Among patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive (HER2+) breast cancer, adding trastuzumab to adjuvant chemotherapy reduces risk of recurrence for at least 10 years, according to investigators.

The benefit of trastuzumab was greater among patients with hormone receptor–positive (HR+) disease than those with HR– disease until the 5-year timepoint, after which HR status had no significant impact on recurrence rates, reported lead author Saranya Chumsri, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., and colleagues. This finding echoes a pattern similar to that of HER2– breast cancer, in which patients with HR+ disease have relatively consistent risk of recurrence over time, whereas patients with HR– disease have an early risk of recurrence that decreases after 5 years.

“To the best of our knowledge, this analysis is the first to address the risk of late relapses in subsets of HER2+ breast cancer patients who were treated with adjuvant trastuzumab,” the investigators wrote. Their report is in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

They drew data from 3,177 patients with HER2+ breast cancer who were involved in two phase 3 studies: the North Central Cancer Treatment Group N9831 and National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-31 trials. Patients involved in the analysis received either standard adjuvant chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide and doxorubicin followed by weekly paclitaxel or the same chemotherapy regimen plus concurrent trastuzumab. The primary outcome was recurrence-free survival, which was defined as time from randomization until local, regional, or distant recurrence of breast cancer or breast cancer–related death. Kaplan-Meier estimates were performed to determine recurrence-free survival, while Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to determine factors that predicted relapse.

Including a median follow-up of 8 years across all patients, the analysis showed that those with HR+ breast cancer had a significantly higher estimated rate of recurrence-free survival than that of those with HR– disease after 5 years (81.49% vs. 74.65%) and 10 years (73.84% vs. 69.22%). Overall, a comparable level of benefit was derived from adding trastuzumab regardless of HR status (interaction P = .87). However, during the first 5 years, HR positivity predicted greater benefit from adding trastuzumab, as patients with HR+ disease had a 40% lower risk of relapse than that of those with HR– disease (hazard ratio, 0.60; P less than .001). Between years 5 and 10, the statistical significance of HR status faded (P = .12), suggesting that HR status is not a predictor of long-term recurrence.

“Given concerning adverse effects and potentially smaller benefit of extended adjuvant endocrine therapy, particularly in patients with N0 or N1 disease, our findings highlight the need to develop better risk prediction models and biomarkers to identify which patients have sufficient risk for late relapse to warrant the use of extended endocrine therapy in HER2+ breast cancer,” the investigators concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, Bankhead-Coley Research Program, the DONNA Foundation, and Genentech. Dr. Chumsri disclosed a financial relationship with Merck. Coauthors disclosed ties with Merck, Novartis, Genentech, and NanoString Technologies.

SOURCE: Chumsri et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Oct 17. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00443.

Among patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive (HER2+) breast cancer, adding trastuzumab to adjuvant chemotherapy reduces risk of recurrence for at least 10 years, according to investigators.

The benefit of trastuzumab was greater among patients with hormone receptor–positive (HR+) disease than those with HR– disease until the 5-year timepoint, after which HR status had no significant impact on recurrence rates, reported lead author Saranya Chumsri, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., and colleagues. This finding echoes a pattern similar to that of HER2– breast cancer, in which patients with HR+ disease have relatively consistent risk of recurrence over time, whereas patients with HR– disease have an early risk of recurrence that decreases after 5 years.

“To the best of our knowledge, this analysis is the first to address the risk of late relapses in subsets of HER2+ breast cancer patients who were treated with adjuvant trastuzumab,” the investigators wrote. Their report is in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

They drew data from 3,177 patients with HER2+ breast cancer who were involved in two phase 3 studies: the North Central Cancer Treatment Group N9831 and National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-31 trials. Patients involved in the analysis received either standard adjuvant chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide and doxorubicin followed by weekly paclitaxel or the same chemotherapy regimen plus concurrent trastuzumab. The primary outcome was recurrence-free survival, which was defined as time from randomization until local, regional, or distant recurrence of breast cancer or breast cancer–related death. Kaplan-Meier estimates were performed to determine recurrence-free survival, while Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to determine factors that predicted relapse.

