients.
 

References

1. Zallot C et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2013 Jan;19(1):66-72.

2. Sasson AN et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Dec 5;S1542-3565(19)31394-1.

3. Wall CL et al. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19:7652-60.

4. Svolos V et al. Gastroenterology. 2019;156:1354-67.e6.

5. Levine A et al. Gastroenterology. 2019;157:440-50.e8.

Dr. Ananthakrishnan is a gastroenterologist in the division of gastroenterology, Crohn’s and Colitis Center, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston. He is supported by funding from the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation and the Chleck Family Foundation.

IBD can be treated with diet alone – No, it cannot!

The cause of IBD is not completely understood, but we believe something in our environment triggers a dysregulated immune response in individuals with a genetic predisposition to IBD. Among the environmental triggers commonly recognized, diet is considered an important trigger through its ability to affect the composition and health of the gut microbiome and host barrier function. Epidemiologic data support this assumption. Westernization of diet has been associated with the increasing incidence of IBD across the globe and in immigrants who move from developing countries to an industrialized country. Observational studies have shown diets higher in meat and polyunsaturated fatty acids and omega-6 fatty acids are associated with a higher risk for IBD, whereas diets high in fruits, vegetables, and other sources of dietary fiber have a lower risk of IBD.

A growing body of evidence supports the impact food can have on gut health, specifically in mouse IBD models, but it is challenging to translate findings from animal studies into dietary interventions for IBD patients. Mouse studies help us understand the mechanistic basis of how diet may affect IBD, but randomized clinical trials establishing their role in IBD are lacking. This is not surprising as dietary studies are challenging, particularly if done in a robust manner, given the difficulties of ensuring and measuring dietary compliance.

Exclusive enteral nutrition (EEN) has been studied the most rigorously of all diets in IBD and has demonstrated the greatest benefit, compared with other diet studies in IBD. EEN requires the intake of elemental, semi-elemental, or polymeric formulas to meet all nutritional requirements without additional intake of food for 6-8 weeks. Studies have been performed mostly in pediatric populations and have shown effectiveness in induction of remission with reduction in inflammatory markers, including C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and fecal calprotectin, and even mucosal healing. EEN has not worked out as well for adult populations, because of the poor tolerability of exclusive intake of enteral formulas. Because of this limitation, studies of partial enteral nutrition have been performed that generally allow some food intake in addition to the enteral nutrition. When compared with EEN or anti–tumor necrosis factor–alpha therapy, partial enteral nutrition is a less-effective treatment of Crohn’s disease; however, partial enteral nutrition does appear to improve clinical symptoms.

Beyond EEN, there are many diets that have been considered for the treatment of IBD, including the specific carbohydrate diet (SCD), Crohn’s disease exclusion diet, autoimmune diet, low FODMAP (fermentable oligo-, di-, mono-saccharides and polyols), Paleolithic diet, Mediterranean diet, and the semi-vegetarian diet, to name a few. Of these, only the SCD and Crohn’s disease exclusion diets have shown improvement in clinical remission and reduction in inflammatory markers.

The SCD diet is based on the theory that malabsorption of disaccharide and polysaccharide carbohydrates leads to bacterial overgrowth and host barrier dysfunction. This diet eliminates grains, dairy, processed meats, and certain vegetables such as potatoes, yams, and legumes. Small uncontrolled studies have shown improvement in symptoms and endoscopy findings. However, this restrictive diet is nearly impossible to follow long term. The Crohn’s disease exclusion diet is a whole foods diet avoiding all processed foods, animal fats, dairy, and gluten. Small studies of this diet have also shown improvement in clinical symptoms and inflammatory markers.

The plethora of studies and reports of the therapeutic effect of diet on IBD provide some promise of the benefit dietary modifications can bring to our IBD patients. However, most dietary studies are underpowered, lack a control arm, and do not include endoscopic endpoints. The current body of evidence remains insufficient to support the use of diet alone for the treatment of IBD. We need randomized clinical controlled trials that are held to the same rigor as those of our approved medical treatments for IBD. Although such trials are challenging, we’ve seen groups rise to the task to carry out more robust dietary studies in the IBD population, and we await the results of several ongoing trials.

IBD is a challenging disease to live with and often leaves our patients feeling out of control. Dietary choices provide an avenue for patients to have some control of their health. However, current evidence does not support the prescription of dietary interventions alone to treat IBD, particularly when we have known, effective therapies. While I am not ready to prescribe diet as a stand-alone treatment for IBD, I make a point to discuss the role diet may play in helping our patients achieve optimal health. As health care providers, it is our responsibility to provide holistic care to our patients, which includes promotion of a healthy diet, absent processed foods and added sugars. Healthy lifestyle choices combined with effective medical and surgical treatments offer our patients the best shot at sustained disease control.
 

References

1. Hou JK et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011;106(4):563-73.

2. Zachos M et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007(1):CD000542.

3. Lee D et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2015;21(8):1786-93.

4. Obih C et al. Nutrition. 2016;32(4):418-25.

5. Sigall Boneh R et al. J Crohns Colitis. 2017;11(10):1205-12.

Dr. Raffals is a gastroenterologist in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. She has no financial conflicts of interest relevant to this paper.

Dear colleagues and friends,

Charles Kahi, MD, MS, AGAF, professor of medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis. He is also an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.

IBD can be treated with diet alone

Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), comprising Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, have emerged as global diseases. The past 3 decades have seen a rising incidence of these diseases not just in the Western hemisphere, where their prevalence has been well recognized, but also in regions of the world such as Asia and South America where they were previously rare. Whereas several possible factors have been proposed to explain this rising incidence and globalization of disease with varying degrees of supportive evidence, one of the most likely factors is a changing diet. Over the same period that the disease incidence and prevalence have risen, diets worldwide have converged with several common trends observed across countries and continents. These include reductions in dietary fiber, fruits, and vegetables, and increased intake of processed food, animal protein, fats, and sugary drinks, all of which have been linked epidemiologically to Crohn’s disease.

Treatment of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis over the past 2 decades has focused on the immunologic dysfunction observed in these patients. Successful treatment has relied on suppressing immune responses either broadly or through targeted suppression of specific immunologic pathways. By and large, whereas these approaches have enabled us to make significant progress in reducing disease-related morbidity, success has been moderate at best, with fewer than half of patients in any clinical trial achieving remission at the end of a year. Thus, this approach alone may not be sufficient for most patients with IBD.

Treatment of IBD with diet was long considered out of the mainstream and confined to the realm of anecdotes and message boards. Despite most patients believing that diet played a role in development of IBD and onset of flares and that dietary modification was helpful in relieving symptoms, physicians – who for the most part were not trained in these approaches – were not believers, and probably rightly so in the absence of any supporting data.¹ However, the parallel emergence of three bodies of literature has now brought diet back into the mainstream of IBD care (such that not a single IBD conference goes by without at least a session or two on diet). First, large prospective cohorts from Europe and North America provided robust evidence linking long-term adult dietary patterns to disease incidence in adult-onset IBD, which supports many important case-control observations made over the past 2 decades.² Second, and perhaps most important, we began understanding the role of the microbiome in the development of these diseases and recognizing its centrality to bowel inflammation. One of the key determinants of the microbiome is diet, exerting both short-term and long-term influences on the microbial structure. While microbial changes are by no means the only mechanism through which diet can influence intestinal inflammation, they are among the most important, with broad effects across many dietary components. These findings provided a robust scientific basis for investigating the role of diet. Third, while still far from the high-quality (and expensive) set-up of investigational trials of pharmacologic therapies, dietary therapy studies have also evolved to randomized controlled trial designs and investigation of mechanism-driven dietary combinations. Together, I think these three recent advances, in addition to the wealth of existing literature and anecdotal experience, have been important in moving diet (back) into the IBD mainstream.

So what evidence is there that diet is effective in the treatment of IBD? Randomized controlled trials published more than a decade ago demonstrated that exclusive enteral nutrition, wherein all table foods are eliminated from a diet and the patient relies on an elemental diet alone for nutrition, was effective in not just inducing clinical remission but also improving inflammatory biomarkers.³ With results replicated in several trials, exclusive enteral nutrition is, in many parts of the world, one of the first-line treatments for pediatric Crohn’s disease. That this has not been translated to longer-term maintenance therapy is not necessarily an indicator of lack of durable efficacy, but reflects the challenges of maintaining such a restrictive diet long term while living an active, normal life. However, more recent rigorous studies have demonstrated that the effects of exclusive enteral nutrition can be mimicked either by a selected, less-restrictive diet (such as CD-TREAT⁴), which is more sustainable, or by combining partial enteral nutrition with an elimination diet that is quite diverse (such as CDED⁵). The latter two are considerably more promising as longer-term dietary treatments for Crohn’s disease with durable efficacy in open-label studies and randomized trials.

What are my final arguments for diet being used as a treatment for IBD? With the exception of very restrictive ones, diets are generally safe. Of course, patients on restricted diets need monitoring for nutritional deficiencies, but this monitoring is likely less intense than that needed for many of our immunosuppressive therapies. Dietary therapies are not associated with an increase in risk of infections or malignancy (unlike our traditional immunosuppressive therapies), and consequently are much more likely to be accepted by our patients than what we are currently offering. In addition, the existing treatments are expensive and consequently difficult to sustain globally with the increasing burden of these diseases. On the other hand, as eating and dietary choices are a routine part of day-to-day life, dietary therapies are not likely to be associated with any excess costs.

Therefore, treating IBD with diet alone is supported by epidemiologic, mechanistic, and clinical evidence and is a safe, effective, and inexpensive alternative for our patients.
 

References

1. Zallot C et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2013 Jan;19(1):66-72.

2. Sasson AN et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Dec 5;S1542-3565(19)31394-1.

3. Wall CL et al. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19:7652-60.

4. Svolos V et al. Gastroenterology. 2019;156:1354-67.e6.

5. Levine A et al. Gastroenterology. 2019;157:440-50.e8.

Dr. Ananthakrishnan is a gastroenterologist in the division of gastroenterology, Crohn’s and Colitis Center, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston. He is supported by funding from the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation and the Chleck Family Foundation.

IBD can be treated with diet alone – No, it cannot!

The cause of IBD is not completely understood, but we believe something in our environment triggers a dysregulated immune response in individuals with a genetic predisposition to IBD. Among the environmental triggers commonly recognized, diet is considered an important trigger through its ability to affect the composition and health of the gut microbiome and host barrier function. Epidemiologic data support this assumption. Westernization of diet has been associated with the increasing incidence of IBD across the globe and in immigrants who move from developing countries to an industrialized country. Observational studies have shown diets higher in meat and polyunsaturated fatty acids and omega-6 fatty acids are associated with a higher risk for IBD, whereas diets high in fruits, vegetables, and other sources of dietary fiber have a lower risk of IBD.

A growing body of evidence supports the impact food can have on gut health, specifically in mouse IBD models, but it is challenging to translate findings from animal studies into dietary interventions for IBD patients. Mouse studies help us understand the mechanistic basis of how diet may affect IBD, but randomized clinical trials establishing their role in IBD are lacking. This is not surprising as dietary studies are challenging, particularly if done in a robust manner, given the difficulties of ensuring and measuring dietary compliance.

Exclusive enteral nutrition (EEN) has been studied the most rigorously of all diets in IBD and has demonstrated the greatest benefit, compared with other diet studies in IBD. EEN requires the intake of elemental, semi-elemental, or polymeric formulas to meet all nutritional requirements without additional intake of food for 6-8 weeks. Studies have been performed mostly in pediatric populations and have shown effectiveness in induction of remission with reduction in inflammatory markers, including C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and fecal calprotectin, and even mucosal healing. EEN has not worked out as well for adult populations, because of the poor tolerability of exclusive intake of enteral formulas. Because of this limitation, studies of partial enteral nutrition have been performed that generally allow some food intake in addition to the enteral nutrition. When compared with EEN or anti–tumor necrosis factor–alpha therapy, partial enteral nutrition is a less-effective treatment of Crohn’s disease; however, partial enteral nutrition does appear to improve clinical symptoms.

Beyond EEN, there are many diets that have been considered for the treatment of IBD, including the specific carbohydrate diet (SCD), Crohn’s disease exclusion diet, autoimmune diet, low FODMAP (fermentable oligo-, di-, mono-saccharides and polyols), Paleolithic diet, Mediterranean diet, and the semi-vegetarian diet, to name a few. Of these, only the SCD and Crohn’s disease exclusion diets have shown improvement in clinical remission and reduction in inflammatory markers.

The SCD diet is based on the theory that malabsorption of disaccharide and polysaccharide carbohydrates leads to bacterial overgrowth and host barrier dysfunction. This diet eliminates grains, dairy, processed meats, and certain vegetables such as potatoes, yams, and legumes. Small uncontrolled studies have shown improvement in symptoms and endoscopy findings. However, this restrictive diet is nearly impossible to follow long term. The Crohn’s disease exclusion diet is a whole foods diet avoiding all processed foods, animal fats, dairy, and gluten. Small studies of this diet have also shown improvement in clinical symptoms and inflammatory markers.

The plethora of studies and reports of the therapeutic effect of diet on IBD provide some promise of the benefit dietary modifications can bring to our IBD patients. However, most dietary studies are underpowered, lack a control arm, and do not include endoscopic endpoints. The current body of evidence remains insufficient to support the use of diet alone for the treatment of IBD. We need randomized clinical controlled trials that are held to the same rigor as those of our approved medical treatments for IBD. Although such trials are challenging, we’ve seen groups rise to the task to carry out more robust dietary studies in the IBD population, and we await the results of several ongoing trials.

IBD is a challenging disease to live with and often leaves our patients feeling out of control. Dietary choices provide an avenue for patients to have some control of their health. However, current evidence does not support the prescription of dietary interventions alone to treat IBD, particularly when we have known, effective therapies. While I am not ready to prescribe diet as a stand-alone treatment for IBD, I make a point to discuss the role diet may play in helping our patients achieve optimal health. As health care providers, it is our responsibility to provide holistic care to our patients, which includes promotion of a healthy diet, absent processed foods and added sugars. Healthy lifestyle choices combined with effective medical and surgical treatments offer our patients the best shot at sustained disease control.
 

References

1. Hou JK et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011;106(4):563-73.

2. Zachos M et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007(1):CD000542.

3. Lee D et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2015;21(8):1786-93.

4. Obih C et al. Nutrition. 2016;32(4):418-25.

5. Sigall Boneh R et al. J Crohns Colitis. 2017;11(10):1205-12.

Dr. Raffals is a gastroenterologist in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. She has no financial conflicts of interest relevant to this paper.

Dear colleagues and friends,

Charles Kahi, MD, MS, AGAF, professor of medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis. He is also an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.

IBD can be treated with diet alone

Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), comprising Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, have emerged as global diseases. The past 3 decades have seen a rising incidence of these diseases not just in the Western hemisphere, where their prevalence has been well recognized, but also in regions of the world such as Asia and South America where they were previously rare. Whereas several possible factors have been proposed to explain this rising incidence and globalization of disease with varying degrees of supportive evidence, one of the most likely factors is a changing diet. Over the same period that the disease incidence and prevalence have risen, diets worldwide have converged with several common trends observed across countries and continents. These include reductions in dietary fiber, fruits, and vegetables, and increased intake of processed food, animal protein, fats, and sugary drinks, all of which have been linked epidemiologically to Crohn’s disease.

Treatment of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis over the past 2 decades has focused on the immunologic dysfunction observed in these patients. Successful treatment has relied on suppressing immune responses either broadly or through targeted suppression of specific immunologic pathways. By and large, whereas these approaches have enabled us to make significant progress in reducing disease-related morbidity, success has been moderate at best, with fewer than half of patients in any clinical trial achieving remission at the end of a year. Thus, this approach alone may not be sufficient for most patients with IBD.

Treatment of IBD with diet was long considered out of the mainstream and confined to the realm of anecdotes and message boards. Despite most patients believing that diet played a role in development of IBD and onset of flares and that dietary modification was helpful in relieving symptoms, physicians – who for the most part were not trained in these approaches – were not believers, and probably rightly so in the absence of any supporting data.¹ However, the parallel emergence of three bodies of literature has now brought diet back into the mainstream of IBD care (such that not a single IBD conference goes by without at least a session or two on diet). First, large prospective cohorts from Europe and North America provided robust evidence linking long-term adult dietary patterns to disease incidence in adult-onset IBD, which supports many important case-control observations made over the past 2 decades.² Second, and perhaps most important, we began understanding the role of the microbiome in the development of these diseases and recognizing its centrality to bowel inflammation. One of the key determinants of the microbiome is diet, exerting both short-term and long-term influences on the microbial structure. While microbial changes are by no means the only mechanism through which diet can influence intestinal inflammation, they are among the most important, with broad effects across many dietary components. These findings provided a robust scientific basis for investigating the role of diet. Third, while still far from the high-quality (and expensive) set-up of investigational trials of pharmacologic therapies, dietary therapy studies have also evolved to randomized controlled trial designs and investigation of mechanism-driven dietary combinations. Together, I think these three recent advances, in addition to the wealth of existing literature and anecdotal experience, have been important in moving diet (back) into the IBD mainstream.

So what evidence is there that diet is effective in the treatment of IBD? Randomized controlled trials published more than a decade ago demonstrated that exclusive enteral nutrition, wherein all table foods are eliminated from a diet and the patient relies on an elemental diet alone for nutrition, was effective in not just inducing clinical remission but also improving inflammatory biomarkers.³ With results replicated in several trials, exclusive enteral nutrition is, in many parts of the world, one of the first-line treatments for pediatric Crohn’s disease. That this has not been translated to longer-term maintenance therapy is not necessarily an indicator of lack of durable efficacy, but reflects the challenges of maintaining such a restrictive diet long term while living an active, normal life. However, more recent rigorous studies have demonstrated that the effects of exclusive enteral nutrition can be mimicked either by a selected, less-restrictive diet (such as CD-TREAT⁴), which is more sustainable, or by combining partial enteral nutrition with an elimination diet that is quite diverse (such as CDED⁵). The latter two are considerably more promising as longer-term dietary treatments for Crohn’s disease with durable efficacy in open-label studies and randomized trials.

What are my final arguments for diet being used as a treatment for IBD? With the exception of very restrictive ones, diets are generally safe. Of course, patients on restricted diets need monitoring for nutritional deficiencies, but this monitoring is likely less intense than that needed for many of our immunosuppressive therapies. Dietary therapies are not associated with an increase in risk of infections or malignancy (unlike our traditional immunosuppressive therapies), and consequently are much more likely to be accepted by our patients than what we are currently offering. In addition, the existing treatments are expensive and consequently difficult to sustain globally with the increasing burden of these diseases. On the other hand, as eating and dietary choices are a routine part of day-to-day life, dietary therapies are not likely to be associated with any excess costs.

Therefore, treating IBD with diet alone is supported by epidemiologic, mechanistic, and clinical evidence and is a safe, effective, and inexpensive alternative for our patients.
 

References

1. Zallot C et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2013 Jan;19(1):66-72.

2. Sasson AN et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Dec 5;S1542-3565(19)31394-1.

3. Wall CL et al. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19:7652-60.

4. Svolos V et al. Gastroenterology. 2019;156:1354-67.e6.

5. Levine A et al. Gastroenterology. 2019;157:440-50.e8.

Dr. Ananthakrishnan is a gastroenterologist in the division of gastroenterology, Crohn’s and Colitis Center, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston. He is supported by funding from the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation and the Chleck Family Foundation.

IBD can be treated with diet alone – No, it cannot!

The cause of IBD is not completely understood, but we believe something in our environment triggers a dysregulated immune response in individuals with a genetic predisposition to IBD. Among the environmental triggers commonly recognized, diet is considered an important trigger through its ability to affect the composition and health of the gut microbiome and host barrier function. Epidemiologic data support this assumption. Westernization of diet has been associated with the increasing incidence of IBD across the globe and in immigrants who move from developing countries to an industrialized country. Observational studies have shown diets higher in meat and polyunsaturated fatty acids and omega-6 fatty acids are associated with a higher risk for IBD, whereas diets high in fruits, vegetables, and other sources of dietary fiber have a lower risk of IBD.

A growing body of evidence supports the impact food can have on gut health, specifically in mouse IBD models, but it is challenging to translate findings from animal studies into dietary interventions for IBD patients. Mouse studies help us understand the mechanistic basis of how diet may affect IBD, but randomized clinical trials establishing their role in IBD are lacking. This is not surprising as dietary studies are challenging, particularly if done in a robust manner, given the difficulties of ensuring and measuring dietary compliance.