Including a median follow-up of 8 years across all patients, the analysis showed that those with HR+ breast cancer had a significantly higher estimated rate of recurrence-free survival than that of those with HR– disease after 5 years (81.49% vs. 74.65%) and 10 years (73.84% vs. 69.22%). Overall, a comparable level of benefit was derived from adding trastuzumab regardless of HR status (interaction P = .87). However, during the first 5 years, HR positivity predicted greater benefit from adding trastuzumab, as patients with HR+ disease had a 40% lower risk of relapse than that of those with HR– disease (hazard ratio, 0.60; P less than .001). Between years 5 and 10, the statistical significance of HR status faded (P = .12), suggesting that HR status is not a predictor of long-term recurrence.

“Given concerning adverse effects and potentially smaller benefit of extended adjuvant endocrine therapy, particularly in patients with N0 or N1 disease, our findings highlight the need to develop better risk prediction models and biomarkers to identify which patients have sufficient risk for late relapse to warrant the use of extended endocrine therapy in HER2+ breast cancer,” the investigators concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, Bankhead-Coley Research Program, the DONNA Foundation, and Genentech. Dr. Chumsri disclosed a financial relationship with Merck. Coauthors disclosed ties with Merck, Novartis, Genentech, and NanoString Technologies.

SOURCE: Chumsri et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Oct 17. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00443.

Among patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive (HER2+) breast cancer, adding trastuzumab to adjuvant chemotherapy reduces risk of recurrence for at least 10 years, according to investigators.

The benefit of trastuzumab was greater among patients with hormone receptor–positive (HR+) disease than those with HR– disease until the 5-year timepoint, after which HR status had no significant impact on recurrence rates, reported lead author Saranya Chumsri, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., and colleagues. This finding echoes a pattern similar to that of HER2– breast cancer, in which patients with HR+ disease have relatively consistent risk of recurrence over time, whereas patients with HR– disease have an early risk of recurrence that decreases after 5 years.

“To the best of our knowledge, this analysis is the first to address the risk of late relapses in subsets of HER2+ breast cancer patients who were treated with adjuvant trastuzumab,” the investigators wrote. Their report is in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

They drew data from 3,177 patients with HER2+ breast cancer who were involved in two phase 3 studies: the North Central Cancer Treatment Group N9831 and National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-31 trials. Patients involved in the analysis received either standard adjuvant chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide and doxorubicin followed by weekly paclitaxel or the same chemotherapy regimen plus concurrent trastuzumab. The primary outcome was recurrence-free survival, which was defined as time from randomization until local, regional, or distant recurrence of breast cancer or breast cancer–related death. Kaplan-Meier estimates were performed to determine recurrence-free survival, while Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to determine factors that predicted relapse.

Including a median follow-up of 8 years across all patients, the analysis showed that those with HR+ breast cancer had a significantly higher estimated rate of recurrence-free survival than that of those with HR– disease after 5 years (81.49% vs. 74.65%) and 10 years (73.84% vs. 69.22%). Overall, a comparable level of benefit was derived from adding trastuzumab regardless of HR status (interaction P = .87). However, during the first 5 years, HR positivity predicted greater benefit from adding trastuzumab, as patients with HR+ disease had a 40% lower risk of relapse than that of those with HR– disease (hazard ratio, 0.60; P less than .001). Between years 5 and 10, the statistical significance of HR status faded (P = .12), suggesting that HR status is not a predictor of long-term recurrence.

“Given concerning adverse effects and potentially smaller benefit of extended adjuvant endocrine therapy, particularly in patients with N0 or N1 disease, our findings highlight the need to develop better risk prediction models and biomarkers to identify which patients have sufficient risk for late relapse to warrant the use of extended endocrine therapy in HER2+ breast cancer,” the investigators concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, Bankhead-Coley Research Program, the DONNA Foundation, and Genentech. Dr. Chumsri disclosed a financial relationship with Merck. Coauthors disclosed ties with Merck, Novartis, Genentech, and NanoString Technologies.

SOURCE: Chumsri et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Oct 17. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00443.

Back in 1980, the American Psychiatric Association dropped the word “neurosis” from the DSM-III, so that if you had been neurotic, after 1980, you were neurotic no longer.

ClaudioVentrella/Thinkstock

At the time, I discussed this on my daily radio show. For those folks who were nervous, worried, fearful, and full of anxieties about themselves, their families, welfare, health, and the environment around them, a new set of labels was introduced to more specifically describe one or more problems related to anxiety.

For codification, and at times, a clearer understanding of a specific problem, the change was made to be helpful. Certainly, for insurers and pharmacologic treatments, it worked. However, it’s interesting that the word and concept, neurosis, which still is used by some psychiatrists and psychologists – although not scientific – does offer a clear overall picture of a suffering, anxiety-ridden person who might have a combination of an anxiety disorder, panic attacks, somatic symptoms, and endless worry. This overlapping picture often is seen in clinical practice more than the multiple one-dimensional labels that are currently used. So be it.

This all leads me to what I’ve recently learned about the Neuroscience-based Nomenclature (NbN) Project. According to a recent article in the APA’s Psychiatric News, the group’s board of trustees has endorsed a proposal that would change or revise the names of psychiatric medications so that the names reflect their mechanism of action – a move seemingly focused on a pure biological model.

For example, according to the article, the medication perphenazine would be renamed a “D2 receptor antagonist” rather than an antipsychotic. For depression, we might have a serotonergic reuptake inhibitor, according to the report, and of course, the list of changes would go on – based on current knowledge of biological activity. It’s true that in general medicine, there are examples where mode of action is discussed. For example, in cardiology we have beta-blockers and alpha-blockers, which are descriptive of their actions. As doctors who have trained for years and know the mechanism of action of various medications, we will understand all this. But in patient care, both doctors and their patients often understand and feel comfortable using descriptive terms indicating the treatment modality, such as antibiotics, antivirals, antifungals, anti-inflammatory medications, as well as anti-itching, antiaging, and antispasmodic drugs.

So, I am concerned about these proposed changes. In an era focused on patient-centered care, where we seek to make it simpler for the patient/health care consumer, we might make it harder for the patient to grasp what’s going on.

It’s very important to keep in mind that we as physicians know the ins and outs of medications, and that even the most educated and bright patients who are not in medicine do not know what our education has taught us. For example, regardless of specialty, we all know the difference between left-sided and right-sided heart failure. Those outside of medicine, however, rarely know the difference. They understand heart disease as a rule. People in general might understand some general concepts, such as RBC, WBC, and platelets. A patient will speak of taking a blood thinner but rarely know or understand the differences between antiplatelets and anticoagulants. And why should they know this? How many of us know how or understand how to prepare a legal document or determine what type of steel is used in bridge construction?

The point here is that I believe good patient care is keeping it simple and taking the time to explain what’s being treated, aiming to inform patients using down-to-earth, accessible language rather than the language of biochemistry.

It’s true that in psychiatry, wider use of certain medications than originally indicated has grown tremendously as well as off-label use. In light of that, the NbN idea is laudable. However, it would seem more practical to leave the traditional modes of action in place and expand our discussions with patients as to why we are using a specific medication. I have found a very simple and even rewarding way to explain to patients, for example, that yes, this is an antiseizure medication but it is now used in psychiatry as a mood stabilizer.

Another important point is the question of whether using nomenclature that describes the exact location of the problem is all that accurate. Currently, we know we still have a lot to learn about brain chemistry and neuronal transmission in mental disorders, just as in many medical disorders, there are gaps in our understanding of many illnesses and subsequent molecular changes.

Just as the DSM-III left behind the all-encompassing and descriptive word neurosis and the APA has changed labels in the DSM-IV and DSM-5, so the NbN project would change the nomenclature of current psychotropic medications. The intentions are good, but the idea that those changes will foster better patient understanding defies common sense. A better idea might be to continue use of both scientific names and names of commonly used actions of the medications, leaving both in place and letting clinicians decide what nomenclature best suits each patient.

It will be a sad day when psychiatrists become so medically and “scientifically” driven that we cannot explain to a patient, “I’m prescribing this antidepressant because it’s now used to treat anxiety,” or “Yes, this medicine is labeled ‘antipsychotic,’ but you’re not psychotic. It may help your mood swings and may even help you sleep better.” Now, is that hard? Is talking to a person and explaining the treatment no longer part of care? The take-home messages from the recent APA/Institute of Psychiatric Services meeting I attended seemed to suggest that human attention and care have great value. My father, a surgeon, always said that you learn a lot by simply talking to patients – and they learn from you.