Exclusive enteral nutrition (EEN) has been studied the most rigorously of all diets in IBD and has demonstrated the greatest benefit, compared with other diet studies in IBD. EEN requires the intake of elemental, semi-elemental, or polymeric formulas to meet all nutritional requirements without additional intake of food for 6-8 weeks. Studies have been performed mostly in pediatric populations and have shown effectiveness in induction of remission with reduction in inflammatory markers, including C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and fecal calprotectin, and even mucosal healing. EEN has not worked out as well for adult populations, because of the poor tolerability of exclusive intake of enteral formulas. Because of this limitation, studies of partial enteral nutrition have been performed that generally allow some food intake in addition to the enteral nutrition. When compared with EEN or anti–tumor necrosis factor–alpha therapy, partial enteral nutrition is a less-effective treatment of Crohn’s disease; however, partial enteral nutrition does appear to improve clinical symptoms.

Beyond EEN, there are many diets that have been considered for the treatment of IBD, including the specific carbohydrate diet (SCD), Crohn’s disease exclusion diet, autoimmune diet, low FODMAP (fermentable oligo-, di-, mono-saccharides and polyols), Paleolithic diet, Mediterranean diet, and the semi-vegetarian diet, to name a few. Of these, only the SCD and Crohn’s disease exclusion diets have shown improvement in clinical remission and reduction in inflammatory markers.

The SCD diet is based on the theory that malabsorption of disaccharide and polysaccharide carbohydrates leads to bacterial overgrowth and host barrier dysfunction. This diet eliminates grains, dairy, processed meats, and certain vegetables such as potatoes, yams, and legumes. Small uncontrolled studies have shown improvement in symptoms and endoscopy findings. However, this restrictive diet is nearly impossible to follow long term. The Crohn’s disease exclusion diet is a whole foods diet avoiding all processed foods, animal fats, dairy, and gluten. Small studies of this diet have also shown improvement in clinical symptoms and inflammatory markers.

The plethora of studies and reports of the therapeutic effect of diet on IBD provide some promise of the benefit dietary modifications can bring to our IBD patients. However, most dietary studies are underpowered, lack a control arm, and do not include endoscopic endpoints. The current body of evidence remains insufficient to support the use of diet alone for the treatment of IBD. We need randomized clinical controlled trials that are held to the same rigor as those of our approved medical treatments for IBD. Although such trials are challenging, we’ve seen groups rise to the task to carry out more robust dietary studies in the IBD population, and we await the results of several ongoing trials.

IBD is a challenging disease to live with and often leaves our patients feeling out of control. Dietary choices provide an avenue for patients to have some control of their health. However, current evidence does not support the prescription of dietary interventions alone to treat IBD, particularly when we have known, effective therapies. While I am not ready to prescribe diet as a stand-alone treatment for IBD, I make a point to discuss the role diet may play in helping our patients achieve optimal health. As health care providers, it is our responsibility to provide holistic care to our patients, which includes promotion of a healthy diet, absent processed foods and added sugars. Healthy lifestyle choices combined with effective medical and surgical treatments offer our patients the best shot at sustained disease control.
 

References

1. Hou JK et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011;106(4):563-73.

2. Zachos M et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007(1):CD000542.

3. Lee D et al. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2015;21(8):1786-93.

4. Obih C et al. Nutrition. 2016;32(4):418-25.

5. Sigall Boneh R et al. J Crohns Colitis. 2017;11(10):1205-12.

Dr. Raffals is a gastroenterologist in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. She has no financial conflicts of interest relevant to this paper.

Children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis–associated uveitis (JIA-U) are significantly more likely to experience a flare in their eye disease if their arthritis is also worsening, a team of U.S.-based researchers has found.

Jonathan Trobe, M.D./Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 3.0

In a longitudinal cohort study, children with active arthritis at the time of a routine rheumatology assessment had an almost 2.5-fold increased risk of also having active uveitis 45 days before or after the assessment than did children whose arthritis was not flaring at the rheumatology assessment.

“We demonstrate that the two diseases often run parallel courses,” corresponding author Emily J. Liebling, MD, of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and associates state in Arthritis Care & Research, noting that the magnitude of the association is striking.

“Although there are known risk factors associated with uveitis development in children with JIA, less data are available about factors associated with uveitis flare or activity,” said Sheila T. Angeles-Han, MD, MSc, of the departments of pediatrics and ophthalmology at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center who commented on the study in an interview.

“If proven, this knowledge has the potential to impact practice patterns and current guidelines wherein a pediatric rheumatologist who evaluates a child with JIA-associated uveitis and finds active arthritis would request an expedited ophthalmic examination,” Dr. Angeles-Han suggested.

Dr. Angeles-Han led the development of the first American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation Guideline for the Screening, Monitoring, and Treatment of JIA-Associated Uveitis, which recommends regular screening for uveitis in all children with JIA. Children found to have uveitis should then be screened at least every 3 months, and more frequently if they are taking glucocorticoids and treatment is being tapered.

JIA-associated uveitis accounts for around 20%-40% of all cases of noninfectious childhood eye inflammation, and it can run an insidious and chronic course.

“Children with acute anterior uveitis are symptomatic and tend to have a painful red eye, thus prompting an ophthalmic evaluation,” Dr. Angeles-Han explained. “This is different from children with chronic anterior uveitis who tend not to have any symptoms, thus a screening examination is critical to detect ocular inflammation.”

While the ACR/AF guideline distinguishes between acute and chronic uveitis, Dr. Liebling and colleagues explain that they did not because their experience shows that “even patients with chronic anterior uveitis, typically thought to have silent disease, may exhibit symptoms of eye pain, redness, vision changes, and photophobia.”

Conversely, they say “the JIA subtypes usually associated with acute anterior uveitis may instead manifest as asymptomatic eye disease.”

For their study, Dr. Liebling and coinvestigators examined the records of children seen at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia over a 6.5-year period. For inclusion, children had to have a physician diagnosis of JIA of any subtype and a history of uveitis.

A total of 98 children were included in the retrospective evaluation; the median age at diagnosis of JIA was 3.3 years, and the median age at first uveitis diagnosis was 5.1 years. The majority (82%) were female, 69% were antinuclear antibody (ANA) positive, and 60% had oligoarthritis – all of which have been associated with having a higher risk for developing uveitis.

However, independent of these and several other factors, the probability of having active uveitis within 45 days of a rheumatology assessment was 65% in those with active arthritis versus 42% for those with no active joints.

Their data are based on 1,229 rheumatology visits that occurred between 2013 and 2019, with a median of 13 visits per patient. Overall, arthritis was defined as being active in 17% of visits, and active uveitis was observed in 18% of rheumatology visits.

Concordance between arthritis and uveitis activity was observed 73% of the time, the researchers reported. A sensitivity analysis that excluded children with the enthesitis-related arthritis subtype of JIA, who may not undergo frequent eye exams, did not change their findings.

Decreased odds of active uveitis at any time point were seen with the use of combination biologic and nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Years from uveitis diagnosis was also associated with lower odds of active uveitis over time.

Other factors associated with lower odds of uveitis were female sex, HLA-B27 positivity, and having any subtype of JIA other than the oligoarticular subtype.

Dr. Liebling and coinvestigators concluded that, contrary to the historical dogma, arthritis and uveitis do not run distinct and unrelated courses: “In patients with JIA-U, there is a significant temporal association between arthritis and uveitis disease activity.”

The study was sponsored by the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Rheumatology Research Fund. The investigators for the study had no financial support from commercial sources or any other potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Angeles-Han had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

SOURCE: Liebling EJ et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Oct 12. doi: 10.1002/acr.24483.

Children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis–associated uveitis (JIA-U) are significantly more likely to experience a flare in their eye disease if their arthritis is also worsening, a team of U.S.-based researchers has found.

Jonathan Trobe, M.D./Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 3.0

In a longitudinal cohort study, children with active arthritis at the time of a routine rheumatology assessment had an almost 2.5-fold increased risk of also having active uveitis 45 days before or after the assessment than did children whose arthritis was not flaring at the rheumatology assessment.

“We demonstrate that the two diseases often run parallel courses,” corresponding author Emily J. Liebling, MD, of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and associates state in Arthritis Care & Research, noting that the magnitude of the association is striking.

“Although there are known risk factors associated with uveitis development in children with JIA, less data are available about factors associated with uveitis flare or activity,” said Sheila T. Angeles-Han, MD, MSc, of the departments of pediatrics and ophthalmology at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center who commented on the study in an interview.

“If proven, this knowledge has the potential to impact practice patterns and current guidelines wherein a pediatric rheumatologist who evaluates a child with JIA-associated uveitis and finds active arthritis would request an expedited ophthalmic examination,” Dr. Angeles-Han suggested.

Dr. Angeles-Han led the development of the first American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation Guideline for the Screening, Monitoring, and Treatment of JIA-Associated Uveitis, which recommends regular screening for uveitis in all children with JIA. Children found to have uveitis should then be screened at least every 3 months, and more frequently if they are taking glucocorticoids and treatment is being tapered.

JIA-associated uveitis accounts for around 20%-40% of all cases of noninfectious childhood eye inflammation, and it can run an insidious and chronic course.

“Children with acute anterior uveitis are symptomatic and tend to have a painful red eye, thus prompting an ophthalmic evaluation,” Dr. Angeles-Han explained. “This is different from children with chronic anterior uveitis who tend not to have any symptoms, thus a screening examination is critical to detect ocular inflammation.”

While the ACR/AF guideline distinguishes between acute and chronic uveitis, Dr. Liebling and colleagues explain that they did not because their experience shows that “even patients with chronic anterior uveitis, typically thought to have silent disease, may exhibit symptoms of eye pain, redness, vision changes, and photophobia.”

Conversely, they say “the JIA subtypes usually associated with acute anterior uveitis may instead manifest as asymptomatic eye disease.”

For their study, Dr. Liebling and coinvestigators examined the records of children seen at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia over a 6.5-year period. For inclusion, children had to have a physician diagnosis of JIA of any subtype and a history of uveitis.

A total of 98 children were included in the retrospective evaluation; the median age at diagnosis of JIA was 3.3 years, and the median age at first uveitis diagnosis was 5.1 years. The majority (82%) were female, 69% were antinuclear antibody (ANA) positive, and 60% had oligoarthritis – all of which have been associated with having a higher risk for developing uveitis.

However, independent of these and several other factors, the probability of having active uveitis within 45 days of a rheumatology assessment was 65% in those with active arthritis versus 42% for those with no active joints.

Their data are based on 1,229 rheumatology visits that occurred between 2013 and 2019, with a median of 13 visits per patient. Overall, arthritis was defined as being active in 17% of visits, and active uveitis was observed in 18% of rheumatology visits.

Concordance between arthritis and uveitis activity was observed 73% of the time, the researchers reported. A sensitivity analysis that excluded children with the enthesitis-related arthritis subtype of JIA, who may not undergo frequent eye exams, did not change their findings.

Decreased odds of active uveitis at any time point were seen with the use of combination biologic and nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Years from uveitis diagnosis was also associated with lower odds of active uveitis over time.

Other factors associated with lower odds of uveitis were female sex, HLA-B27 positivity, and having any subtype of JIA other than the oligoarticular subtype.

Dr. Liebling and coinvestigators concluded that, contrary to the historical dogma, arthritis and uveitis do not run distinct and unrelated courses: “In patients with JIA-U, there is a significant temporal association between arthritis and uveitis disease activity.”

The study was sponsored by the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Rheumatology Research Fund. The investigators for the study had no financial support from commercial sources or any other potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Angeles-Han had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

SOURCE: Liebling EJ et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Oct 12. doi: 10.1002/acr.24483.

Children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis–associated uveitis (JIA-U) are significantly more likely to experience a flare in their eye disease if their arthritis is also worsening, a team of U.S.-based researchers has found.

Jonathan Trobe, M.D./Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 3.0

In a longitudinal cohort study, children with active arthritis at the time of a routine rheumatology assessment had an almost 2.5-fold increased risk of also having active uveitis 45 days before or after the assessment than did children whose arthritis was not flaring at the rheumatology assessment.

“We demonstrate that the two diseases often run parallel courses,” corresponding author Emily J. Liebling, MD, of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and associates state in Arthritis Care & Research, noting that the magnitude of the association is striking.

“Although there are known risk factors associated with uveitis development in children with JIA, less data are available about factors associated with uveitis flare or activity,” said Sheila T. Angeles-Han, MD, MSc, of the departments of pediatrics and ophthalmology at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center who commented on the study in an interview.

“If proven, this knowledge has the potential to impact practice patterns and current guidelines wherein a pediatric rheumatologist who evaluates a child with JIA-associated uveitis and finds active arthritis would request an expedited ophthalmic examination,” Dr. Angeles-Han suggested.

Dr. Angeles-Han led the development of the first American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation Guideline for the Screening, Monitoring, and Treatment of JIA-Associated Uveitis, which recommends regular screening for uveitis in all children with JIA. Children found to have uveitis should then be screened at least every 3 months, and more frequently if they are taking glucocorticoids and treatment is being tapered.

JIA-associated uveitis accounts for around 20%-40% of all cases of noninfectious childhood eye inflammation, and it can run an insidious and chronic course.

“Children with acute anterior uveitis are symptomatic and tend to have a painful red eye, thus prompting an ophthalmic evaluation,” Dr. Angeles-Han explained. “This is different from children with chronic anterior uveitis who tend not to have any symptoms, thus a screening examination is critical to detect ocular inflammation.”

While the ACR/AF guideline distinguishes between acute and chronic uveitis, Dr. Liebling and colleagues explain that they did not because their experience shows that “even patients with chronic anterior uveitis, typically thought to have silent disease, may exhibit symptoms of eye pain, redness, vision changes, and photophobia.”

Conversely, they say “the JIA subtypes usually associated with acute anterior uveitis may instead manifest as asymptomatic eye disease.”

For their study, Dr. Liebling and coinvestigators examined the records of children seen at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia over a 6.5-year period. For inclusion, children had to have a physician diagnosis of JIA of any subtype and a history of uveitis.

A total of 98 children were included in the retrospective evaluation; the median age at diagnosis of JIA was 3.3 years, and the median age at first uveitis diagnosis was 5.1 years. The majority (82%) were female, 69% were antinuclear antibody (ANA) positive, and 60% had oligoarthritis – all of which have been associated with having a higher risk for developing uveitis.

However, independent of these and several other factors, the probability of having active uveitis within 45 days of a rheumatology assessment was 65% in those with active arthritis versus 42% for those with no active joints.

Their data are based on 1,229 rheumatology visits that occurred between 2013 and 2019, with a median of 13 visits per patient. Overall, arthritis was defined as being active in 17% of visits, and active uveitis was observed in 18% of rheumatology visits.

Concordance between arthritis and uveitis activity was observed 73% of the time, the researchers reported. A sensitivity analysis that excluded children with the enthesitis-related arthritis subtype of JIA, who may not undergo frequent eye exams, did not change their findings.

Decreased odds of active uveitis at any time point were seen with the use of combination biologic and nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Years from uveitis diagnosis was also associated with lower odds of active uveitis over time.

Other factors associated with lower odds of uveitis were female sex, HLA-B27 positivity, and having any subtype of JIA other than the oligoarticular subtype.

Dr. Liebling and coinvestigators concluded that, contrary to the historical dogma, arthritis and uveitis do not run distinct and unrelated courses: “In patients with JIA-U, there is a significant temporal association between arthritis and uveitis disease activity.”

The study was sponsored by the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Rheumatology Research Fund. The investigators for the study had no financial support from commercial sources or any other potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Angeles-Han had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

SOURCE: Liebling EJ et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Oct 12. doi: 10.1002/acr.24483.

Sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) is a common sleep disturbance in neuromuscular disease (NMD) affecting 36% to 53% of diagnosed adults (Arens R, et al. Paediatr Respir Rev. 2010;11[1]:24). Disturbances in sleep may serve as the earliest sign of muscle weakness in these patients, at times being detected before their underlying neuromuscular disease is diagnosed. This is of paramount importance to sleep medicine and pulmonary physicians who may be among the first specialists to evaluate these patients and can play a vital role in the recognition and diagnosis of neuromuscular disease. Herein, we will provide a guide to aid the reader in recognizing the early signs and symptoms of NMD as it pertains to sleep, as earlier diagnosis may lead to improved quality of life or possibly even survival, in some cases.

Pathophysiology

To begin, it is important to understand the pathophysiology of NMD and how it is altered during the sleep state. Sleep-related physiologic changes in healthy humans include reduction in upper airway muscle tone, blunting of chemoreceptors associated with pharyngeal dilator augmentation, and sleep stage-specific changes in skeletal muscle tone. In patients with NMD, these changes may not be adequately compensated for, leading to sleep-disordered breathing that can present as sleep apnea, hypoventilation, or hypoxia (Govindarajan R, et al. Sleep Issues in Neuromuscular Disorders: A Clinical Guide. Springer International Publishing AG, Springer Nature 2018).

Central respiratory control

The respiratory centers in the pons and medulla are generally spared from the primary effects of most NMD; however, over time, they may be affected secondarily. Similar to obesity hypoventilation syndrome (OHS), untreated chronic sleep-related hypoventilation from NMD can impair the sensitivity of respiratory chemoreceptors leading to worsening hypoventilation.
 

Upper airway resistance

Pharyngeal muscle tone is key to maintaining a patent airway during sleep. In some NMD, bulbar muscle weakness with pharyngeal dilator muscle hypotonia leads to increased upper airway resistance, especially during REM sleep, which can result in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). In addition to weakness affecting the upper airway musculature, anatomical changes may also contribute to sleep-disordered breathing. In Pompe disease, for example, macroglossia and fibro-fatty replacement of tongue muscles may occur, leading to the development of OSA.
 

Diaphragm weakness

In NMD that affects the diaphragm, there is an increased reliance on the skeletal muscles of respiration to maintain adequate ventilation as the underlying disease progresses. Generally, weakness of the diaphragm will cause disturbances in REM sleep first as, during REM, ventilation predominately depends on the diaphragm and patients lose the assistance of their skeletal muscles. However, over time, the progressive weakening of the diaphragm will progress to involve NREM sleep as well, clinically manifesting with frank sleep apnea, hypoventilation, and, ultimately, chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure.
 

Inspiratory muscle weakness

As noted above, there are many other muscles used in inspiration in addition to the diaphragm. Other primary muscles include the intercostal and scalene muscles, and accessory muscles include the sternocleidomastoid, pectoralis, latissimus dorsi, erector spinae, and trapezius muscles. While sleep and breathing problems may begin early in the course of a neuromuscular disease, the complex restrictive lung disease pattern that we see in these patients may not develop until the respiratory muscles of the chest wall are involved. This restriction, which corresponds to lower lung volumes, leads to a fall in the caudal traction force of the airways which can lead to reduction in the pharyngeal airway cross section. Because these issues are worsened in the supine position, their pathophysiologic effects on respiration are most notable during sleep, putting patients at higher risk of OSA.
 

Cardiac abnormalities

Lastly, it should be noted that diseases such as the muscular dystrophies, myotonic dystrophy, mitochondriopathies, and nemaline myopathy can be associated with a cardiomyopathy ,which can lead to central sleep apnea in the form of Cheyne-Stokes breathing.
 

Sleep-disordered breathing in specific NMDs

In amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), up to 75% of patients may have SDB, the majority of which is central sleep apnea (CSA) and hypoventilation although they still have a higher prevalence of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) than the general population. Whether the diaphragm or the pharyngeal muscles are predominantly affected may have something to do with the type of apnea a patient experiences; however, studies have shown that even in bulbar ALS, CSA is most common. It should be noted, that this is not Cheyne-Stokes CSA, but rather lack of chest wall and abdominal movement due to weakness. (David WS, et al. J Neurol Sci. 1997;152[suppl 1]:S29-35).

In myasthenia gravis (MG), about 40% to 60% of patients have SDB, and about 30% develop overt respiratory weakness, generally late in the course of their disease. Many of these patients report excessive daytime sleepiness, often attributed to myasthenic fatigue requiring treatment with corticosteroids. It is important to evaluate for sleep apnea, given that if diagnosed and treated, their generalized fatigue may improve and the need for steroids may be reduced or eliminated altogether. It is also important to note that the respiratory and sleep issues MG patients face may not correlate with the severity of their overall disease, such that patients well-controlled on medications from a generalized weakness standpoint may still require home noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for chronic respiratory failure due to weakness of the respiratory system muscles.

Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), an X-linked disease associated with dysfunction of dystrophin synthesis, is often diagnosed in early childhood and gradually progresses over years. Their initial sleep and respiratory symptoms can be subtle and may start with increased nighttime awakenings and daytime somnolence. Generally, these patients will develop OSA in the first decade of life and progress to hypoventilation in their second decade and beyond. These patients are especially important to recognize, as studies have shown appropriate NIV therapy may significantly prolong their life (Finder JD, et al; American Thoracic Society. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2004(Aug 15);170[4]:456-465).

In addition to the well-known motor neuron and neuromuscular diseases mentioned above, neuropathic diseases can lead to sleep disturbances, as well. In Charcot-Marie-Tooth (CMT), pharyngeal and laryngeal neuropathy, as well as hypoglossal nerve dysfunction, lead to OSA. Similar to ALS and MG, there is a significant amount of CSA and hypoventilation, likely related to phrenic neuropathy. In contrast to MG, in CMT, the severity of neuropathic disease does correlate to the severity of sleep apnea.
 

Testing

Testing can range from overnight oximetry to polysomnogram (PSG) with CO₂ monitoring. Generally, all patients with a rapidly progressive neuromuscular disease should get pulmonary function testing (PFT) (upright and supine) to evaluate forced vital capacity (FVC) every 3 to 6 months to monitor for respiratory failure. Laboratory studies that can be helpful in assessing for SDB are the PaCO₂ (> 45 mm Hg) measured on an arterial blood gas and serum bicarbonate levels (>27 mmol/L or a base excess >4 mmol/L). Patients can qualify for NIV with an overnight SaO₂ less than or equal to 88% for greater than or equal to 5 minutes in a 2-hour recording period, PaCO₂ greater than or equal to 45 mm Hg, forced vital capacity (FVC) < 50% of predicted, or maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP) <60 cm H₂O. For ALS specifically, sniff nasal pressure < 40 cm H₂O and orthopnea are additional criteria that can be used. It is worth noting that a PSG is not required for NIV qualification in neuromuscular respiratory insufficiency. However, PSG is beneficial in patients with preserved PFTs but suspected of having early nocturnal respiratory impairment.
 

Therapy

NIV is the mainstay of therapy for SDB in patients with NMD and has been associated with a slower decline in FVC and improved survival in some cases, as demonstrated in studies of patients with DMD or ALS. Generally, a bi-level PAP mode is preferred; the expiratory positive airway pressure prevents micro-atelectasis and improves V/Q matching and the inspiratory positive airway pressure reduces inspiratory muscle load and optimizes ventilation. As weakness progresses, patients may have difficulty creating enough negative force to initiate a spontaneous breath, thus a mode with a set respiratory rate is preferred that can be implemented in bi-level PAP or more advanced modes such as volume-assured pressure support (VAPS) modality. For patients who are unable to tolerate NIV, particularly those with severe bulbar disease and difficult to manage respiratory secretions, tracheostomy with mechanical ventilation may ultimately be needed. This decision should be made as part of a multidisciplinary shared decision-making conversation with the patient, their family, and their team of providers.
 

Summary

Sleep is a particularly vulnerable state for patients with NMD, and in many patients, disturbances in sleep may be the first clue to their ultimate diagnosis. It is important that sleep medicine and pulmonary specialists understand the pathophysiology and management of NMD as they can play a vital role in the interdisciplinary care of these patients.
 

Dr. Greer is a Sleep Medicine Fellow, Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine; Dr. Collop is Professor of Medicine and Neurology, Director, Emory Sleep Center; Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.

Sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) is a common sleep disturbance in neuromuscular disease (NMD) affecting 36% to 53% of diagnosed adults (Arens R, et al. Paediatr Respir Rev. 2010;11[1]:24). Disturbances in sleep may serve as the earliest sign of muscle weakness in these patients, at times being detected before their underlying neuromuscular disease is diagnosed. This is of paramount importance to sleep medicine and pulmonary physicians who may be among the first specialists to evaluate these patients and can play a vital role in the recognition and diagnosis of neuromuscular disease. Herein, we will provide a guide to aid the reader in recognizing the early signs and symptoms of NMD as it pertains to sleep, as earlier diagnosis may lead to improved quality of life or possibly even survival, in some cases.

Pathophysiology

To begin, it is important to understand the pathophysiology of NMD and how it is altered during the sleep state. Sleep-related physiologic changes in healthy humans include reduction in upper airway muscle tone, blunting of chemoreceptors associated with pharyngeal dilator augmentation, and sleep stage-specific changes in skeletal muscle tone. In patients with NMD, these changes may not be adequately compensated for, leading to sleep-disordered breathing that can present as sleep apnea, hypoventilation, or hypoxia (Govindarajan R, et al. Sleep Issues in Neuromuscular Disorders: A Clinical Guide. Springer International Publishing AG, Springer Nature 2018).

Central respiratory control

The respiratory centers in the pons and medulla are generally spared from the primary effects of most NMD; however, over time, they may be affected secondarily. Similar to obesity hypoventilation syndrome (OHS), untreated chronic sleep-related hypoventilation from NMD can impair the sensitivity of respiratory chemoreceptors leading to worsening hypoventilation.
 

Upper airway resistance

Pharyngeal muscle tone is key to maintaining a patent airway during sleep. In some NMD, bulbar muscle weakness with pharyngeal dilator muscle hypotonia leads to increased upper airway resistance, especially during REM sleep, which can result in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). In addition to weakness affecting the upper airway musculature, anatomical changes may also contribute to sleep-disordered breathing. In Pompe disease, for example, macroglossia and fibro-fatty replacement of tongue muscles may occur, leading to the development of OSA.
 

Diaphragm weakness

In NMD that affects the diaphragm, there is an increased reliance on the skeletal muscles of respiration to maintain adequate ventilation as the underlying disease progresses. Generally, weakness of the diaphragm will cause disturbances in REM sleep first as, during REM, ventilation predominately depends on the diaphragm and patients lose the assistance of their skeletal muscles. However, over time, the progressive weakening of the diaphragm will progress to involve NREM sleep as well, clinically manifesting with frank sleep apnea, hypoventilation, and, ultimately, chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure.
 

Inspiratory muscle weakness

As noted above, there are many other muscles used in inspiration in addition to the diaphragm. Other primary muscles include the intercostal and scalene muscles, and accessory muscles include the sternocleidomastoid, pectoralis, latissimus dorsi, erector spinae, and trapezius muscles. While sleep and breathing problems may begin early in the course of a neuromuscular disease, the complex restrictive lung disease pattern that we see in these patients may not develop until the respiratory muscles of the chest wall are involved. This restriction, which corresponds to lower lung volumes, leads to a fall in the caudal traction force of the airways which can lead to reduction in the pharyngeal airway cross section. Because these issues are worsened in the supine position, their pathophysiologic effects on respiration are most notable during sleep, putting patients at higher risk of OSA.
 

Cardiac abnormalities

Lastly, it should be noted that diseases such as the muscular dystrophies, myotonic dystrophy, mitochondriopathies, and nemaline myopathy can be associated with a cardiomyopathy ,which can lead to central sleep apnea in the form of Cheyne-Stokes breathing.
 

Sleep-disordered breathing in specific NMDs

In amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), up to 75% of patients may have SDB, the majority of which is central sleep apnea (CSA) and hypoventilation although they still have a higher prevalence of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) than the general population. Whether the diaphragm or the pharyngeal muscles are predominantly affected may have something to do with the type of apnea a patient experiences; however, studies have shown that even in bulbar ALS, CSA is most common. It should be noted, that this is not Cheyne-Stokes CSA, but rather lack of chest wall and abdominal movement due to weakness. (David WS, et al. J Neurol Sci. 1997;152[suppl 1]:S29-35).

In myasthenia gravis (MG), about 40% to 60% of patients have SDB, and about 30% develop overt respiratory weakness, generally late in the course of their disease. Many of these patients report excessive daytime sleepiness, often attributed to myasthenic fatigue requiring treatment with corticosteroids. It is important to evaluate for sleep apnea, given that if diagnosed and treated, their generalized fatigue may improve and the need for steroids may be reduced or eliminated altogether. It is also important to note that the respiratory and sleep issues MG patients face may not correlate with the severity of their overall disease, such that patients well-controlled on medications from a generalized weakness standpoint may still require home noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for chronic respiratory failure due to weakness of the respiratory system muscles.

Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), an X-linked disease associated with dysfunction of dystrophin synthesis, is often diagnosed in early childhood and gradually progresses over years. Their initial sleep and respiratory symptoms can be subtle and may start with increased nighttime awakenings and daytime somnolence. Generally, these patients will develop OSA in the first decade of life and progress to hypoventilation in their second decade and beyond. These patients are especially important to recognize, as studies have shown appropriate NIV therapy may significantly prolong their life (Finder JD, et al; American Thoracic Society. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2004(Aug 15);170[4]:456-465).

In addition to the well-known motor neuron and neuromuscular diseases mentioned above, neuropathic diseases can lead to sleep disturbances, as well. In Charcot-Marie-Tooth (CMT), pharyngeal and laryngeal neuropathy, as well as hypoglossal nerve dysfunction, lead to OSA. Similar to ALS and MG, there is a significant amount of CSA and hypoventilation, likely related to phrenic neuropathy. In contrast to MG, in CMT, the severity of neuropathic disease does correlate to the severity of sleep apnea.
 

Testing

Testing can range from overnight oximetry to polysomnogram (PSG) with CO₂ monitoring. Generally, all patients with a rapidly progressive neuromuscular disease should get pulmonary function testing (PFT) (upright and supine) to evaluate forced vital capacity (FVC) every 3 to 6 months to monitor for respiratory failure. Laboratory studies that can be helpful in assessing for SDB are the PaCO₂ (> 45 mm Hg) measured on an arterial blood gas and serum bicarbonate levels (>27 mmol/L or a base excess >4 mmol/L). Patients can qualify for NIV with an overnight SaO₂ less than or equal to 88% for greater than or equal to 5 minutes in a 2-hour recording period, PaCO₂ greater than or equal to 45 mm Hg, forced vital capacity (FVC) < 50% of predicted, or maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP) <60 cm H₂O. For ALS specifically, sniff nasal pressure < 40 cm H₂O and orthopnea are additional criteria that can be used. It is worth noting that a PSG is not required for NIV qualification in neuromuscular respiratory insufficiency. However, PSG is beneficial in patients with preserved PFTs but suspected of having early nocturnal respiratory impairment.
 

Therapy

NIV is the mainstay of therapy for SDB in patients with NMD and has been associated with a slower decline in FVC and improved survival in some cases, as demonstrated in studies of patients with DMD or ALS. Generally, a bi-level PAP mode is preferred; the expiratory positive airway pressure prevents micro-atelectasis and improves V/Q matching and the inspiratory positive airway pressure reduces inspiratory muscle load and optimizes ventilation. As weakness progresses, patients may have difficulty creating enough negative force to initiate a spontaneous breath, thus a mode with a set respiratory rate is preferred that can be implemented in bi-level PAP or more advanced modes such as volume-assured pressure support (VAPS) modality. For patients who are unable to tolerate NIV, particularly those with severe bulbar disease and difficult to manage respiratory secretions, tracheostomy with mechanical ventilation may ultimately be needed. This decision should be made as part of a multidisciplinary shared decision-making conversation with the patient, their family, and their team of providers.
 

Summary

Sleep is a particularly vulnerable state for patients with NMD, and in many patients, disturbances in sleep may be the first clue to their ultimate diagnosis. It is important that sleep medicine and pulmonary specialists understand the pathophysiology and management of NMD as they can play a vital role in the interdisciplinary care of these patients.
 

Dr. Greer is a Sleep Medicine Fellow, Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine; Dr. Collop is Professor of Medicine and Neurology, Director, Emory Sleep Center; Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.

Sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) is a common sleep disturbance in neuromuscular disease (NMD) affecting 36% to 53% of diagnosed adults (Arens R, et al. Paediatr Respir Rev. 2010;11[1]:24). Disturbances in sleep may serve as the earliest sign of muscle weakness in these patients, at times being detected before their underlying neuromuscular disease is diagnosed. This is of paramount importance to sleep medicine and pulmonary physicians who may be among the first specialists to evaluate these patients and can play a vital role in the recognition and diagnosis of neuromuscular disease. Herein, we will provide a guide to aid the reader in recognizing the early signs and symptoms of NMD as it pertains to sleep, as earlier diagnosis may lead to improved quality of life or possibly even survival, in some cases.

Pathophysiology

To begin, it is important to understand the pathophysiology of NMD and how it is altered during the sleep state. Sleep-related physiologic changes in healthy humans include reduction in upper airway muscle tone, blunting of chemoreceptors associated with pharyngeal dilator augmentation, and sleep stage-specific changes in skeletal muscle tone. In patients with NMD, these changes may not be adequately compensated for, leading to sleep-disordered breathing that can present as sleep apnea, hypoventilation, or hypoxia (Govindarajan R, et al. Sleep Issues in Neuromuscular Disorders: A Clinical Guide. Springer International Publishing AG, Springer Nature 2018).

Central respiratory control

The respiratory centers in the pons and medulla are generally spared from the primary effects of most NMD; however, over time, they may be affected secondarily. Similar to obesity hypoventilation syndrome (OHS), untreated chronic sleep-related hypoventilation from NMD can impair the sensitivity of respiratory chemoreceptors leading to worsening hypoventilation.
 

Upper airway resistance

Pharyngeal muscle tone is key to maintaining a patent airway during sleep. In some NMD, bulbar muscle weakness with pharyngeal dilator muscle hypotonia leads to increased upper airway resistance, especially during REM sleep, which can result in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). In addition to weakness affecting the upper airway musculature, anatomical changes may also contribute to sleep-disordered breathing. In Pompe disease, for example, macroglossia and fibro-fatty replacement of tongue muscles may occur, leading to the development of OSA.
 

Diaphragm weakness

In NMD that affects the diaphragm, there is an increased reliance on the skeletal muscles of respiration to maintain adequate ventilation as the underlying disease progresses. Generally, weakness of the diaphragm will cause disturbances in REM sleep first as, during REM, ventilation predominately depends on the diaphragm and patients lose the assistance of their skeletal muscles. However, over time, the progressive weakening of the diaphragm will progress to involve NREM sleep as well, clinically manifesting with frank sleep apnea, hypoventilation, and, ultimately, chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure.
 

Inspiratory muscle weakness

As noted above, there are many other muscles used in inspiration in addition to the diaphragm. Other primary muscles include the intercostal and scalene muscles, and accessory muscles include the sternocleidomastoid, pectoralis, latissimus dorsi, erector spinae, and trapezius muscles. While sleep and breathing problems may begin early in the course of a neuromuscular disease, the complex restrictive lung disease pattern that we see in these patients may not develop until the respiratory muscles of the chest wall are involved. This restriction, which corresponds to lower lung volumes, leads to a fall in the caudal traction force of the airways which can lead to reduction in the pharyngeal airway cross section. Because these issues are worsened in the supine position, their pathophysiologic effects on respiration are most notable during sleep, putting patients at higher risk of OSA.
 

Cardiac abnormalities

Lastly, it should be noted that diseases such as the muscular dystrophies, myotonic dystrophy, mitochondriopathies, and nemaline myopathy can be associated with a cardiomyopathy ,which can lead to central sleep apnea in the form of Cheyne-Stokes breathing.
 

Sleep-disordered breathing in specific NMDs

In amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), up to 75% of patients may have SDB, the majority of which is central sleep apnea (CSA) and hypoventilation although they still have a higher prevalence of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) than the general population. Whether the diaphragm or the pharyngeal muscles are predominantly affected may have something to do with the type of apnea a patient experiences; however, studies have shown that even in bulbar ALS, CSA is most common. It should be noted, that this is not Cheyne-Stokes CSA, but rather lack of chest wall and abdominal movement due to weakness. (David WS, et al. J Neurol Sci. 1997;152[suppl 1]:S29-35).

In myasthenia gravis (MG), about 40% to 60% of patients have SDB, and about 30% develop overt respiratory weakness, generally late in the course of their disease. Many of these patients report excessive daytime sleepiness, often attributed to myasthenic fatigue requiring treatment with corticosteroids. It is important to evaluate for sleep apnea, given that if diagnosed and treated, their generalized fatigue may improve and the need for steroids may be reduced or eliminated altogether. It is also important to note that the respiratory and sleep issues MG patients face may not correlate with the severity of their overall disease, such that patients well-controlled on medications from a generalized weakness standpoint may still require home noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for chronic respiratory failure due to weakness of the respiratory system muscles.

Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), an X-linked disease associated with dysfunction of dystrophin synthesis, is often diagnosed in early childhood and gradually progresses over years. Their initial sleep and respiratory symptoms can be subtle and may start with increased nighttime awakenings and daytime somnolence. Generally, these patients will develop OSA in the first decade of life and progress to hypoventilation in their second decade and beyond. These patients are especially important to recognize, as studies have shown appropriate NIV therapy may significantly prolong their life (Finder JD, et al; American Thoracic Society. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2004(Aug 15);170[4]:456-465).

In addition to the well-known motor neuron and neuromuscular diseases mentioned above, neuropathic diseases can lead to sleep disturbances, as well. In Charcot-Marie-Tooth (CMT), pharyngeal and laryngeal neuropathy, as well as hypoglossal nerve dysfunction, lead to OSA. Similar to ALS and MG, there is a significant amount of CSA and hypoventilation, likely related to phrenic neuropathy. In contrast to MG, in CMT, the severity of neuropathic disease does correlate to the severity of sleep apnea.
 

Testing

Testing can range from overnight oximetry to polysomnogram (PSG) with CO₂ monitoring. Generally, all patients with a rapidly progressive neuromuscular disease should get pulmonary function testing (PFT) (upright and supine) to evaluate forced vital capacity (FVC) every 3 to 6 months to monitor for respiratory failure. Laboratory studies that can be helpful in assessing for SDB are the PaCO₂ (> 45 mm Hg) measured on an arterial blood gas and serum bicarbonate levels (>27 mmol/L or a base excess >4 mmol/L). Patients can qualify for NIV with an overnight SaO₂ less than or equal to 88% for greater than or equal to 5 minutes in a 2-hour recording period, PaCO₂ greater than or equal to 45 mm Hg, forced vital capacity (FVC) < 50% of predicted, or maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP) <60 cm H₂O. For ALS specifically, sniff nasal pressure < 40 cm H₂O and orthopnea are additional criteria that can be used. It is worth noting that a PSG is not required for NIV qualification in neuromuscular respiratory insufficiency. However, PSG is beneficial in patients with preserved PFTs but suspected of having early nocturnal respiratory impairment.
 

Therapy

NIV is the mainstay of therapy for SDB in patients with NMD and has been associated with a slower decline in FVC and improved survival in some cases, as demonstrated in studies of patients with DMD or ALS. Generally, a bi-level PAP mode is preferred; the expiratory positive airway pressure prevents micro-atelectasis and improves V/Q matching and the inspiratory positive airway pressure reduces inspiratory muscle load and optimizes ventilation. As weakness progresses, patients may have difficulty creating enough negative force to initiate a spontaneous breath, thus a mode with a set respiratory rate is preferred that can be implemented in bi-level PAP or more advanced modes such as volume-assured pressure support (VAPS) modality. For patients who are unable to tolerate NIV, particularly those with severe bulbar disease and difficult to manage respiratory secretions, tracheostomy with mechanical ventilation may ultimately be needed. This decision should be made as part of a multidisciplinary shared decision-making conversation with the patient, their family, and their team of providers.
 

Summary

Sleep is a particularly vulnerable state for patients with NMD, and in many patients, disturbances in sleep may be the first clue to their ultimate diagnosis. It is important that sleep medicine and pulmonary specialists understand the pathophysiology and management of NMD as they can play a vital role in the interdisciplinary care of these patients.
 

Dr. Greer is a Sleep Medicine Fellow, Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine; Dr. Collop is Professor of Medicine and Neurology, Director, Emory Sleep Center; Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.

The Diagnosis: Relapsing Polychondritis 

Due to suspicion of relapsing polychondritis (RP), we also performed an audiometric evaluation, which demonstrated bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. Echocardiography highlighted mild to moderate mitralic and tricuspidal insufficiency without hemodynamic impairment (ejection fraction, 50%). Corticosteroid therapy was started (prednisone 0.5 mg/kg/d). After 7 days of treatment, inflammation was remarkably reduced, and the patient no longer reported pain. 

Relapsing polychondritis is a rare noninfective condition characterized by focal inflammatory destruction of ear cartilage, followed by fibroblastic regeneration. It often is associated with ocular inflammation, including conjunctivitis, scleritis, and episcleritis; cochlear or vestibular lesions; and seronegative nonerosive inflammatory arthritis.¹ Clinical examination of the affected area shows swelling, redness, and tenderness of the ear, which could lead to a misdiagnosis of cellulitis. A typical and useful differentiating sign is the sparing of the noncartilaginous parts of the ear lobule. If not promptly diagnosed and treated, the destructive process can cause thinning of the cartilage, leading to deformities of the external ear.  