Dr. London is a practicing psychiatrist and has been a newspaper columnist for 35 years, specializing in and writing about short-term therapy, including cognitive-behavioral therapy and guided imagery. He is author of “Find Freedom Fast” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019).

Back in 1980, the American Psychiatric Association dropped the word “neurosis” from the DSM-III, so that if you had been neurotic, after 1980, you were neurotic no longer.

ClaudioVentrella/Thinkstock

At the time, I discussed this on my daily radio show. For those folks who were nervous, worried, fearful, and full of anxieties about themselves, their families, welfare, health, and the environment around them, a new set of labels was introduced to more specifically describe one or more problems related to anxiety.

For codification, and at times, a clearer understanding of a specific problem, the change was made to be helpful. Certainly, for insurers and pharmacologic treatments, it worked. However, it’s interesting that the word and concept, neurosis, which still is used by some psychiatrists and psychologists – although not scientific – does offer a clear overall picture of a suffering, anxiety-ridden person who might have a combination of an anxiety disorder, panic attacks, somatic symptoms, and endless worry. This overlapping picture often is seen in clinical practice more than the multiple one-dimensional labels that are currently used. So be it.

This all leads me to what I’ve recently learned about the Neuroscience-based Nomenclature (NbN) Project. According to a recent article in the APA’s Psychiatric News, the group’s board of trustees has endorsed a proposal that would change or revise the names of psychiatric medications so that the names reflect their mechanism of action – a move seemingly focused on a pure biological model.

For example, according to the article, the medication perphenazine would be renamed a “D2 receptor antagonist” rather than an antipsychotic. For depression, we might have a serotonergic reuptake inhibitor, according to the report, and of course, the list of changes would go on – based on current knowledge of biological activity. It’s true that in general medicine, there are examples where mode of action is discussed. For example, in cardiology we have beta-blockers and alpha-blockers, which are descriptive of their actions. As doctors who have trained for years and know the mechanism of action of various medications, we will understand all this. But in patient care, both doctors and their patients often understand and feel comfortable using descriptive terms indicating the treatment modality, such as antibiotics, antivirals, antifungals, anti-inflammatory medications, as well as anti-itching, antiaging, and antispasmodic drugs.

So, I am concerned about these proposed changes. In an era focused on patient-centered care, where we seek to make it simpler for the patient/health care consumer, we might make it harder for the patient to grasp what’s going on.

It’s very important to keep in mind that we as physicians know the ins and outs of medications, and that even the most educated and bright patients who are not in medicine do not know what our education has taught us. For example, regardless of specialty, we all know the difference between left-sided and right-sided heart failure. Those outside of medicine, however, rarely know the difference. They understand heart disease as a rule. People in general might understand some general concepts, such as RBC, WBC, and platelets. A patient will speak of taking a blood thinner but rarely know or understand the differences between antiplatelets and anticoagulants. And why should they know this? How many of us know how or understand how to prepare a legal document or determine what type of steel is used in bridge construction?

The point here is that I believe good patient care is keeping it simple and taking the time to explain what’s being treated, aiming to inform patients using down-to-earth, accessible language rather than the language of biochemistry.

It’s true that in psychiatry, wider use of certain medications than originally indicated has grown tremendously as well as off-label use. In light of that, the NbN idea is laudable. However, it would seem more practical to leave the traditional modes of action in place and expand our discussions with patients as to why we are using a specific medication. I have found a very simple and even rewarding way to explain to patients, for example, that yes, this is an antiseizure medication but it is now used in psychiatry as a mood stabilizer.

Another important point is the question of whether using nomenclature that describes the exact location of the problem is all that accurate. Currently, we know we still have a lot to learn about brain chemistry and neuronal transmission in mental disorders, just as in many medical disorders, there are gaps in our understanding of many illnesses and subsequent molecular changes.

Just as the DSM-III left behind the all-encompassing and descriptive word neurosis and the APA has changed labels in the DSM-IV and DSM-5, so the NbN project would change the nomenclature of current psychotropic medications. The intentions are good, but the idea that those changes will foster better patient understanding defies common sense. A better idea might be to continue use of both scientific names and names of commonly used actions of the medications, leaving both in place and letting clinicians decide what nomenclature best suits each patient.

It will be a sad day when psychiatrists become so medically and “scientifically” driven that we cannot explain to a patient, “I’m prescribing this antidepressant because it’s now used to treat anxiety,” or “Yes, this medicine is labeled ‘antipsychotic,’ but you’re not psychotic. It may help your mood swings and may even help you sleep better.” Now, is that hard? Is talking to a person and explaining the treatment no longer part of care? The take-home messages from the recent APA/Institute of Psychiatric Services meeting I attended seemed to suggest that human attention and care have great value. My father, a surgeon, always said that you learn a lot by simply talking to patients – and they learn from you.

Dr. London is a practicing psychiatrist and has been a newspaper columnist for 35 years, specializing in and writing about short-term therapy, including cognitive-behavioral therapy and guided imagery. He is author of “Find Freedom Fast” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019).

Back in 1980, the American Psychiatric Association dropped the word “neurosis” from the DSM-III, so that if you had been neurotic, after 1980, you were neurotic no longer.

ClaudioVentrella/Thinkstock

At the time, I discussed this on my daily radio show. For those folks who were nervous, worried, fearful, and full of anxieties about themselves, their families, welfare, health, and the environment around them, a new set of labels was introduced to more specifically describe one or more problems related to anxiety.

For codification, and at times, a clearer understanding of a specific problem, the change was made to be helpful. Certainly, for insurers and pharmacologic treatments, it worked. However, it’s interesting that the word and concept, neurosis, which still is used by some psychiatrists and psychologists – although not scientific – does offer a clear overall picture of a suffering, anxiety-ridden person who might have a combination of an anxiety disorder, panic attacks, somatic symptoms, and endless worry. This overlapping picture often is seen in clinical practice more than the multiple one-dimensional labels that are currently used. So be it.

This all leads me to what I’ve recently learned about the Neuroscience-based Nomenclature (NbN) Project. According to a recent article in the APA’s Psychiatric News, the group’s board of trustees has endorsed a proposal that would change or revise the names of psychiatric medications so that the names reflect their mechanism of action – a move seemingly focused on a pure biological model.

For example, according to the article, the medication perphenazine would be renamed a “D2 receptor antagonist” rather than an antipsychotic. For depression, we might have a serotonergic reuptake inhibitor, according to the report, and of course, the list of changes would go on – based on current knowledge of biological activity. It’s true that in general medicine, there are examples where mode of action is discussed. For example, in cardiology we have beta-blockers and alpha-blockers, which are descriptive of their actions. As doctors who have trained for years and know the mechanism of action of various medications, we will understand all this. But in patient care, both doctors and their patients often understand and feel comfortable using descriptive terms indicating the treatment modality, such as antibiotics, antivirals, antifungals, anti-inflammatory medications, as well as anti-itching, antiaging, and antispasmodic drugs.

So, I am concerned about these proposed changes. In an era focused on patient-centered care, where we seek to make it simpler for the patient/health care consumer, we might make it harder for the patient to grasp what’s going on.

It’s very important to keep in mind that we as physicians know the ins and outs of medications, and that even the most educated and bright patients who are not in medicine do not know what our education has taught us. For example, regardless of specialty, we all know the difference between left-sided and right-sided heart failure. Those outside of medicine, however, rarely know the difference. They understand heart disease as a rule. People in general might understand some general concepts, such as RBC, WBC, and platelets. A patient will speak of taking a blood thinner but rarely know or understand the differences between antiplatelets and anticoagulants. And why should they know this? How many of us know how or understand how to prepare a legal document or determine what type of steel is used in bridge construction?

The point here is that I believe good patient care is keeping it simple and taking the time to explain what’s being treated, aiming to inform patients using down-to-earth, accessible language rather than the language of biochemistry.

It’s true that in psychiatry, wider use of certain medications than originally indicated has grown tremendously as well as off-label use. In light of that, the NbN idea is laudable. However, it would seem more practical to leave the traditional modes of action in place and expand our discussions with patients as to why we are using a specific medication. I have found a very simple and even rewarding way to explain to patients, for example, that yes, this is an antiseizure medication but it is now used in psychiatry as a mood stabilizer.