The differential diagnosis includes erysipelas, which presents as a rapidly appearing inflammatory patch with sharply defined borders, accompanied by regional lymphadenopathy or skin streaking as well as fever. Sweet syndrome usually presents with tender erythematous or violaceous skin papules, plaques, or nodules, frequently with a pseudovesicular appearance; patients generally present with a classic fever and peripheral neutrophilia.² The localized cutaneous form of leishmaniasis usually appears with a papule that generally develops into an ulcerative nodular lesion. Our patient did not have a history of exposure to topical substances that could point to photocontact dermatitis.  

Dion et al³ proposed 3 distinct clinical phenotypes of RP: (1) patients with concomitant myelodysplastic syndrome or other hematologic malignancy (<10% of patients), mostly older men with a poor prognosis; (2) patients with tracheobronchial involvement (approximately 25% of patients); and (3) patients who do not have hematologic or tracheobronchial involvement (approximately 65% of patients) with a good prognosis.  

Two sets of diagnostic criteria have been proposed. The criteria from McAdam et al⁴ required the presence of 3 or more of the following clinical features: bilateral auricular chondritis, nonerosive seronegative inflammatory polyarthritis, nasal chondritis, ocular inflammation (eg, conjunctivitis, keratitis, scleritis/episcleritis, uveitis), respiratory tract chondritis (laryngeal and/or tracheal cartilages), and cochlear and/or vestibular dysfunction (eg, neurosensory hearing loss, tinnitus, vertigo). These criteria were modified by Damiani and Levine.⁵ According to the latter, all patients were required to have one of the following: at least 4 of the McAdam et al⁴ diagnostic criteria; 1 or more of the clinical findings included in the McAdam et al⁴ criteria with histologic features suggestive for RP; or chondritis at 2 or more separate anatomic locations with a response to glucocorticoids and/or dapsone.  

No laboratory findings are specific for RP, and nonspecific indicators of inflammation--elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein--often are present. 
The cause of RP is unknown. Familial clustering has not been observed. Terao et al⁶ found that HLA-DRB1*1602, -DQB1*0502, and -B*6701, in linkage disequilibrium with each other, are associated with susceptibility to RP. 

There is no universal consensus about treatment, but a course of steroids leads to the resolution of the acute phase. Maintenance treatment can include dapsone, azathioprine, methotrexate, cyclophosphamide, and cyclosporine.^7,8 Some studies have described the successful use of anti-tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors and rituximab.^9,10  

The Diagnosis: Relapsing Polychondritis 

Due to suspicion of relapsing polychondritis (RP), we also performed an audiometric evaluation, which demonstrated bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. Echocardiography highlighted mild to moderate mitralic and tricuspidal insufficiency without hemodynamic impairment (ejection fraction, 50%). Corticosteroid therapy was started (prednisone 0.5 mg/kg/d). After 7 days of treatment, inflammation was remarkably reduced, and the patient no longer reported pain. 

Relapsing polychondritis is a rare noninfective condition characterized by focal inflammatory destruction of ear cartilage, followed by fibroblastic regeneration. It often is associated with ocular inflammation, including conjunctivitis, scleritis, and episcleritis; cochlear or vestibular lesions; and seronegative nonerosive inflammatory arthritis.¹ Clinical examination of the affected area shows swelling, redness, and tenderness of the ear, which could lead to a misdiagnosis of cellulitis. A typical and useful differentiating sign is the sparing of the noncartilaginous parts of the ear lobule. If not promptly diagnosed and treated, the destructive process can cause thinning of the cartilage, leading to deformities of the external ear.  

The differential diagnosis includes erysipelas, which presents as a rapidly appearing inflammatory patch with sharply defined borders, accompanied by regional lymphadenopathy or skin streaking as well as fever. Sweet syndrome usually presents with tender erythematous or violaceous skin papules, plaques, or nodules, frequently with a pseudovesicular appearance; patients generally present with a classic fever and peripheral neutrophilia.² The localized cutaneous form of leishmaniasis usually appears with a papule that generally develops into an ulcerative nodular lesion. Our patient did not have a history of exposure to topical substances that could point to photocontact dermatitis.  

Dion et al³ proposed 3 distinct clinical phenotypes of RP: (1) patients with concomitant myelodysplastic syndrome or other hematologic malignancy (<10% of patients), mostly older men with a poor prognosis; (2) patients with tracheobronchial involvement (approximately 25% of patients); and (3) patients who do not have hematologic or tracheobronchial involvement (approximately 65% of patients) with a good prognosis.  

Two sets of diagnostic criteria have been proposed. The criteria from McAdam et al⁴ required the presence of 3 or more of the following clinical features: bilateral auricular chondritis, nonerosive seronegative inflammatory polyarthritis, nasal chondritis, ocular inflammation (eg, conjunctivitis, keratitis, scleritis/episcleritis, uveitis), respiratory tract chondritis (laryngeal and/or tracheal cartilages), and cochlear and/or vestibular dysfunction (eg, neurosensory hearing loss, tinnitus, vertigo). These criteria were modified by Damiani and Levine.⁵ According to the latter, all patients were required to have one of the following: at least 4 of the McAdam et al⁴ diagnostic criteria; 1 or more of the clinical findings included in the McAdam et al⁴ criteria with histologic features suggestive for RP; or chondritis at 2 or more separate anatomic locations with a response to glucocorticoids and/or dapsone.  

No laboratory findings are specific for RP, and nonspecific indicators of inflammation--elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein--often are present. 
The cause of RP is unknown. Familial clustering has not been observed. Terao et al⁶ found that HLA-DRB1*1602, -DQB1*0502, and -B*6701, in linkage disequilibrium with each other, are associated with susceptibility to RP. 

There is no universal consensus about treatment, but a course of steroids leads to the resolution of the acute phase. Maintenance treatment can include dapsone, azathioprine, methotrexate, cyclophosphamide, and cyclosporine.^7,8 Some studies have described the successful use of anti-tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors and rituximab.^9,10  

The Diagnosis: Relapsing Polychondritis 

Due to suspicion of relapsing polychondritis (RP), we also performed an audiometric evaluation, which demonstrated bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. Echocardiography highlighted mild to moderate mitralic and tricuspidal insufficiency without hemodynamic impairment (ejection fraction, 50%). Corticosteroid therapy was started (prednisone 0.5 mg/kg/d). After 7 days of treatment, inflammation was remarkably reduced, and the patient no longer reported pain. 

Relapsing polychondritis is a rare noninfective condition characterized by focal inflammatory destruction of ear cartilage, followed by fibroblastic regeneration. It often is associated with ocular inflammation, including conjunctivitis, scleritis, and episcleritis; cochlear or vestibular lesions; and seronegative nonerosive inflammatory arthritis.¹ Clinical examination of the affected area shows swelling, redness, and tenderness of the ear, which could lead to a misdiagnosis of cellulitis. A typical and useful differentiating sign is the sparing of the noncartilaginous parts of the ear lobule. If not promptly diagnosed and treated, the destructive process can cause thinning of the cartilage, leading to deformities of the external ear.  

The differential diagnosis includes erysipelas, which presents as a rapidly appearing inflammatory patch with sharply defined borders, accompanied by regional lymphadenopathy or skin streaking as well as fever. Sweet syndrome usually presents with tender erythematous or violaceous skin papules, plaques, or nodules, frequently with a pseudovesicular appearance; patients generally present with a classic fever and peripheral neutrophilia.² The localized cutaneous form of leishmaniasis usually appears with a papule that generally develops into an ulcerative nodular lesion. Our patient did not have a history of exposure to topical substances that could point to photocontact dermatitis.  

Dion et al³ proposed 3 distinct clinical phenotypes of RP: (1) patients with concomitant myelodysplastic syndrome or other hematologic malignancy (<10% of patients), mostly older men with a poor prognosis; (2) patients with tracheobronchial involvement (approximately 25% of patients); and (3) patients who do not have hematologic or tracheobronchial involvement (approximately 65% of patients) with a good prognosis.  

Two sets of diagnostic criteria have been proposed. The criteria from McAdam et al⁴ required the presence of 3 or more of the following clinical features: bilateral auricular chondritis, nonerosive seronegative inflammatory polyarthritis, nasal chondritis, ocular inflammation (eg, conjunctivitis, keratitis, scleritis/episcleritis, uveitis), respiratory tract chondritis (laryngeal and/or tracheal cartilages), and cochlear and/or vestibular dysfunction (eg, neurosensory hearing loss, tinnitus, vertigo). These criteria were modified by Damiani and Levine.⁵ According to the latter, all patients were required to have one of the following: at least 4 of the McAdam et al⁴ diagnostic criteria; 1 or more of the clinical findings included in the McAdam et al⁴ criteria with histologic features suggestive for RP; or chondritis at 2 or more separate anatomic locations with a response to glucocorticoids and/or dapsone.  

No laboratory findings are specific for RP, and nonspecific indicators of inflammation--elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein--often are present. 
The cause of RP is unknown. Familial clustering has not been observed. Terao et al⁶ found that HLA-DRB1*1602, -DQB1*0502, and -B*6701, in linkage disequilibrium with each other, are associated with susceptibility to RP. 

There is no universal consensus about treatment, but a course of steroids leads to the resolution of the acute phase. Maintenance treatment can include dapsone, azathioprine, methotrexate, cyclophosphamide, and cyclosporine.^7,8 Some studies have described the successful use of anti-tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors and rituximab.^9,10  

As I am writing my final presidential report, my presidential year is coming to a close. It was certainly not what I could have anticipated, but an incredible opportunity for my personal and professional growth, and a year in which CHEST adapted and grew, as well. We accomplished a great deal during this unprecedented year, and I will take this opportunity for a year-in-review!

As I am writing my final presidential report, my presidential year is coming to a close. It was certainly not what I could have anticipated, but an incredible opportunity for my personal and professional growth, and a year in which CHEST adapted and grew, as well. We accomplished a great deal during this unprecedented year, and I will take this opportunity for a year-in-review!

As I am writing my final presidential report, my presidential year is coming to a close. It was certainly not what I could have anticipated, but an incredible opportunity for my personal and professional growth, and a year in which CHEST adapted and grew, as well. We accomplished a great deal during this unprecedented year, and I will take this opportunity for a year-in-review!

Background: PICC insertion is associated with risk for venous thrombosis and stenosis. National guidelines recommend avoiding PICC lines in patients with CKD stage 3b (glomerular filtration rate less than 45 mL/min per 1.73 m²) in order to preserve venous integrity for future creation of arteriovenous fistula, which is the ideal vascular access for hemodialysis.

The study is limited by lack of data in a subset of patients who had no documented GFR (2.7%) or missing covariate data (2.7%). The inability to ascertain other clinical information, such as nephrology approval of PICC, functional AV fistula or other hemodialysis access, or PICC complications after discharge further limit the findings.

Hospitalists should first decide if a PICC line is truly indicated, and if so, carefully weigh the risks and benefits of PICC placement in patients with advanced CKD.

Bottom line: PICC placement is common and often inappropriate in hospitalized patients with advanced CKD.

Citation: Paje D et al. Use of peripherally inserted central catheters in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease A prospective cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Jun 4;171:10-8.

Dr. Hageman is a hospitalist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

Background: PICC insertion is associated with risk for venous thrombosis and stenosis. National guidelines recommend avoiding PICC lines in patients with CKD stage 3b (glomerular filtration rate less than 45 mL/min per 1.73 m²) in order to preserve venous integrity for future creation of arteriovenous fistula, which is the ideal vascular access for hemodialysis.

The study is limited by lack of data in a subset of patients who had no documented GFR (2.7%) or missing covariate data (2.7%). The inability to ascertain other clinical information, such as nephrology approval of PICC, functional AV fistula or other hemodialysis access, or PICC complications after discharge further limit the findings.

Hospitalists should first decide if a PICC line is truly indicated, and if so, carefully weigh the risks and benefits of PICC placement in patients with advanced CKD.

Bottom line: PICC placement is common and often inappropriate in hospitalized patients with advanced CKD.

Citation: Paje D et al. Use of peripherally inserted central catheters in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease A prospective cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Jun 4;171:10-8.

Dr. Hageman is a hospitalist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

Background: PICC insertion is associated with risk for venous thrombosis and stenosis. National guidelines recommend avoiding PICC lines in patients with CKD stage 3b (glomerular filtration rate less than 45 mL/min per 1.73 m²) in order to preserve venous integrity for future creation of arteriovenous fistula, which is the ideal vascular access for hemodialysis.

The study is limited by lack of data in a subset of patients who had no documented GFR (2.7%) or missing covariate data (2.7%). The inability to ascertain other clinical information, such as nephrology approval of PICC, functional AV fistula or other hemodialysis access, or PICC complications after discharge further limit the findings.

Hospitalists should first decide if a PICC line is truly indicated, and if so, carefully weigh the risks and benefits of PICC placement in patients with advanced CKD.

Bottom line: PICC placement is common and often inappropriate in hospitalized patients with advanced CKD.

Citation: Paje D et al. Use of peripherally inserted central catheters in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease A prospective cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Jun 4;171:10-8.

Dr. Hageman is a hospitalist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

It’s not ready for the clinic, but new research suggests that angiotensin receptor II blockers (ARBs) widely used to treat hypertension may improve responses to cancer immunotherapy agents targeted against the programmed death-1/ligand-1 (PD-1/PD-L1) pathway.

That conclusion comes from an observational study of 597 patients with more than 3 dozen different cancer types treated in clinical trials at the US National Institutes of Health. Investigators found that both objective response rates and 3-year overall survival (OS) rates were significantly higher for patients treated with a PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor who were on ARBs, compared with patients who weren’t taking the antihypertensive agents.

An association was also seen between higher ORR and OS rates for patients taking ACE inhibitors, but it was not statistically significant, reported Julius Strauss, MD, from the Center for Cancer Research at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md.

All study patients received PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, and the ORR for patients treated with ARBs was 33.8%, compared with 19.5% for those treated with ACE inhibitors, and 17% for those who took neither drug. The respective complete response (CR) rates were 11.3%, 3.7%, and 3.1%.

Strauss discussed the data during an online briefing prior to his presentation of the findings during the 32nd EORTC-NCI-AACR Symposium on Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics, which is taking place virtually.

Several early studies have suggested that angiotensin II, in addition to its effect on blood pressure, can also affect cancer growth by leading to downstream production of two proteins: vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and transforming growth factor–beta (TGF-beta), he explained.

“Both of these [proteins] have been linked to cancer growth and cancer resistance to immune system attack,” Strauss observed.

He also discussed the mechanics of possible effects. Angiotensin II increases VEGF and TGF-beta through binding to the AT1 receptor, but has the opposite effect when it binds to the AT2 receptor, resulting in a decrease in both of the growth factors, he added.

ACE inhibitors prevent the conversion of angiotensin I to angiotensin II, with the result being that the drugs indirectly block both the AT1 and AT2 receptors.

In contrast, ARBs block only the AT1 receptor and leave the AT2 counter-regulatory receptor alone, said Strauss.
 

More data, including on overall survival

Strauss and colleagues examined whether ACE inhibitors and/or ARBs could have an effect on the response to PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitors delivered with or without other immunotherapies, such as anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) checkpoint inhibitors, or targeted agents such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs).

They pooled data on 597 patients receiving PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in clinical trials for various cancers, including 71 receiving concomitant ARBs, 82 receiving an ACE inhibitor, and 444 who were not receiving either class of antihypertensives.

The above-mentioned improvement in ORR with ARBs compared with patients not receiving the drug was statistically significant (P = .001), as was the improvement in CR rates (P = .002). In contrast, neither ORR nor CR were significantly better with patients on ACE inhibitors compared with patients not taking these drugs.

In multiple regression analysis controlling for age, gender, body mass index (BMI), tumor type, and additional therapies given, the superior ORR and CR rates with ARBs remained (P = .039 and .002, respectively), while there continued to be no significant additional benefit with ACE inhibitors.

The median overall survival was 35.2 months for patients on ARBs, 26.2 months for those on ACE inhibitors, and 18.8 months for patients on neither drug. The respective 3-year OS rates were 48.1%, 37.2%, and 31.5%, with the difference between the ARB and no-drug groups being significant (P = .0078).

In regression analysis controlling for the factors mentioned before, the OS advantage with ARBs but not ACE inhibitors remained significant (P = .006 for ARBs, and .078 for ACE inhibitors).

Strauss emphasized that further study is needed to determine if AT1 blockade can improve outcomes when combined anti-PD-1/PD-L1-based therapy.

It might be reasonable for patients who are taking ACE inhibitors to control blood pressure and are also receiving immunotherapy with a PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor to be switched to an ARB if it is deemed safe and if further research bears it out, said Strauss in response to a question from Medscape Medical News.
 

Hypothesis-generating study

Meeting cochair Emiliano Calvo, MD, PhD, from Hospital de Madrid Norte Sanchinarro in Madrid, who attended the media briefing but was not involved in the study, commented that hypothesis-generating research using drugs already on the market for other indications adds important value to cancer therapy.

James Gulley, MD, PhD, from the Center for Cancer Research at the NCI, also a meeting cochair, agreed with Calvo.

“Thinking about utilizing the data that already exists to really get hypothesis-generating questions, it also opens up the possibility for real-world data, real-world evidence from these big datasets from [electronic medical records] that we could really interrogate and understand what we might see and get these hypothesis-generating findings that we could then prospectively evaluate,” Gulley said.

The research was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Strauss and Gulley are National Cancer Institute employees. Calvo disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s not ready for the clinic, but new research suggests that angiotensin receptor II blockers (ARBs) widely used to treat hypertension may improve responses to cancer immunotherapy agents targeted against the programmed death-1/ligand-1 (PD-1/PD-L1) pathway.

That conclusion comes from an observational study of 597 patients with more than 3 dozen different cancer types treated in clinical trials at the US National Institutes of Health. Investigators found that both objective response rates and 3-year overall survival (OS) rates were significantly higher for patients treated with a PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor who were on ARBs, compared with patients who weren’t taking the antihypertensive agents.

An association was also seen between higher ORR and OS rates for patients taking ACE inhibitors, but it was not statistically significant, reported Julius Strauss, MD, from the Center for Cancer Research at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md.

All study patients received PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, and the ORR for patients treated with ARBs was 33.8%, compared with 19.5% for those treated with ACE inhibitors, and 17% for those who took neither drug. The respective complete response (CR) rates were 11.3%, 3.7%, and 3.1%.

Strauss discussed the data during an online briefing prior to his presentation of the findings during the 32nd EORTC-NCI-AACR Symposium on Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics, which is taking place virtually.

Several early studies have suggested that angiotensin II, in addition to its effect on blood pressure, can also affect cancer growth by leading to downstream production of two proteins: vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and transforming growth factor–beta (TGF-beta), he explained.

“Both of these [proteins] have been linked to cancer growth and cancer resistance to immune system attack,” Strauss observed.

He also discussed the mechanics of possible effects. Angiotensin II increases VEGF and TGF-beta through binding to the AT1 receptor, but has the opposite effect when it binds to the AT2 receptor, resulting in a decrease in both of the growth factors, he added.

ACE inhibitors prevent the conversion of angiotensin I to angiotensin II, with the result being that the drugs indirectly block both the AT1 and AT2 receptors.

In contrast, ARBs block only the AT1 receptor and leave the AT2 counter-regulatory receptor alone, said Strauss.
 

More data, including on overall survival

Strauss and colleagues examined whether ACE inhibitors and/or ARBs could have an effect on the response to PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitors delivered with or without other immunotherapies, such as anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) checkpoint inhibitors, or targeted agents such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs).

They pooled data on 597 patients receiving PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in clinical trials for various cancers, including 71 receiving concomitant ARBs, 82 receiving an ACE inhibitor, and 444 who were not receiving either class of antihypertensives.

The above-mentioned improvement in ORR with ARBs compared with patients not receiving the drug was statistically significant (P = .001), as was the improvement in CR rates (P = .002). In contrast, neither ORR nor CR were significantly better with patients on ACE inhibitors compared with patients not taking these drugs.

In multiple regression analysis controlling for age, gender, body mass index (BMI), tumor type, and additional therapies given, the superior ORR and CR rates with ARBs remained (P = .039 and .002, respectively), while there continued to be no significant additional benefit with ACE inhibitors.

The median overall survival was 35.2 months for patients on ARBs, 26.2 months for those on ACE inhibitors, and 18.8 months for patients on neither drug. The respective 3-year OS rates were 48.1%, 37.2%, and 31.5%, with the difference between the ARB and no-drug groups being significant (P = .0078).

In regression analysis controlling for the factors mentioned before, the OS advantage with ARBs but not ACE inhibitors remained significant (P = .006 for ARBs, and .078 for ACE inhibitors).

Strauss emphasized that further study is needed to determine if AT1 blockade can improve outcomes when combined anti-PD-1/PD-L1-based therapy.

It might be reasonable for patients who are taking ACE inhibitors to control blood pressure and are also receiving immunotherapy with a PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor to be switched to an ARB if it is deemed safe and if further research bears it out, said Strauss in response to a question from Medscape Medical News.
 

Hypothesis-generating study

Meeting cochair Emiliano Calvo, MD, PhD, from Hospital de Madrid Norte Sanchinarro in Madrid, who attended the media briefing but was not involved in the study, commented that hypothesis-generating research using drugs already on the market for other indications adds important value to cancer therapy.

James Gulley, MD, PhD, from the Center for Cancer Research at the NCI, also a meeting cochair, agreed with Calvo.

“Thinking about utilizing the data that already exists to really get hypothesis-generating questions, it also opens up the possibility for real-world data, real-world evidence from these big datasets from [electronic medical records] that we could really interrogate and understand what we might see and get these hypothesis-generating findings that we could then prospectively evaluate,” Gulley said.

The research was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Strauss and Gulley are National Cancer Institute employees. Calvo disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s not ready for the clinic, but new research suggests that angiotensin receptor II blockers (ARBs) widely used to treat hypertension may improve responses to cancer immunotherapy agents targeted against the programmed death-1/ligand-1 (PD-1/PD-L1) pathway.

That conclusion comes from an observational study of 597 patients with more than 3 dozen different cancer types treated in clinical trials at the US National Institutes of Health. Investigators found that both objective response rates and 3-year overall survival (OS) rates were significantly higher for patients treated with a PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor who were on ARBs, compared with patients who weren’t taking the antihypertensive agents.

An association was also seen between higher ORR and OS rates for patients taking ACE inhibitors, but it was not statistically significant, reported Julius Strauss, MD, from the Center for Cancer Research at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md.

All study patients received PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, and the ORR for patients treated with ARBs was 33.8%, compared with 19.5% for those treated with ACE inhibitors, and 17% for those who took neither drug. The respective complete response (CR) rates were 11.3%, 3.7%, and 3.1%.

Strauss discussed the data during an online briefing prior to his presentation of the findings during the 32nd EORTC-NCI-AACR Symposium on Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics, which is taking place virtually.

Several early studies have suggested that angiotensin II, in addition to its effect on blood pressure, can also affect cancer growth by leading to downstream production of two proteins: vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and transforming growth factor–beta (TGF-beta), he explained.

“Both of these [proteins] have been linked to cancer growth and cancer resistance to immune system attack,” Strauss observed.

He also discussed the mechanics of possible effects. Angiotensin II increases VEGF and TGF-beta through binding to the AT1 receptor, but has the opposite effect when it binds to the AT2 receptor, resulting in a decrease in both of the growth factors, he added.

ACE inhibitors prevent the conversion of angiotensin I to angiotensin II, with the result being that the drugs indirectly block both the AT1 and AT2 receptors.

In contrast, ARBs block only the AT1 receptor and leave the AT2 counter-regulatory receptor alone, said Strauss.
 

More data, including on overall survival

Strauss and colleagues examined whether ACE inhibitors and/or ARBs could have an effect on the response to PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitors delivered with or without other immunotherapies, such as anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) checkpoint inhibitors, or targeted agents such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs).

They pooled data on 597 patients receiving PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in clinical trials for various cancers, including 71 receiving concomitant ARBs, 82 receiving an ACE inhibitor, and 444 who were not receiving either class of antihypertensives.

The above-mentioned improvement in ORR with ARBs compared with patients not receiving the drug was statistically significant (P = .001), as was the improvement in CR rates (P = .002). In contrast, neither ORR nor CR were significantly better with patients on ACE inhibitors compared with patients not taking these drugs.

In multiple regression analysis controlling for age, gender, body mass index (BMI), tumor type, and additional therapies given, the superior ORR and CR rates with ARBs remained (P = .039 and .002, respectively), while there continued to be no significant additional benefit with ACE inhibitors.

The median overall survival was 35.2 months for patients on ARBs, 26.2 months for those on ACE inhibitors, and 18.8 months for patients on neither drug. The respective 3-year OS rates were 48.1%, 37.2%, and 31.5%, with the difference between the ARB and no-drug groups being significant (P = .0078).

In regression analysis controlling for the factors mentioned before, the OS advantage with ARBs but not ACE inhibitors remained significant (P = .006 for ARBs, and .078 for ACE inhibitors).

Strauss emphasized that further study is needed to determine if AT1 blockade can improve outcomes when combined anti-PD-1/PD-L1-based therapy.

It might be reasonable for patients who are taking ACE inhibitors to control blood pressure and are also receiving immunotherapy with a PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor to be switched to an ARB if it is deemed safe and if further research bears it out, said Strauss in response to a question from Medscape Medical News.
 

Hypothesis-generating study

Meeting cochair Emiliano Calvo, MD, PhD, from Hospital de Madrid Norte Sanchinarro in Madrid, who attended the media briefing but was not involved in the study, commented that hypothesis-generating research using drugs already on the market for other indications adds important value to cancer therapy.

James Gulley, MD, PhD, from the Center for Cancer Research at the NCI, also a meeting cochair, agreed with Calvo.

“Thinking about utilizing the data that already exists to really get hypothesis-generating questions, it also opens up the possibility for real-world data, real-world evidence from these big datasets from [electronic medical records] that we could really interrogate and understand what we might see and get these hypothesis-generating findings that we could then prospectively evaluate,” Gulley said.

The research was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Strauss and Gulley are National Cancer Institute employees. Calvo disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Obstructive sleep apnea diagnoses may not be carried over to the inpatient setting, with potentially negative consequences for clinical outcomes, quality of life, and health care costs, an investigator said at the virtual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

In a retrospective, single-center study, nearly 40% of patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) diagnosed in the outpatient setting did not have a corresponding diagnosis during hospitalization, according to researcher Nitasa Sahu, MD.*

The missed OSA diagnoses could have especially negative implications for patients who don’t continue on positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy during the hospital stay, said Dr. Sahu, a fellow in pulmonary/critical care at St. Luke’s University Health Network in Bethlehem, Pa.

The finding indicates a large-magnitude opportunity to improve health care through better communication and optimized care, according to the researcher.

“Obstructive sleep apnea is underrecognized, it’s underdiagnosed, and it has a lot of implications for a patient’s hospitalization,” she said in interview

Clinical pathways should be set up to ensure that patients with OSA are properly identified and use their prescribed treatment, according to Dr. Sahu.

“I think that should, and would, reduce overall health care costs, with better outcomes as well,” she said.

Pulmonologist Saadia A. Faiz, MD, FCCP, said she hoped this study, presented at a late-breaking abstract at the virtual meeting, would highlight the importance of OSA screening and call attention to barriers to screening that may be in place in the inpatient setting.

That’s especially important because, after admission, the focus is often on the cause of admission rather than underlying comorbidities such as OSA, said Dr. Faiz, professor in the department of pulmonary medicine at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

“Working in a cancer hospital, the focus is always on the cancer, so sometimes even the patient will dismiss issues with their sleep,” Dr. Faiz said of her own experience in an interview.

“Often with sleep apnea, for people in the general population, the reason they seek medical attention is because their spouse notices that they’re snoring, so it is something that is not as emphasized,” added Dr. Faiz, who was not involved in the study.

In their study, Dr. Sahu and coauthors reviewed electronic health record data for adults hospitalized on the general internal medicine service at Penn State Hershey Medical Center from January 2017 through 2018. They restricted their search to first admissions.

The researchers looked for ICD-9 codes indicating an OSA diagnosis during their inpatient admission. They looked for the same codes in the preceding 5 years to see if the patients had a prior outpatient OSA diagnosis.

The inpatient cohort included 13,067 patients, of whom 53% were male, 87% were White, and 77% were over 50 years of age. Comorbidities included hypertension in 42%, atrial fibrillation in 21%, type 2 diabetes mellitus in 14%, congestive heart failure in 15%, and prior stroke in 0.5%.

A total of 991 individuals in the inpatient cohort had a prior outpatient OSA diagnosis. Of that group, 376 patients (38%) did not have an inpatient OSA diagnosis on inpatient record, according to the reported study data.

That large proportion of discordant diagnoses suggests a lot of missed opportunities to provide OSA therapy in the inpatient setting and to reinforce chronic disease state management, according to Dr. Sahu and colleagues.

How those discordant OSA diagnoses impact length of stay, cost of care, and readmissions are unanswered questions that deserve further study, Dr. Sahu said.

Among patients who did not have outpatient OSA diagnoses, another 804 patients, or about 6%, ended up with an inpatient diagnosis during their hospitalization, the researchers also reported.

While a number of those inpatient OSA diagnoses could have been coded in error, it’s also possible that they were indeed cases of OSA that went unrecognized until the individuals were hospitalized, Dr. Sahu said.

Dr. Sahu had no relevant relationships to report related to the study. One of four study coauthors reported relationships with Boehringer-Ingelheim, Nitto Denko, and Galapagos.

SOURCE: Sahu N. CHEST 2020. Abstract.

*Correction, 11/3/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of Nitasa Sahu, MD.

Obstructive sleep apnea diagnoses may not be carried over to the inpatient setting, with potentially negative consequences for clinical outcomes, quality of life, and health care costs, an investigator said at the virtual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

In a retrospective, single-center study, nearly 40% of patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) diagnosed in the outpatient setting did not have a corresponding diagnosis during hospitalization, according to researcher Nitasa Sahu, MD.*

The missed OSA diagnoses could have especially negative implications for patients who don’t continue on positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy during the hospital stay, said Dr. Sahu, a fellow in pulmonary/critical care at St. Luke’s University Health Network in Bethlehem, Pa.

The finding indicates a large-magnitude opportunity to improve health care through better communication and optimized care, according to the researcher.

“Obstructive sleep apnea is underrecognized, it’s underdiagnosed, and it has a lot of implications for a patient’s hospitalization,” she said in interview

Clinical pathways should be set up to ensure that patients with OSA are properly identified and use their prescribed treatment, according to Dr. Sahu.

“I think that should, and would, reduce overall health care costs, with better outcomes as well,” she said.

Pulmonologist Saadia A. Faiz, MD, FCCP, said she hoped this study, presented at a late-breaking abstract at the virtual meeting, would highlight the importance of OSA screening and call attention to barriers to screening that may be in place in the inpatient setting.

That’s especially important because, after admission, the focus is often on the cause of admission rather than underlying comorbidities such as OSA, said Dr. Faiz, professor in the department of pulmonary medicine at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

“Working in a cancer hospital, the focus is always on the cancer, so sometimes even the patient will dismiss issues with their sleep,” Dr. Faiz said of her own experience in an interview.

“Often with sleep apnea, for people in the general population, the reason they seek medical attention is because their spouse notices that they’re snoring, so it is something that is not as emphasized,” added Dr. Faiz, who was not involved in the study.

In their study, Dr. Sahu and coauthors reviewed electronic health record data for adults hospitalized on the general internal medicine service at Penn State Hershey Medical Center from January 2017 through 2018. They restricted their search to first admissions.

The researchers looked for ICD-9 codes indicating an OSA diagnosis during their inpatient admission. They looked for the same codes in the preceding 5 years to see if the patients had a prior outpatient OSA diagnosis.

The inpatient cohort included 13,067 patients, of whom 53% were male, 87% were White, and 77% were over 50 years of age. Comorbidities included hypertension in 42%, atrial fibrillation in 21%, type 2 diabetes mellitus in 14%, congestive heart failure in 15%, and prior stroke in 0.5%.

A total of 991 individuals in the inpatient cohort had a prior outpatient OSA diagnosis. Of that group, 376 patients (38%) did not have an inpatient OSA diagnosis on inpatient record, according to the reported study data.

That large proportion of discordant diagnoses suggests a lot of missed opportunities to provide OSA therapy in the inpatient setting and to reinforce chronic disease state management, according to Dr. Sahu and colleagues.

How those discordant OSA diagnoses impact length of stay, cost of care, and readmissions are unanswered questions that deserve further study, Dr. Sahu said.

Among patients who did not have outpatient OSA diagnoses, another 804 patients, or about 6%, ended up with an inpatient diagnosis during their hospitalization, the researchers also reported.

While a number of those inpatient OSA diagnoses could have been coded in error, it’s also possible that they were indeed cases of OSA that went unrecognized until the individuals were hospitalized, Dr. Sahu said.

Dr. Sahu had no relevant relationships to report related to the study. One of four study coauthors reported relationships with Boehringer-Ingelheim, Nitto Denko, and Galapagos.

SOURCE: Sahu N. CHEST 2020. Abstract.

*Correction, 11/3/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of Nitasa Sahu, MD.

Obstructive sleep apnea diagnoses may not be carried over to the inpatient setting, with potentially negative consequences for clinical outcomes, quality of life, and health care costs, an investigator said at the virtual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

In a retrospective, single-center study, nearly 40% of patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) diagnosed in the outpatient setting did not have a corresponding diagnosis during hospitalization, according to researcher Nitasa Sahu, MD.*

The missed OSA diagnoses could have especially negative implications for patients who don’t continue on positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy during the hospital stay, said Dr. Sahu, a fellow in pulmonary/critical care at St. Luke’s University Health Network in Bethlehem, Pa.

The finding indicates a large-magnitude opportunity to improve health care through better communication and optimized care, according to the researcher.

“Obstructive sleep apnea is underrecognized, it’s underdiagnosed, and it has a lot of implications for a patient’s hospitalization,” she said in interview

Clinical pathways should be set up to ensure that patients with OSA are properly identified and use their prescribed treatment, according to Dr. Sahu.

“I think that should, and would, reduce overall health care costs, with better outcomes as well,” she said.

Pulmonologist Saadia A. Faiz, MD, FCCP, said she hoped this study, presented at a late-breaking abstract at the virtual meeting, would highlight the importance of OSA screening and call attention to barriers to screening that may be in place in the inpatient setting.

That’s especially important because, after admission, the focus is often on the cause of admission rather than underlying comorbidities such as OSA, said Dr. Faiz, professor in the department of pulmonary medicine at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

“Working in a cancer hospital, the focus is always on the cancer, so sometimes even the patient will dismiss issues with their sleep,” Dr. Faiz said of her own experience in an interview.

“Often with sleep apnea, for people in the general population, the reason they seek medical attention is because their spouse notices that they’re snoring, so it is something that is not as emphasized,” added Dr. Faiz, who was not involved in the study.

In their study, Dr. Sahu and coauthors reviewed electronic health record data for adults hospitalized on the general internal medicine service at Penn State Hershey Medical Center from January 2017 through 2018. They restricted their search to first admissions.

The researchers looked for ICD-9 codes indicating an OSA diagnosis during their inpatient admission. They looked for the same codes in the preceding 5 years to see if the patients had a prior outpatient OSA diagnosis.

The inpatient cohort included 13,067 patients, of whom 53% were male, 87% were White, and 77% were over 50 years of age. Comorbidities included hypertension in 42%, atrial fibrillation in 21%, type 2 diabetes mellitus in 14%, congestive heart failure in 15%, and prior stroke in 0.5%.

A total of 991 individuals in the inpatient cohort had a prior outpatient OSA diagnosis. Of that group, 376 patients (38%) did not have an inpatient OSA diagnosis on inpatient record, according to the reported study data.

That large proportion of discordant diagnoses suggests a lot of missed opportunities to provide OSA therapy in the inpatient setting and to reinforce chronic disease state management, according to Dr. Sahu and colleagues.

How those discordant OSA diagnoses impact length of stay, cost of care, and readmissions are unanswered questions that deserve further study, Dr. Sahu said.

Among patients who did not have outpatient OSA diagnoses, another 804 patients, or about 6%, ended up with an inpatient diagnosis during their hospitalization, the researchers also reported.

While a number of those inpatient OSA diagnoses could have been coded in error, it’s also possible that they were indeed cases of OSA that went unrecognized until the individuals were hospitalized, Dr. Sahu said.

Dr. Sahu had no relevant relationships to report related to the study. One of four study coauthors reported relationships with Boehringer-Ingelheim, Nitto Denko, and Galapagos.

SOURCE: Sahu N. CHEST 2020. Abstract.

*Correction, 11/3/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of Nitasa Sahu, MD.

Last spring, when Cliff Willmeng, RN, was working at United Hospital in St. Paul, Minnesota, he’d take off his personal protective equipment (PPE) in the same hallway where children were transported from ambulances to the neighboring Children’s Hospital emergency department. Stretchers would roll across red tape on the floor that designated the area as a “hot zone.” The door from a break room was about 10 feet away.

Willmeng has been a union activist all his life, but he’d never filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) until the COVID-19 pandemic hit.

Concerned about the inadequate space for doffing PPE and other situations in which the spread of SARS-CoV-2 seemed possible, Willmeng and other colleagues filed multiple OSHA complaints with the Minnesota Department of Labor in March and April. Willmeng was also worried about bringing SARS-CoV-2 on his scrubs home to his wife and kids, and he started wearing hospital-supplied scrubs that were meant for doctors and that were washed on site, which was against hospital policy. The hospital fired Willmeng on May 8, citing code of conduct and respectful workplace violations arising from the uniform dispute.

In August, the state agency issued Willmeng’s hospital a $2,100 fine for failure to comply with guidance regarding “respiratory protection” in response to worker complaints over the fact that they were instructed to restaple elastic bands on N95 masks early in the pandemic. In a statement, United Hospital said it contested the citation, and it is in discussions with Minnesota OSHA. “We have and continue to instruct employees not to alter N95 respirators or reuse damaged or soiled N95 respirators,” such as when the straps are broken, the statement says.

Minnesota OSHA has received three times as many emails and phone calls from workers and employers requesting information and assistance during the pandemic, compared with last year, said spokesperson James Honerman. “If Minnesota OSHA is made aware of a workplace safety or health issue, it assesses the situation and determines how best to respond, including conducting a workplace investigation.”

But Willmeng, who has been out of work since he was fired, says that without a receipt or confirmation from OSHA, he has no way of knowing whether there has been any follow-up regarding his complaints. Minnesota OSHA said workers should receive a letter once a case is resolved.

Like Willmeng’s case, none of the more than 10,000 COVID-related complaints the federal OSHA office has received from across the country have resulted in meaningful sanctions. Unions have picketed local OSHA offices and publicized complaints on behalf of their members to protest what they see as a lack of oversight. Legislators have called on US Department of Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia to step up enforcement.

For many health care workers, complaining to OSHA is a last resort after failing to get satisfactory responses from supervisors and appealing to unions for help. But with such minimal oversight from OSHA, some union leaders and legislators say it’s actually more dangerous than not having workplace safety enforcement at all. Lack of directives from the Trump administration has left the agency without the teeth it has cut under previous administrations, and recent changes to the agency’s rules raise questions about whether companies are ever required to report workers’ hospitalizations due to COVID-19.

“It’s so ineffective that it’s more dangerous to workers,” said Kim Cordova, president of United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 7, which represents 22,000 health care and other workers in Colorado and Wyoming. “Employers only do what they’re forced to do.” Instead of deterring a multi-billion-dollar company, she said, such low fines signal that a company doesn’t need to worry about COVID-related safety.

“OSHA is doing a lamentably poor job protecting workers during the pandemic,” said James Brudney, JD, a professor at Fordham Law School, in New York, and former chief counsel of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Labor. “I’m not alone in saying that the agency has performed so badly.”

Former government officials writing in JAMA were similarly critical: “In the face of the greatest worker health crisis in recent history, OSHA, the lead government agency responsible for worker health and safety, has not fulfilled its responsibilities.”
 

What could have been

There were early signs that the agency wouldn’t be heavy-handed about COVID-19 safety concerns, Brudney said.

The agency could have issued Emergency Temporary Standards, rules it can put in place during pandemics that address specific short-term concerns. These rules could have required employers to take infection-control measures to protect workers, including mask wearing, providing proper PPE, and screening for COVID-19 symptoms. “That’s what the agency is supposed to do. They’re supposed to respond to an emergency with emergency measures,” Brudney said.

But despite legislative pressure and a court case, Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia has declined to do so, saying that the agency would instead rely on its regular general duty clause, which is always in place to keep workplaces free from hazards that “cause death or serious physical harm.” The agency invoked the general duty clause for COVID-19–related violations for the first time in September to levy modest fines.

In response to a request for an interview, a Department of Labor spokesperson said that preexisting OSHA requirements apply to workers during the pandemic, including providing PPE for workers and assessing sanitation and cleanliness standards. The agency has issued specific guidance to companies on pandemic preparedness, she said, and that it responds to all complaints. Additionally, she cited whistleblower laws that make it illegal for employers to retaliate against employees for making safety and health complaints.

The federal OSHA office received 10,868 COVID-related complaints from Feb. 1 through Oct. 20, citing issues ranging from failure to provide proper PPE to not informing workers about exposures. As of Oct. 22, a total of 2,349 of the complaints involved healthcare workers. This count doesn’t include the untold number of “informal” complaints handled by state OSHA offices.

In a recent JAMA opinion piece, two former government officials agreed that “the federal government has not fully utilized OSHA’s public safety authority” and called the issuing of an Emergency Temporary Standard that would require employers to develop and implement infection control plans “the most important action the federal government could take” to protect workers.

“Employers are more likely to implement these controls if they are mandated by a government agency that has adequate enforcement tools to ensure compliance,” wrote former Assistant Secretary of Labor David Michaels, PhD, MPH, now at the Milken Institute School of Public Health of the George Washington University, Washington, and Gregory Wagner, MD, a former senior adviser at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, now at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston.

They cited the success of a standard that OSHA issued in 1991 in response to the HIV/AIDS crisis. “The bloodborne pathogens standard has contributed to a substantial decline in health care worker risk for bloodborne diseases like HIV and hepatitis B and C,” they wrote. In a new report for the Century Foundation, the pair offered recommendations to the federal government for controlling the spread of the disease by ramping up OSHA’s role.

OSHA did issue a response plan that requires employers to report in regard to employees who experienced workplace exposures to SARS-CoV-2 and who were hospitalized with COVID-19 or died of the disease within certain time frames, but recent changes to these rules make experts question whether companies are in fact required to report hospitalizations.

In its second revision of guidelines, added to its FAQ page on Sept. 30, the agency said that, in order to be reportable, “an in-patient hospitalization due to COVID-19 must occur within 24 hours of an exposure to SARS-CoV-2 at work” and that the employer must report the hospitalization within 24 hours of learning both that the employee has been hospitalized and that the reason for the hospitalization was a work-related case of COVID-19. Previously, the 24-hour hospitalization window started at the time of diagnosis of the disease, rather than the work-related exposure.

The agency subsequently dropped the first citation it had issued for a COVID-related violation, even though the company, a nursing home, had already agreed to pay $3,904 for reporting employee hospitalizations late.

“It’s a step backwards from an important workplace and public health function that OSHA should be doing,” said Wagner, coauthor of the JAMA opinion piece.

Even without issuing Emergency Temporary Standards, critics say OSHA could have acted much earlier. OSHA issued its first COVID-related federal citation, the one against the nursing home that was dropped, in May for events that occurred in mid-April. The second COVID-related federal citation came in July.

The agency could also charge much more substantial fines for the citations it has issued. If a medical facility was cited for a PPE violation, such as the Minnesota hospital where workers were told to restaple the elastic bands on N95s, the agency could have cited the hospital for one violation per employee. Such fines based on multiple violations could add up to the hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars.

“It would send a signal to the highest-risk employers that these are violations that need to be addressed immediately,” Brudney said.

Many of the 22 state OSHA offices appear to be more responsive to COVID-related complaints than the federal agency, creating a system in which health care workers have substantially different rights from one state to the next. The governor of California, for example, recently authorized California’s OSHA division to consider COVID-19 an imminent hazard, to prohibit workers from entering areas where the hazard exists, and to require employers to disclose exposures. The state also recently issued large fines for COVID safety issues: $222,075 to frozen food manufacturer Overhill Farms and $214,080 to employment agency Jobsource North America.

Elsewhere, state laws such as New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act give workers the right to refuse to work in unsafe situations, Brudney said. “A lot more action is going on at the state level because so little is being done at the federal level,” he said. “Some of it is governors committed to protecting essential workers and their families.”
 

Unions call for sanctions

Unions are both decrying the lack of enforcement thus far and seeking more oversight going forward.

In August, the National Nurses’ United (NNU) union filed a complaint to implore OSHA to investigate the country’s biggest hospital systems, HCA Healthcare, which operates 184 hospitals and about 2,000 other care sites in 21 states and the United Kingdom. The union describes how, throughout HCA hospitals, there is an environment conducive to the spread of coronavirus. Nurses share space and equipment, such as computers, desks, phones, bathrooms, and break rooms, where staff take off masks to eat and drink. The complaint also describes how there is resistance to testing nurses and a lack of communication about infections among colleagues.

“When they have total disregard for safety, they should be punished to the utmost,” said Markowitz, noting that HCA Healthcare is worth $40 billion. “They can penalize them, but if it’s unsafe conditions for RNs and healthcare workers, we know it’s unsafe for the patients. There needs to be drastic measures to prevent hospital corporations from behaving that way.”

In a statement, HCA spokesman Harlow Sumerford said the company has followed CDC guidance for protecting frontline caregivers. “We’re proud of our response and the significant resources we’ve deployed to help protect our colleagues. Meanwhile, the NNU has chosen to use this pandemic as an opportunity to gain publicity by attacking hospitals across the country,” Sumerford said.

Members of the union recently protested in front of the federal OSHA offices in Denver.

After several months, OSHA finally penalized a meat packing plant where eight workers (six union members) had died of COVID-19 last spring. But the amount – $15,615 – was so low that Cordova worries it will actually have a worse impact than no fine.

“It’s more dangerous to workers because now employers know [they won’t be punished meaningfully],” she said. “During the pandemic, OSHA has been absolutely absent.”

Thus, the recent picketing outside the offices in Denver. But, Cordova noted, it’s unlikely OSHA employees saw them. Their own offices were deemed too risky to stay open during the pandemic. They were vacant.
 

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

Last spring, when Cliff Willmeng, RN, was working at United Hospital in St. Paul, Minnesota, he’d take off his personal protective equipment (PPE) in the same hallway where children were transported from ambulances to the neighboring Children’s Hospital emergency department. Stretchers would roll across red tape on the floor that designated the area as a “hot zone.” The door from a break room was about 10 feet away.

Willmeng has been a union activist all his life, but he’d never filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) until the COVID-19 pandemic hit.

Concerned about the inadequate space for doffing PPE and other situations in which the spread of SARS-CoV-2 seemed possible, Willmeng and other colleagues filed multiple OSHA complaints with the Minnesota Department of Labor in March and April. Willmeng was also worried about bringing SARS-CoV-2 on his scrubs home to his wife and kids, and he started wearing hospital-supplied scrubs that were meant for doctors and that were washed on site, which was against hospital policy. The hospital fired Willmeng on May 8, citing code of conduct and respectful workplace violations arising from the uniform dispute.

In August, the state agency issued Willmeng’s hospital a $2,100 fine for failure to comply with guidance regarding “respiratory protection” in response to worker complaints over the fact that they were instructed to restaple elastic bands on N95 masks early in the pandemic. In a statement, United Hospital said it contested the citation, and it is in discussions with Minnesota OSHA. “We have and continue to instruct employees not to alter N95 respirators or reuse damaged or soiled N95 respirators,” such as when the straps are broken, the statement says.

Minnesota OSHA has received three times as many emails and phone calls from workers and employers requesting information and assistance during the pandemic, compared with last year, said spokesperson James Honerman. “If Minnesota OSHA is made aware of a workplace safety or health issue, it assesses the situation and determines how best to respond, including conducting a workplace investigation.”

But Willmeng, who has been out of work since he was fired, says that without a receipt or confirmation from OSHA, he has no way of knowing whether there has been any follow-up regarding his complaints. Minnesota OSHA said workers should receive a letter once a case is resolved.

Like Willmeng’s case, none of the more than 10,000 COVID-related complaints the federal OSHA office has received from across the country have resulted in meaningful sanctions. Unions have picketed local OSHA offices and publicized complaints on behalf of their members to protest what they see as a lack of oversight. Legislators have called on US Department of Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia to step up enforcement.

For many health care workers, complaining to OSHA is a last resort after failing to get satisfactory responses from supervisors and appealing to unions for help. But with such minimal oversight from OSHA, some union leaders and legislators say it’s actually more dangerous than not having workplace safety enforcement at all. Lack of directives from the Trump administration has left the agency without the teeth it has cut under previous administrations, and recent changes to the agency’s rules raise questions about whether companies are ever required to report workers’ hospitalizations due to COVID-19.

“It’s so ineffective that it’s more dangerous to workers,” said Kim Cordova, president of United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 7, which represents 22,000 health care and other workers in Colorado and Wyoming. “Employers only do what they’re forced to do.” Instead of deterring a multi-billion-dollar company, she said, such low fines signal that a company doesn’t need to worry about COVID-related safety.

“OSHA is doing a lamentably poor job protecting workers during the pandemic,” said James Brudney, JD, a professor at Fordham Law School, in New York, and former chief counsel of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Labor. “I’m not alone in saying that the agency has performed so badly.”

Former government officials writing in JAMA were similarly critical: “In the face of the greatest worker health crisis in recent history, OSHA, the lead government agency responsible for worker health and safety, has not fulfilled its responsibilities.”
 

What could have been

There were early signs that the agency wouldn’t be heavy-handed about COVID-19 safety concerns, Brudney said.

The agency could have issued Emergency Temporary Standards, rules it can put in place during pandemics that address specific short-term concerns. These rules could have required employers to take infection-control measures to protect workers, including mask wearing, providing proper PPE, and screening for COVID-19 symptoms. “That’s what the agency is supposed to do. They’re supposed to respond to an emergency with emergency measures,” Brudney said.

But despite legislative pressure and a court case, Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia has declined to do so, saying that the agency would instead rely on its regular general duty clause, which is always in place to keep workplaces free from hazards that “cause death or serious physical harm.” The agency invoked the general duty clause for COVID-19–related violations for the first time in September to levy modest fines.

In response to a request for an interview, a Department of Labor spokesperson said that preexisting OSHA requirements apply to workers during the pandemic, including providing PPE for workers and assessing sanitation and cleanliness standards. The agency has issued specific guidance to companies on pandemic preparedness, she said, and that it responds to all complaints. Additionally, she cited whistleblower laws that make it illegal for employers to retaliate against employees for making safety and health complaints.

The federal OSHA office received 10,868 COVID-related complaints from Feb. 1 through Oct. 20, citing issues ranging from failure to provide proper PPE to not informing workers about exposures. As of Oct. 22, a total of 2,349 of the complaints involved healthcare workers. This count doesn’t include the untold number of “informal” complaints handled by state OSHA offices.

In a recent JAMA opinion piece, two former government officials agreed that “the federal government has not fully utilized OSHA’s public safety authority” and called the issuing of an Emergency Temporary Standard that would require employers to develop and implement infection control plans “the most important action the federal government could take” to protect workers.

“Employers are more likely to implement these controls if they are mandated by a government agency that has adequate enforcement tools to ensure compliance,” wrote former Assistant Secretary of Labor David Michaels, PhD, MPH, now at the Milken Institute School of Public Health of the George Washington University, Washington, and Gregory Wagner, MD, a former senior adviser at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, now at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston.

They cited the success of a standard that OSHA issued in 1991 in response to the HIV/AIDS crisis. “The bloodborne pathogens standard has contributed to a substantial decline in health care worker risk for bloodborne diseases like HIV and hepatitis B and C,” they wrote. In a new report for the Century Foundation, the pair offered recommendations to the federal government for controlling the spread of the disease by ramping up OSHA’s role.

OSHA did issue a response plan that requires employers to report in regard to employees who experienced workplace exposures to SARS-CoV-2 and who were hospitalized with COVID-19 or died of the disease within certain time frames, but recent changes to these rules make experts question whether companies are in fact required to report hospitalizations.

In its second revision of guidelines, added to its FAQ page on Sept. 30, the agency said that, in order to be reportable, “an in-patient hospitalization due to COVID-19 must occur within 24 hours of an exposure to SARS-CoV-2 at work” and that the employer must report the hospitalization within 24 hours of learning both that the employee has been hospitalized and that the reason for the hospitalization was a work-related case of COVID-19. Previously, the 24-hour hospitalization window started at the time of diagnosis of the disease, rather than the work-related exposure.

The agency subsequently dropped the first citation it had issued for a COVID-related violation, even though the company, a nursing home, had already agreed to pay $3,904 for reporting employee hospitalizations late.

“It’s a step backwards from an important workplace and public health function that OSHA should be doing,” said Wagner, coauthor of the JAMA opinion piece.

Even without issuing Emergency Temporary Standards, critics say OSHA could have acted much earlier. OSHA issued its first COVID-related federal citation, the one against the nursing home that was dropped, in May for events that occurred in mid-April. The second COVID-related federal citation came in July.

The agency could also charge much more substantial fines for the citations it has issued. If a medical facility was cited for a PPE violation, such as the Minnesota hospital where workers were told to restaple the elastic bands on N95s, the agency could have cited the hospital for one violation per employee. Such fines based on multiple violations could add up to the hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars.

“It would send a signal to the highest-risk employers that these are violations that need to be addressed immediately,” Brudney said.

Many of the 22 state OSHA offices appear to be more responsive to COVID-related complaints than the federal agency, creating a system in which health care workers have substantially different rights from one state to the next. The governor of California, for example, recently authorized California’s OSHA division to consider COVID-19 an imminent hazard, to prohibit workers from entering areas where the hazard exists, and to require employers to disclose exposures. The state also recently issued large fines for COVID safety issues: $222,075 to frozen food manufacturer Overhill Farms and $214,080 to employment agency Jobsource North America.

Elsewhere, state laws such as New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act give workers the right to refuse to work in unsafe situations, Brudney said. “A lot more action is going on at the state level because so little is being done at the federal level,” he said. “Some of it is governors committed to protecting essential workers and their families.”
 

Unions call for sanctions

Unions are both decrying the lack of enforcement thus far and seeking more oversight going forward.

In August, the National Nurses’ United (NNU) union filed a complaint to implore OSHA to investigate the country’s biggest hospital systems, HCA Healthcare, which operates 184 hospitals and about 2,000 other care sites in 21 states and the United Kingdom. The union describes how, throughout HCA hospitals, there is an environment conducive to the spread of coronavirus. Nurses share space and equipment, such as computers, desks, phones, bathrooms, and break rooms, where staff take off masks to eat and drink. The complaint also describes how there is resistance to testing nurses and a lack of communication about infections among colleagues.

“When they have total disregard for safety, they should be punished to the utmost,” said Markowitz, noting that HCA Healthcare is worth $40 billion. “They can penalize them, but if it’s unsafe conditions for RNs and healthcare workers, we know it’s unsafe for the patients. There needs to be drastic measures to prevent hospital corporations from behaving that way.”

In a statement, HCA spokesman Harlow Sumerford said the company has followed CDC guidance for protecting frontline caregivers. “We’re proud of our response and the significant resources we’ve deployed to help protect our colleagues. Meanwhile, the NNU has chosen to use this pandemic as an opportunity to gain publicity by attacking hospitals across the country,” Sumerford said.

Members of the union recently protested in front of the federal OSHA offices in Denver.

After several months, OSHA finally penalized a meat packing plant where eight workers (six union members) had died of COVID-19 last spring. But the amount – $15,615 – was so low that Cordova worries it will actually have a worse impact than no fine.

“It’s more dangerous to workers because now employers know [they won’t be punished meaningfully],” she said. “During the pandemic, OSHA has been absolutely absent.”

Thus, the recent picketing outside the offices in Denver. But, Cordova noted, it’s unlikely OSHA employees saw them. Their own offices were deemed too risky to stay open during the pandemic. They were vacant.
 

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

Last spring, when Cliff Willmeng, RN, was working at United Hospital in St. Paul, Minnesota, he’d take off his personal protective equipment (PPE) in the same hallway where children were transported from ambulances to the neighboring Children’s Hospital emergency department. Stretchers would roll across red tape on the floor that designated the area as a “hot zone.” The door from a break room was about 10 feet away.

Willmeng has been a union activist all his life, but he’d never filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) until the COVID-19 pandemic hit.

Concerned about the inadequate space for doffing PPE and other situations in which the spread of SARS-CoV-2 seemed possible, Willmeng and other colleagues filed multiple OSHA complaints with the Minnesota Department of Labor in March and April. Willmeng was also worried about bringing SARS-CoV-2 on his scrubs home to his wife and kids, and he started wearing hospital-supplied scrubs that were meant for doctors and that were washed on site, which was against hospital policy. The hospital fired Willmeng on May 8, citing code of conduct and respectful workplace violations arising from the uniform dispute.

In August, the state agency issued Willmeng’s hospital a $2,100 fine for failure to comply with guidance regarding “respiratory protection” in response to worker complaints over the fact that they were instructed to restaple elastic bands on N95 masks early in the pandemic. In a statement, United Hospital said it contested the citation, and it is in discussions with Minnesota OSHA. “We have and continue to instruct employees not to alter N95 respirators or reuse damaged or soiled N95 respirators,” such as when the straps are broken, the statement says.

Minnesota OSHA has received three times as many emails and phone calls from workers and employers requesting information and assistance during the pandemic, compared with last year, said spokesperson James Honerman. “If Minnesota OSHA is made aware of a workplace safety or health issue, it assesses the situation and determines how best to respond, including conducting a workplace investigation.”

But Willmeng, who has been out of work since he was fired, says that without a receipt or confirmation from OSHA, he has no way of knowing whether there has been any follow-up regarding his complaints. Minnesota OSHA said workers should receive a letter once a case is resolved.

Like Willmeng’s case, none of the more than 10,000 COVID-related complaints the federal OSHA office has received from across the country have resulted in meaningful sanctions. Unions have picketed local OSHA offices and publicized complaints on behalf of their members to protest what they see as a lack of oversight. Legislators have called on US Department of Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia to step up enforcement.

For many health care workers, complaining to OSHA is a last resort after failing to get satisfactory responses from supervisors and appealing to unions for help. But with such minimal oversight from OSHA, some union leaders and legislators say it’s actually more dangerous than not having workplace safety enforcement at all. Lack of directives from the Trump administration has left the agency without the teeth it has cut under previous administrations, and recent changes to the agency’s rules raise questions about whether companies are ever required to report workers’ hospitalizations due to COVID-19.

“It’s so ineffective that it’s more dangerous to workers,” said Kim Cordova, president of United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 7, which represents 22,000 health care and other workers in Colorado and Wyoming. “Employers only do what they’re forced to do.” Instead of deterring a multi-billion-dollar company, she said, such low fines signal that a company doesn’t need to worry about COVID-related safety.

“OSHA is doing a lamentably poor job protecting workers during the pandemic,” said James Brudney, JD, a professor at Fordham Law School, in New York, and former chief counsel of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Labor. “I’m not alone in saying that the agency has performed so badly.”

Former government officials writing in JAMA were similarly critical: “In the face of the greatest worker health crisis in recent history, OSHA, the lead government agency responsible for worker health and safety, has not fulfilled its responsibilities.”
 

What could have been

There were early signs that the agency wouldn’t be heavy-handed about COVID-19 safety concerns, Brudney said.

The agency could have issued Emergency Temporary Standards, rules it can put in place during pandemics that address specific short-term concerns. These rules could have required employers to take infection-control measures to protect workers, including mask wearing, providing proper PPE, and screening for COVID-19 symptoms. “That’s what the agency is supposed to do. They’re supposed to respond to an emergency with emergency measures,” Brudney said.

But despite legislative pressure and a court case, Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia has declined to do so, saying that the agency would instead rely on its regular general duty clause, which is always in place to keep workplaces free from hazards that “cause death or serious physical harm.” The agency invoked the general duty clause for COVID-19–related violations for the first time in September to levy modest fines.

In response to a request for an interview, a Department of Labor spokesperson said that preexisting OSHA requirements apply to workers during the pandemic, including providing PPE for workers and assessing sanitation and cleanliness standards. The agency has issued specific guidance to companies on pandemic preparedness, she said, and that it responds to all complaints. Additionally, she cited whistleblower laws that make it illegal for employers to retaliate against employees for making safety and health complaints.

The federal OSHA office received 10,868 COVID-related complaints from Feb. 1 through Oct. 20, citing issues ranging from failure to provide proper PPE to not informing workers about exposures. As of Oct. 22, a total of 2,349 of the complaints involved healthcare workers. This count doesn’t include the untold number of “informal” complaints handled by state OSHA offices.

In a recent JAMA opinion piece, two former government officials agreed that “the federal government has not fully utilized OSHA’s public safety authority” and called the issuing of an Emergency Temporary Standard that would require employers to develop and implement infection control plans “the most important action the federal government could take” to protect workers.

“Employers are more likely to implement these controls if they are mandated by a government agency that has adequate enforcement tools to ensure compliance,” wrote former Assistant Secretary of Labor David Michaels, PhD, MPH, now at the Milken Institute School of Public Health of the George Washington University, Washington, and Gregory Wagner, MD, a former senior adviser at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, now at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston.

They cited the success of a standard that OSHA issued in 1991 in response to the HIV/AIDS crisis. “The bloodborne pathogens standard has contributed to a substantial decline in health care worker risk for bloodborne diseases like HIV and hepatitis B and C,” they wrote. In a new report for the Century Foundation, the pair offered recommendations to the federal government for controlling the spread of the disease by ramping up OSHA’s role.

OSHA did issue a response plan that requires employers to report in regard to employees who experienced workplace exposures to SARS-CoV-2 and who were hospitalized with COVID-19 or died of the disease within certain time frames, but recent changes to these rules make experts question whether companies are in fact required to report hospitalizations.

In its second revision of guidelines, added to its FAQ page on Sept. 30, the agency said that, in order to be reportable, “an in-patient hospitalization due to COVID-19 must occur within 24 hours of an exposure to SARS-CoV-2 at work” and that the employer must report the hospitalization within 24 hours of learning both that the employee has been hospitalized and that the reason for the hospitalization was a work-related case of COVID-19. Previously, the 24-hour hospitalization window started at the time of diagnosis of the disease, rather than the work-related exposure.

The agency subsequently dropped the first citation it had issued for a COVID-related violation, even though the company, a nursing home, had already agreed to pay $3,904 for reporting employee hospitalizations late.

“It’s a step backwards from an important workplace and public health function that OSHA should be doing,” said Wagner, coauthor of the JAMA opinion piece.

Even without issuing Emergency Temporary Standards, critics say OSHA could have acted much earlier. OSHA issued its first COVID-related federal citation, the one against the nursing home that was dropped, in May for events that occurred in mid-April. The second COVID-related federal citation came in July.

The agency could also charge much more substantial fines for the citations it has issued. If a medical facility was cited for a PPE violation, such as the Minnesota hospital where workers were told to restaple the elastic bands on N95s, the agency could have cited the hospital for one violation per employee. Such fines based on multiple violations could add up to the hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars.

“It would send a signal to the highest-risk employers that these are violations that need to be addressed immediately,” Brudney said.

Many of the 22 state OSHA offices appear to be more responsive to COVID-related complaints than the federal agency, creating a system in which health care workers have substantially different rights from one state to the next. The governor of California, for example, recently authorized California’s OSHA division to consider COVID-19 an imminent hazard, to prohibit workers from entering areas where the hazard exists, and to require employers to disclose exposures. The state also recently issued large fines for COVID safety issues: $222,075 to frozen food manufacturer Overhill Farms and $214,080 to employment agency Jobsource North America.

Elsewhere, state laws such as New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act give workers the right to refuse to work in unsafe situations, Brudney said. “A lot more action is going on at the state level because so little is being done at the federal level,” he said. “Some of it is governors committed to protecting essential workers and their families.”
 

Unions call for sanctions

Unions are both decrying the lack of enforcement thus far and seeking more oversight going forward.

In August, the National Nurses’ United (NNU) union filed a complaint to implore OSHA to investigate the country’s biggest hospital systems, HCA Healthcare, which operates 184 hospitals and about 2,000 other care sites in 21 states and the United Kingdom. The union describes how, throughout HCA hospitals, there is an environment conducive to the spread of coronavirus. Nurses share space and equipment, such as computers, desks, phones, bathrooms, and break rooms, where staff take off masks to eat and drink. The complaint also describes how there is resistance to testing nurses and a lack of communication about infections among colleagues.

“When they have total disregard for safety, they should be punished to the utmost,” said Markowitz, noting that HCA Healthcare is worth $40 billion. “They can penalize them, but if it’s unsafe conditions for RNs and healthcare workers, we know it’s unsafe for the patients. There needs to be drastic measures to prevent hospital corporations from behaving that way.”

In a statement, HCA spokesman Harlow Sumerford said the company has followed CDC guidance for protecting frontline caregivers. “We’re proud of our response and the significant resources we’ve deployed to help protect our colleagues. Meanwhile, the NNU has chosen to use this pandemic as an opportunity to gain publicity by attacking hospitals across the country,” Sumerford said.

Members of the union recently protested in front of the federal OSHA offices in Denver.

After several months, OSHA finally penalized a meat packing plant where eight workers (six union members) had died of COVID-19 last spring. But the amount – $15,615 – was so low that Cordova worries it will actually have a worse impact than no fine.

“It’s more dangerous to workers because now employers know [they won’t be punished meaningfully],” she said. “During the pandemic, OSHA has been absolutely absent.”

Thus, the recent picketing outside the offices in Denver. But, Cordova noted, it’s unlikely OSHA employees saw them. Their own offices were deemed too risky to stay open during the pandemic. They were vacant.
 

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

In 2016, there were an estimated 15,338,988 people living with cancer in the United States.¹ As such, it is important that hospitalists be proficient in managing oncologic emergencies that can arise during the natural history of cancer or from its treatment. This article will review three emergencies that are routinely encountered in the inpatient setting: malignant spinal cord compression (MSCC), hypercalcemia of malignancy (HCM), and febrile neutropenia (FN).

Case

vitanovski/Thinkstock.com

Mr. Williams is a 56-year-old man with newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer, diabetes mellitus, peptic ulcer disease, and hypertension. He is admitted with back pain and lower extremity weakness worsening over 2 weeks. He denies loss of sensation or bowel and bladder incontinence and can walk. MRI confirms cord compression at T10. What initial and subsequent steroid doses would be of most benefit to administer?

Malignant spinal cord compression

Treatment of MSCC usually aims to preserve function rather than reverse established deficits. MSCC from epidural tumor metastasis develops in 5%-14% of all cancer cases,² with back pain as the most common symptom. Nearly 60%-85% of patients have weakness at the time of diagnosis,³ and unfortunately, nearly two-thirds of patients will be nonambulatory at presentation.

While timely steroid administration in addition to definitive treatment may maintain ambulatory capacity at 1 year after therapy,⁴ there is no consensus on the optimal loading and maintenance dose and duration of steroids.
 

Overview of the data

Although there are no formal guidelines on optimal steroid dosing for MSCC, it is common practice for dexamethasone to be initially dosed at 10 mg followed by 4 mg every 4-6 hours.⁵ The use of higher doses of dexamethasone may result in improvement in neurologic deficits, but has higher risks for toxicity and is not universally supported in the literature.

A study conducted by Vecht and colleagues demonstrated few differences between initial high-dose and low-dose dexamethasone.⁶ Intravenous administration of either 10 mg or 100 mg dexamethasone, both followed by total 16 mg of dexamethasone orally per day, showed no significant difference in mobility or survival between the groups.

In a prospective study by Heimdal and colleagues that evaluated the relationship between dexamethasone dose and toxicity, higher doses of steroids had no meaningful impact on neurological symptoms and resulted in more severe side effects.⁷ Patients were either given 96-mg IV loading dose, gradually tapered over 2 weeks, or enrolled in the low-dose group in which they received 4-mg IV dexamethasone four times per day with a taper over 2 weeks. The high-dose group experienced side effects in 28.6% of patients, with 14.3% experiencing serious side effects. Meanwhile, 7.9% of the low-dose group exhibited some side effects, with none experiencing serious adverse effects.The high-dose group did not experience a significant increase in mobility (57.1 vs. 57.9%).
 

Key takeaways

Dexamthasone 10-mg oral or IV followed by 4 mg every 4-6 hours until definitive treatment is started is associated with improved neurologic outcomes and minimal adverse side effects. Higher doses of steroids are unlikely to offer more benefit. In patients with paraplegia or autonomic dysfunction, the ability to restore neurologic function is reduced and the burdens of steroid treatment may outweigh its benefits.⁵

Case continued

Mr. Williams completed treatment for MSCC but was still complaining of extreme lethargy and noticed an increase in thirst and no bowel movement in 5 days. His serum calcium was 14 mg/dL.

Hypercalcemia of malignancy

HCM is the most common paraneoplastic syndrome, observed in nearly 30% of patients with advanced cancer. It is a poor prognostic indicator, and approximately half of all patients with HCM will die within 30 days.⁸ Cancer is the most common reason for hypercalcemia in the inpatient setting⁹ and is most often associated with multiple myeloma, non–small cell lung cancer, breast cancer, renal cell carcinoma, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, and leukemia.

Hypercalcemia most often presents with cognitive changes and lethargy, anorexia, nausea, constipation, polyuria and polydipsia, and renal failure. Bradycardia and shortened QT interval are seen more with severe hypercalcemia.
 

Management of hypercalcemia of malignancy

Management of HCM depends on corrected calcium or ionized calcium levels, chronicity, degree of symptoms, and presence of renal failure. In general, mild asymptomatic hypercalcemia can be managed with outpatient care. Serum calcium greater than 14 mg/dL should be treated regardless of symptoms (Table 1).

For mild to moderate HCM, management involves saline administration to achieve euvolemia and calcitonin, which has temporizing effects. Early administration of IV bisphosphonates for moderate to severe HCM is beneficial because onset of action is 24-48 hours. Furosemide for management of HCM has fallen out of favor unless the patient develops hypervolemia. Denosumab has been Food and Drug Administration–approved for HCM refractory to bisphosphonate therapy and can manage HCM in 64% of patients who did not respond adequately to bisphosphonate therapy.¹⁰ Because it can be used in advanced renal failure without dose adjustment, it is first-line therapy in this population, although the risk for hypocalcemia is increased in renal failure. For patients with serum calcium greater than 18 mg/dL, worsening renal failure, or inability to tolerate IV fluids, dialysis with a low-calcium bath should be considered (Table 2).
 

Zoledronic acid versus pamidronate

A single dose of zoledronic acid normalizes the serum calcium concentration in 88% of patients, compared with 70% of those who received pamidronate, in a pooled analysis of two phase 3 trials.¹¹ The median duration of normocalcemia was longer for those receiving zoledronic acid (32-43 days vs. 18 days). The efficacy of the 4-mg and 8-mg zoledronic acid doses were similar, but the 4-mg dose was recommended because of renal toxicity and increased mortality associated with the higher dose.Despite this data, many specialists maintain that pamidronate, which is less expensive, is of similar clinical efficacy to ZA.¹²

Key takeaways

Management of HCM should be determined by the severity of the calcium level. The mainstay of treatment includes hydration with normal saline, calcitonin ,and bisphosphonate therapy; zoledronic acid is preferred over pamidronate. For patients refractory to bisphosphonates or patients with renal insufficiency, denosumab should be used.

Case continued: Febrile neutropenia

Febrile neutropenia is defined as a single oral temperature of 100.9° F or a temperature of 100.4° F sustained over a 1-hour period in a patient with absolute neutrophil count (ANC) less than 1,000 cells/mL or ANC expected to decrease to less than 500 cells/mL within a 48-hour period.¹³ Up to 30% of patients with solid tumors develop febrile neutropenia after chemotherapy, and nearly 80% of patients with hematologic malignancy or after hematopoietic stem cell therapy (HSCT) experience it.

Even though an infectious etiology is identified in only 30%-40% of cases, all patients with febrile neutropenia should initially receive at least empiric gram-negative coverage. The mortality rate is nearly 70% in neutropenic patients who do not receive empiric antibiotics and is reduced to 4%-20% with antibiotics.¹⁴
 

Risk stratification for febrile neutropenia and early discharge

Talcott’s Rules, the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) score, and the Clinical Index of Stable Febrile Neutropenia (CISNE) are validated tools to determine low-risk febrile neutropenia patients (Tables 3 and 4). The Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines validated the use of MASCC in 2002 but found that CISNE had better performance than other tools. Coyne and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study to assess these two risk stratification tools in the ED and found that the CISNE was 98.3% specific for identifying adverse outcomes, whereas the MASCC was 54.2% specific.¹⁵

A study by Talcott and colleagues used Talcott’s Rules to identify low-risk febrile neutropenia patients, who were randomized to early discharge with home intravenous antibiotics versus continued inpatient management. There were no significant differences in the primary outcomes, defined as any change in clinical status requiring medical evaluation.¹⁶ Another study suggested that discharge after 24 hours based on clinical stability with outpatient oral antibiotics were noninferior to standard inpatient and intravenous antibiotic therapy.¹⁷ A Cochrane review in 2013 of 22 randomized controlled trials determined that oral antibiotics were an acceptable treatment for low-risk patients.¹⁸
 

Key takeaways

Though the MASCC is highly sensitive in identifying low-risk febrile neutropenia patients, it should be used with clinical caution because up to 11% of patients characterized as low risk developed severe complications.¹⁹ If a low-risk patient with solid tumor malignancy has adequate home support, lives within an hour of the hospital, and has access to follow-up within 72 hours, oral antibiotics and early discharge can be considered.

Dr. Chokshi is assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York. Dr. Smith is associate professor in the division of hematology/oncology at Mount Sinai Hospital.

QUIZ

Mrs. Smith is a 64-year-old woman with endometrial cancer with temperature of 100.4° F at home. She takes no antibiotics, has no other medical history, and was sent in from clinic and admitted for further management. She feels well, and preliminary infectious workup is negative. She has been afebrile for more than 24 hours, and her ANC is 600 cells/mL.

Her son’s soccer game is tomorrow, and she would like to be present. Her family is involved in her care. Under what conditions can she be discharged?

A. She should not be discharged until full course of empiric intravenous antibiotics is completed.

B. Consider discharge in another 24 hours if she remains afebrile.

C. Discharge if low risk by MASCC or CISNE, with oral doses of levofloxacin or moxifloxacin or oral ciprofloxacin and amoxicillin/clavulanic acid.



Answer: C. The patient has a solid tumor malignancy, is low risk by both MASCC and CISNE, and can most likely be discharged if she is clinically stable or improved. A 7-day course of antibiotics is recommended with close follow-up.
 

References

1. SEER. Cancer of Any Site - Cancer Stat Facts. https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/all.html. Accessed 2019 Jul 17.

2. Kwok Y et al. Clinical Approach to Metastatic Epidural Spinal Cord Compression. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 2006;20(6):1297-305.

3. Helweg-Larsen S et al. Prognostic factors in metastatic spinal cord compression: a prospective study using multivariate analysis of variables influencing survival and gait function in 153 patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;46(5):1163-9.

4. Sørensen P et al. Effect of high-dose dexamethasone in carcinomatous metastatic spinal cord compression treated with radiotherapy: A randomised trial. Eur J Cancer. 1994;30(1):22-7.

5. Skeoch G et al. Corticosteroid treatment for metastatic spinal cord compression: A review. Global Spine J. 2017;7(3):272-9.

6. Vecht C et al. Initial bolus of conventional versus high-dose dexamethasone in metastatic spinal cord compression. Neurology. 1989;39(9):1255-7.

7. Heimdal K et al. High incidence of serious side effects of high-dose dexamethasone treatment in patients with epidural spinal cord compression. J Neurooncol. 1992;12(2):141-4.

8. Ralston S et al. Cancer-associated hypercalcemia: Morbidity and mortality. Clinical experience in 126 treated patients. Ann Intern Med. 1990;112(7):499-504.

9. Lindner G et al. Hypercalcemia in the ED: Prevalence, etiology, and outcome. Am J Emerg Med. 2013;31(4):657-60.

10. Hu M et al. Denosumab for patients with persistent or relapsed hypercalcemia of malignancy despite recent bisphosphonate treatment. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105(18):1417-20.

11. Major P et al. Zoledronic acid is superior to pamidronate in the treatment of hypercalcemia of malignancy: A pooled analysis of two randomized, controlled clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19(2):558-67.

12. Stewart A. Clinical practice. Hypercalcemia associated with cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(4):373-9.

13. Freifeld A et al. Executive summary: Clinical practice guideline for the use of antimicrobial agents in neutropenic patients with cancer: 2010 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;52(4):427-31.

14. Baden L et al. Prevention and treatment of cancer-related infections, version 2.2016, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2016;14(7):882-913.

15. Coyne C et al. Application of the MASCC and CISNE risk-stratification scores to identify low-risk febrile neutropenic patients in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 2017;69(6):755-64.

16. Talcott J et al. Safety of early discharge for low-risk patients with febrile neutropenia: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(30):3977-83.

17. Innes H et al. Oral antibiotics with early hospital discharge compared with in-patient intravenous antibiotics for low-risk febrile neutropenia in patients with cancer: A prospective randomised controlled single centre study. Br J Cancer. 2003;89(1):43-9.

18. Vidal L, et al. Oral versus intravenous antibiotic treatment for febrile neutropenia in cancer patients. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2013.

19. Taplitz RA et al. Outpatient management of fever and neutropenia in adults treated for malignancy: American Society of Clinical Oncology and Infectious Diseases Society of America clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(14):1443-53.

In 2016, there were an estimated 15,338,988 people living with cancer in the United States.¹ As such, it is important that hospitalists be proficient in managing oncologic emergencies that can arise during the natural history of cancer or from its treatment. This article will review three emergencies that are routinely encountered in the inpatient setting: malignant spinal cord compression (MSCC), hypercalcemia of malignancy (HCM), and febrile neutropenia (FN).

Case

vitanovski/Thinkstock.com

Mr. Williams is a 56-year-old man with newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer, diabetes mellitus, peptic ulcer disease, and hypertension. He is admitted with back pain and lower extremity weakness worsening over 2 weeks. He denies loss of sensation or bowel and bladder incontinence and can walk. MRI confirms cord compression at T10. What initial and subsequent steroid doses would be of most benefit to administer?

Malignant spinal cord compression

Treatment of MSCC usually aims to preserve function rather than reverse established deficits. MSCC from epidural tumor metastasis develops in 5%-14% of all cancer cases,² with back pain as the most common symptom. Nearly 60%-85% of patients have weakness at the time of diagnosis,³ and unfortunately, nearly two-thirds of patients will be nonambulatory at presentation.

While timely steroid administration in addition to definitive treatment may maintain ambulatory capacity at 1 year after therapy,⁴ there is no consensus on the optimal loading and maintenance dose and duration of steroids.
 

Overview of the data

Although there are no formal guidelines on optimal steroid dosing for MSCC, it is common practice for dexamethasone to be initially dosed at 10 mg followed by 4 mg every 4-6 hours.⁵ The use of higher doses of dexamethasone may result in improvement in neurologic deficits, but has higher risks for toxicity and is not universally supported in the literature.

A study conducted by Vecht and colleagues demonstrated few differences between initial high-dose and low-dose dexamethasone.⁶ Intravenous administration of either 10 mg or 100 mg dexamethasone, both followed by total 16 mg of dexamethasone orally per day, showed no significant difference in mobility or survival between the groups.

In a prospective study by Heimdal and colleagues that evaluated the relationship between dexamethasone dose and toxicity, higher doses of steroids had no meaningful impact on neurological symptoms and resulted in more severe side effects.⁷ Patients were either given 96-mg IV loading dose, gradually tapered over 2 weeks, or enrolled in the low-dose group in which they received 4-mg IV dexamethasone four times per day with a taper over 2 weeks. The high-dose group experienced side effects in 28.6% of patients, with 14.3% experiencing serious side effects. Meanwhile, 7.9% of the low-dose group exhibited some side effects, with none experiencing serious adverse effects.The high-dose group did not experience a significant increase in mobility (57.1 vs. 57.9%).
 

Key takeaways

Dexamthasone 10-mg oral or IV followed by 4 mg every 4-6 hours until definitive treatment is started is associated with improved neurologic outcomes and minimal adverse side effects. Higher doses of steroids are unlikely to offer more benefit. In patients with paraplegia or autonomic dysfunction, the ability to restore neurologic function is reduced and the burdens of steroid treatment may outweigh its benefits.⁵

Case continued

Mr. Williams completed treatment for MSCC but was still complaining of extreme lethargy and noticed an increase in thirst and no bowel movement in 5 days. His serum calcium was 14 mg/dL.

Hypercalcemia of malignancy

HCM is the most common paraneoplastic syndrome, observed in nearly 30% of patients with advanced cancer. It is a poor prognostic indicator, and approximately half of all patients with HCM will die within 30 days.⁸ Cancer is the most common reason for hypercalcemia in the inpatient setting⁹ and is most often associated with multiple myeloma, non–small cell lung cancer, breast cancer, renal cell carcinoma, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, and leukemia.

Hypercalcemia most often presents with cognitive changes and lethargy, anorexia, nausea, constipation, polyuria and polydipsia, and renal failure. Bradycardia and shortened QT interval are seen more with severe hypercalcemia.
 

Management of hypercalcemia of malignancy

Management of HCM depends on corrected calcium or ionized calcium levels, chronicity, degree of symptoms, and presence of renal failure. In general, mild asymptomatic hypercalcemia can be managed with outpatient care. Serum calcium greater than 14 mg/dL should be treated regardless of symptoms (Table 1).

For mild to moderate HCM, management involves saline administration to achieve euvolemia and calcitonin, which has temporizing effects. Early administration of IV bisphosphonates for moderate to severe HCM is beneficial because onset of action is 24-48 hours. Furosemide for management of HCM has fallen out of favor unless the patient develops hypervolemia. Denosumab has been Food and Drug Administration–approved for HCM refractory to bisphosphonate therapy and can manage HCM in 64% of patients who did not respond adequately to bisphosphonate therapy.¹⁰ Because it can be used in advanced renal failure without dose adjustment, it is first-line therapy in this population, although the risk for hypocalcemia is increased in renal failure. For patients with serum calcium greater than 18 mg/dL, worsening renal failure, or inability to tolerate IV fluids, dialysis with a low-calcium bath should be considered (Table 2).
 

Zoledronic acid versus pamidronate

A single dose of zoledronic acid normalizes the serum calcium concentration in 88% of patients, compared with 70% of those who received pamidronate, in a pooled analysis of two phase 3 trials.¹¹ The median duration of normocalcemia was longer for those receiving zoledronic acid (32-43 days vs. 18 days). The efficacy of the 4-mg and 8-mg zoledronic acid doses were similar, but the 4-mg dose was recommended because of renal toxicity and increased mortality associated with the higher dose.Despite this data, many specialists maintain that pamidronate, which is less expensive, is of similar clinical efficacy to ZA.¹²

Key takeaways

Management of HCM should be determined by the severity of the calcium level. The mainstay of treatment includes hydration with normal saline, calcitonin ,and bisphosphonate therapy; zoledronic acid is preferred over pamidronate. For patients refractory to bisphosphonates or patients with renal insufficiency, denosumab should be used.

Case continued: Febrile neutropenia

Febrile neutropenia is defined as a single oral temperature of 100.9° F or a temperature of 100.4° F sustained over a 1-hour period in a patient with absolute neutrophil count (ANC) less than 1,000 cells/mL or ANC expected to decrease to less than 500 cells/mL within a 48-hour period.¹³ Up to 30% of patients with solid tumors develop febrile neutropenia after chemotherapy, and nearly 80% of patients with hematologic malignancy or after hematopoietic stem cell therapy (HSCT) experience it.

Even though an infectious etiology is identified in only 30%-40% of cases, all patients with febrile neutropenia should initially receive at least empiric gram-negative coverage. The mortality rate is nearly 70% in neutropenic patients who do not receive empiric antibiotics and is reduced to 4%-20% with antibiotics.¹⁴
 

Risk stratification for febrile neutropenia and early discharge

Talcott’s Rules, the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) score, and the Clinical Index of Stable Febrile Neutropenia (CISNE) are validated tools to determine low-risk febrile neutropenia patients (Tables 3 and 4). The Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines validated the use of MASCC in 2002 but found that CISNE had better performance than other tools. Coyne and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study to assess these two risk stratification tools in the ED and found that the CISNE was 98.3% specific for identifying adverse outcomes, whereas the MASCC was 54.2% specific.¹⁵

A study by Talcott and colleagues used Talcott’s Rules to identify low-risk febrile neutropenia patients, who were randomized to early discharge with home intravenous antibiotics versus continued inpatient management. There were no significant differences in the primary outcomes, defined as any change in clinical status requiring medical evaluation.¹⁶ Another study suggested that discharge after 24 hours based on clinical stability with outpatient oral antibiotics were noninferior to standard inpatient and intravenous antibiotic therapy.¹⁷ A Cochrane review in 2013 of 22 randomized controlled trials determined that oral antibiotics were an acceptable treatment for low-risk patients.¹⁸
 

Key takeaways

Though the MASCC is highly sensitive in identifying low-risk febrile neutropenia patients, it should be used with clinical caution because up to 11% of patients characterized as low risk developed severe complications.¹⁹ If a low-risk patient with solid tumor malignancy has adequate home support, lives within an hour of the hospital, and has access to follow-up within 72 hours, oral antibiotics and early discharge can be considered.

Dr. Chokshi is assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York. Dr. Smith is associate professor in the division of hematology/oncology at Mount Sinai Hospital.

QUIZ

Mrs. Smith is a 64-year-old woman with endometrial cancer with temperature of 100.4° F at home. She takes no antibiotics, has no other medical history, and was sent in from clinic and admitted for further management. She feels well, and preliminary infectious workup is negative. She has been afebrile for more than 24 hours, and her ANC is 600 cells/mL.

Her son’s soccer game is tomorrow, and she would like to be present. Her family is involved in her care. Under what conditions can she be discharged?

A. She should not be discharged until full course of empiric intravenous antibiotics is completed.

B. Consider discharge in another 24 hours if she remains afebrile.

C. Discharge if low risk by MASCC or CISNE, with oral doses of levofloxacin or moxifloxacin or oral ciprofloxacin and amoxicillin/clavulanic acid.



Answer: C. The patient has a solid tumor malignancy, is low risk by both MASCC and CISNE, and can most likely be discharged if she is clinically stable or improved. A 7-day course of antibiotics is recommended with close follow-up.
 

References

1. SEER. Cancer of Any Site - Cancer Stat Facts. https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/all.html. Accessed 2019 Jul 17.

2. Kwok Y et al. Clinical Approach to Metastatic Epidural Spinal Cord Compression. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 2006;20(6):1297-305.

3. Helweg-Larsen S et al. Prognostic factors in metastatic spinal cord compression: a prospective study using multivariate analysis of variables influencing survival and gait function in 153 patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;46(5):1163-9.

4. Sørensen P et al. Effect of high-dose dexamethasone in carcinomatous metastatic spinal cord compression treated with radiotherapy: A randomised trial. Eur J Cancer. 1994;30(1):22-7.

5. Skeoch G et al. Corticosteroid treatment for metastatic spinal cord compression: A review. Global Spine J. 2017;7(3):272-9.

6. Vecht C et al. Initial bolus of conventional versus high-dose dexamethasone in metastatic spinal cord compression. Neurology. 1989;39(9):1255-7.

7. Heimdal K et al. High incidence of serious side effects of high-dose dexamethasone treatment in patients with epidural spinal cord compression. J Neurooncol. 1992;12(2):141-4.

8. Ralston S et al. Cancer-associated hypercalcemia: Morbidity and mortality. Clinical experience in 126 treated patients. Ann Intern Med. 1990;112(7):499-504.

9. Lindner G et al. Hypercalcemia in the ED: Prevalence, etiology, and outcome. Am J Emerg Med. 2013;31(4):657-60.

10. Hu M et al. Denosumab for patients with persistent or relapsed hypercalcemia of malignancy despite recent bisphosphonate treatment. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105(18):1417-20.

11. Major P et al. Zoledronic acid is superior to pamidronate in the treatment of hypercalcemia of malignancy: A pooled analysis of two randomized, controlled clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19(2):558-67.

12. Stewart A. Clinical practice. Hypercalcemia associated with cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(4):373-9.

13. Freifeld A et al. Executive summary: Clinical practice guideline for the use of antimicrobial agents in neutropenic patients with cancer: 2010 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;52(4):427-31.

14. Baden L et al. Prevention and treatment of cancer-related infections, version 2.2016, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2016;14(7):882-913.

15. Coyne C et al. Application of the MASCC and CISNE risk-stratification scores to identify low-risk febrile neutropenic patients in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 2017;69(6):755-64.

16. Talcott J et al. Safety of early discharge for low-risk patients with febrile neutropenia: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(30):3977-83.

17. Innes H et al. Oral antibiotics with early hospital discharge compared with in-patient intravenous antibiotics for low-risk febrile neutropenia in patients with cancer: A prospective randomised controlled single centre study. Br J Cancer. 2003;89(1):43-9.

18. Vidal L, et al. Oral versus intravenous antibiotic treatment for febrile neutropenia in cancer patients. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2013.

19. Taplitz RA et al. Outpatient management of fever and neutropenia in adults treated for malignancy: American Society of Clinical Oncology and Infectious Diseases Society of America clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(14):1443-53.

In 2016, there were an estimated 15,338,988 people living with cancer in the United States.¹ As such, it is important that hospitalists be proficient in managing oncologic emergencies that can arise during the natural history of cancer or from its treatment. This article will review three emergencies that are routinely encountered in the inpatient setting: malignant spinal cord compression (MSCC), hypercalcemia of malignancy (HCM), and febrile neutropenia (FN).

Case

vitanovski/Thinkstock.com

Mr. Williams is a 56-year-old man with newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer, diabetes mellitus, peptic ulcer disease, and hypertension. He is admitted with back pain and lower extremity weakness worsening over 2 weeks. He denies loss of sensation or bowel and bladder incontinence and can walk. MRI confirms cord compression at T10. What initial and subsequent steroid doses would be of most benefit to administer?

Malignant spinal cord compression

Treatment of MSCC usually aims to preserve function rather than reverse established deficits. MSCC from epidural tumor metastasis develops in 5%-14% of all cancer cases,² with back pain as the most common symptom. Nearly 60%-85% of patients have weakness at the time of diagnosis,³ and unfortunately, nearly two-thirds of patients will be nonambulatory at presentation.

While timely steroid administration in addition to definitive treatment may maintain ambulatory capacity at 1 year after therapy,⁴ there is no consensus on the optimal loading and maintenance dose and duration of steroids.
 

Overview of the data

Although there are no formal guidelines on optimal steroid dosing for MSCC, it is common practice for dexamethasone to be initially dosed at 10 mg followed by 4 mg every 4-6 hours.⁵ The use of higher doses of dexamethasone may result in improvement in neurologic deficits, but has higher risks for toxicity and is not universally supported in the literature.

A study conducted by Vecht and colleagues demonstrated few differences between initial high-dose and low-dose dexamethasone.⁶ Intravenous administration of either 10 mg or 100 mg dexamethasone, both followed by total 16 mg of dexamethasone orally per day, showed no significant difference in mobility or survival between the groups.

In a prospective study by Heimdal and colleagues that evaluated the relationship between dexamethasone dose and toxicity, higher doses of steroids had no meaningful impact on neurological symptoms and resulted in more severe side effects.⁷ Patients were either given 96-mg IV loading dose, gradually tapered over 2 weeks, or enrolled in the low-dose group in which they received 4-mg IV dexamethasone four times per day with a taper over 2 weeks. The high-dose group experienced side effects in 28.6% of patients, with 14.3% experiencing serious side effects. Meanwhile, 7.9% of the low-dose group exhibited some side effects, with none experiencing serious adverse effects.The high-dose group did not experience a significant increase in mobility (57.1 vs. 57.9%).
 

Key takeaways

Dexamthasone 10-mg oral or IV followed by 4 mg every 4-6 hours until definitive treatment is started is associated with improved neurologic outcomes and minimal adverse side effects. Higher doses of steroids are unlikely to offer more benefit. In patients with paraplegia or autonomic dysfunction, the ability to restore neurologic function is reduced and the burdens of steroid treatment may outweigh its benefits.⁵

Case continued

Mr. Williams completed treatment for MSCC but was still complaining of extreme lethargy and noticed an increase in thirst and no bowel movement in 5 days. His serum calcium was 14 mg/dL.

Hypercalcemia of malignancy

HCM is the most common paraneoplastic syndrome, observed in nearly 30% of patients with advanced cancer. It is a poor prognostic indicator, and approximately half of all patients with HCM will die within 30 days.⁸ Cancer is the most common reason for hypercalcemia in the inpatient setting⁹ and is most often associated with multiple myeloma, non–small cell lung cancer, breast cancer, renal cell carcinoma, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, and leukemia.

Hypercalcemia most often presents with cognitive changes and lethargy, anorexia, nausea, constipation, polyuria and polydipsia, and renal failure. Bradycardia and shortened QT interval are seen more with severe hypercalcemia.
 

Management of hypercalcemia of malignancy

Management of HCM depends on corrected calcium or ionized calcium levels, chronicity, degree of symptoms, and presence of renal failure. In general, mild asymptomatic hypercalcemia can be managed with outpatient care. Serum calcium greater than 14 mg/dL should be treated regardless of symptoms (Table 1).

For mild to moderate HCM, management involves saline administration to achieve euvolemia and calcitonin, which has temporizing effects. Early administration of IV bisphosphonates for moderate to severe HCM is beneficial because onset of action is 24-48 hours. Furosemide for management of HCM has fallen out of favor unless the patient develops hypervolemia. Denosumab has been Food and Drug Administration–approved for HCM refractory to bisphosphonate therapy and can manage HCM in 64% of patients who did not respond adequately to bisphosphonate therapy.¹⁰ Because it can be used in advanced renal failure without dose adjustment, it is first-line therapy in this population, although the risk for hypocalcemia is increased in renal failure. For patients with serum calcium greater than 18 mg/dL, worsening renal failure, or inability to tolerate IV fluids, dialysis with a low-calcium bath should be considered (Table 2).
 

Zoledronic acid versus pamidronate

A single dose of zoledronic acid normalizes the serum calcium concentration in 88% of patients, compared with 70% of those who received pamidronate, in a pooled analysis of two phase 3 trials.¹¹ The median duration of normocalcemia was longer for those receiving zoledronic acid (32-43 days vs. 18 days). The efficacy of the 4-mg and 8-mg zoledronic acid doses were similar, but the 4-mg dose was recommended because of renal toxicity and increased mortality associated with the higher dose.Despite this data, many specialists maintain that pamidronate, which is less expensive, is of similar clinical efficacy to ZA.¹²

Key takeaways

Management of HCM should be determined by the severity of the calcium level. The mainstay of treatment includes hydration with normal saline, calcitonin ,and bisphosphonate therapy; zoledronic acid is preferred over pamidronate. For patients refractory to bisphosphonates or patients with renal insufficiency, denosumab should be used.

Case continued: Febrile neutropenia

Febrile neutropenia is defined as a single oral temperature of 100.9° F or a temperature of 100.4° F sustained over a 1-hour period in a patient with absolute neutrophil count (ANC) less than 1,000 cells/mL or ANC expected to decrease to less than 500 cells/mL within a 48-hour period.¹³ Up to 30% of patients with solid tumors develop febrile neutropenia after chemotherapy, and nearly 80% of patients with hematologic malignancy or after hematopoietic stem cell therapy (HSCT) experience it.

Even though an infectious etiology is identified in only 30%-40% of cases, all patients with febrile neutropenia should initially receive at least empiric gram-negative coverage. The mortality rate is nearly 70% in neutropenic patients who do not receive empiric antibiotics and is reduced to 4%-20% with antibiotics.¹⁴
 

Risk stratification for febrile neutropenia and early discharge

Talcott’s Rules, the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) score, and the Clinical Index of Stable Febrile Neutropenia (CISNE) are validated tools to determine low-risk febrile neutropenia patients (Tables 3 and 4). The Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines validated the use of MASCC in 2002 but found that CISNE had better performance than other tools. Coyne and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study to assess these two risk stratification tools in the ED and found that the CISNE was 98.3% specific for identifying adverse outcomes, whereas the MASCC was 54.2% specific.¹⁵

A study by Talcott and colleagues used Talcott’s Rules to identify low-risk febrile neutropenia patients, who were randomized to early discharge with home intravenous antibiotics versus continued inpatient management. There were no significant differences in the primary outcomes, defined as any change in clinical status requiring medical evaluation.¹⁶ Another study suggested that discharge after 24 hours based on clinical stability with outpatient oral antibiotics were noninferior to standard inpatient and intravenous antibiotic therapy.¹⁷ A Cochrane review in 2013 of 22 randomized controlled trials determined that oral antibiotics were an acceptable treatment for low-risk patients.¹⁸
 

Key takeaways

Though the MASCC is highly sensitive in identifying low-risk febrile neutropenia patients, it should be used with clinical caution because up to 11% of patients characterized as low risk developed severe complications.¹⁹ If a low-risk patient with solid tumor malignancy has adequate home support, lives within an hour of the hospital, and has access to follow-up within 72 hours, oral antibiotics and early discharge can be considered.

Dr. Chokshi is assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York. Dr. Smith is associate professor in the division of hematology/oncology at Mount Sinai Hospital.

QUIZ

Mrs. Smith is a 64-year-old woman with endometrial cancer with temperature of 100.4° F at home. She takes no antibiotics, has no other medical history, and was sent in from clinic and admitted for further management. She feels well, and preliminary infectious workup is negative. She has been afebrile for more than 24 hours, and her ANC is 600 cells/mL.

Her son’s soccer game is tomorrow, and she would like to be present. Her family is involved in her care. Under what conditions can she be discharged?

A. She should not be discharged until full course of empiric intravenous antibiotics is completed.

B. Consider discharge in another 24 hours if she remains afebrile.

C. Discharge if low risk by MASCC or CISNE, with oral doses of levofloxacin or moxifloxacin or oral ciprofloxacin and amoxicillin/clavulanic acid.



Answer: C. The patient has a solid tumor malignancy, is low risk by both MASCC and CISNE, and can most likely be discharged if she is clinically stable or improved. A 7-day course of antibiotics is recommended with close follow-up.
 

References

1. SEER. Cancer of Any Site - Cancer Stat Facts. https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/all.html. Accessed 2019 Jul 17.

2. Kwok Y et al. Clinical Approach to Metastatic Epidural Spinal Cord Compression. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 2006;20(6):1297-305.

3. Helweg-Larsen S et al. Prognostic factors in metastatic spinal cord compression: a prospective study using multivariate analysis of variables influencing survival and gait function in 153 patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;46(5):1163-9.

4. Sørensen P et al. Effect of high-dose dexamethasone in carcinomatous metastatic spinal cord compression treated with radiotherapy: A randomised trial. Eur J Cancer. 1994;30(1):22-7.

5. Skeoch G et al. Corticosteroid treatment for metastatic spinal cord compression: A review. Global Spine J. 2017;7(3):272-9.

6. Vecht C et al. Initial bolus of conventional versus high-dose dexamethasone in metastatic spinal cord compression. Neurology. 1989;39(9):1255-7.

7. Heimdal K et al. High incidence of serious side effects of high-dose dexamethasone treatment in patients with epidural spinal cord compression. J Neurooncol. 1992;12(2):141-4.

8. Ralston S et al. Cancer-associated hypercalcemia: Morbidity and mortality. Clinical experience in 126 treated patients. Ann Intern Med. 1990;112(7):499-504.

9. Lindner G et al. Hypercalcemia in the ED: Prevalence, etiology, and outcome. Am J Emerg Med. 2013;31(4):657-60.

10. Hu M et al. Denosumab for patients with persistent or relapsed hypercalcemia of malignancy despite recent bisphosphonate treatment. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105(18):1417-20.

11. Major P et al. Zoledronic acid is superior to pamidronate in the treatment of hypercalcemia of malignancy: A pooled analysis of two randomized, controlled clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19(2):558-67.

12. Stewart A. Clinical practice. Hypercalcemia associated with cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(4):373-9.

13. Freifeld A et al. Executive summary: Clinical practice guideline for the use of antimicrobial agents in neutropenic patients with cancer: 2010 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;52(4):427-31.

14. Baden L et al. Prevention and treatment of cancer-related infections, version 2.2016, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2016;14(7):882-913.

15. Coyne C et al. Application of the MASCC and CISNE risk-stratification scores to identify low-risk febrile neutropenic patients in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 2017;69(6):755-64.

16. Talcott J et al. Safety of early discharge for low-risk patients with febrile neutropenia: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(30):3977-83.

17. Innes H et al. Oral antibiotics with early hospital discharge compared with in-patient intravenous antibiotics for low-risk febrile neutropenia in patients with cancer: A prospective randomised controlled single centre study. Br J Cancer. 2003;89(1):43-9.

18. Vidal L, et al. Oral versus intravenous antibiotic treatment for febrile neutropenia in cancer patients. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2013.

19. Taplitz RA et al. Outpatient management of fever and neutropenia in adults treated for malignancy: American Society of Clinical Oncology and Infectious Diseases Society of America clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(14):1443-53.