Another important point is the question of whether using nomenclature that describes the exact location of the problem is all that accurate. Currently, we know we still have a lot to learn about brain chemistry and neuronal transmission in mental disorders, just as in many medical disorders, there are gaps in our understanding of many illnesses and subsequent molecular changes.

Just as the DSM-III left behind the all-encompassing and descriptive word neurosis and the APA has changed labels in the DSM-IV and DSM-5, so the NbN project would change the nomenclature of current psychotropic medications. The intentions are good, but the idea that those changes will foster better patient understanding defies common sense. A better idea might be to continue use of both scientific names and names of commonly used actions of the medications, leaving both in place and letting clinicians decide what nomenclature best suits each patient.

It will be a sad day when psychiatrists become so medically and “scientifically” driven that we cannot explain to a patient, “I’m prescribing this antidepressant because it’s now used to treat anxiety,” or “Yes, this medicine is labeled ‘antipsychotic,’ but you’re not psychotic. It may help your mood swings and may even help you sleep better.” Now, is that hard? Is talking to a person and explaining the treatment no longer part of care? The take-home messages from the recent APA/Institute of Psychiatric Services meeting I attended seemed to suggest that human attention and care have great value. My father, a surgeon, always said that you learn a lot by simply talking to patients – and they learn from you.

Dr. London is a practicing psychiatrist and has been a newspaper columnist for 35 years, specializing in and writing about short-term therapy, including cognitive-behavioral therapy and guided imagery. He is author of “Find Freedom Fast” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019).

A 69-year-old man presents with increasing dyspnea on exertion. He has had recent orthopnea and paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnoea. He has a history of well controlled hypertension and hyperlipidemia. He takes the following medications: felodipine and atorvastatin. On exam, his blood pressure is 110/60 mm Hg, and his pulse is 90 beats per minute.

A cardiac examination found normal heart sounds with no murmurs.

A chest examination found dullness to percussion at both bases and rales.

A chest x-ray showed bilateral effusions and mild pulmonary edema.

The brain natriuretic peptide test found a level of 1,300 picograms/mL.

An ECG found increased ventricular wall thickness, an ejection fraction of 32%, and normal aortic and mitral valves.

What history would be the most helpful in making a diagnosis?
 

A. History of prostate cancer

B. History of carpal tunnel syndrome

C. History of playing professional football

D. History of hyperlipidemia

E. History of ulcerative colitis

The correct answer here would be B. history of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). This patient has clinical heart failure, without a history of clinical ischemic disease. The differential diagnosis for causes of heart failure is long, with the most common causes being chronic hypertension and ischemic heart disease. Other common causes include chronic untreated sleep apnea and valvular heart disease.

This patient really does not have clear reasons for having clinical heart failure. His cardiovascular risk factors have been well controlled, and no valvular disease was found on ECG.

Several recent reports have raised the importance of a history of CTS significantly increasing the likelihood of amyloidosis being the cause of underlying heart failure.

CTS is such a common clinical entity that it is easy to not appreciate its presence as a clue to possible amyloid cardiomyopathy. Fosbøl et al. reported that a diagnosis of CTS was associated with a higher incidence of heart failure (hazard ratio, 1.54; CI, 1.45-1.64).¹ They found a highly increased risk of amyloid (HR, 12.2) in patients who had surgery for CTS.

Sperry et al. found that over 10% of patients who underwent carpal tunnel release stained for amyloid on biopsy specimens, and that concomitant cardiac evaluation identified patients with cardiac involvement.²

Pinney et al. found that 48% of patients with transthyretin amyloidosis had a history of CTS.³

In a retrospective study of patients with wild-type transthyretin amyloid (253), patients with hereditary transthyretin amyloid (136), and asymptomatic gene carriers (77), participants were screened for a history of spinal stenosis and CTS.⁴ Almost 60% of the patients with amyloid had a history of CTS, and 11% had a history of spinal stenosis. Patients with CTS and hereditary amyloid had thicker interventricular septums, higher left ventricular mass, and lower Karnovsky index than those without CTS.

The diagnosis of CTS, especially in those who need surgery for treatment or have bilateral disease, should make us consider the possibility of underlying amyloidosis.

Pearl: In patients who have heart failure and a history of CTS, amyloidosis should be considered as a cause.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at that university. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].

References

1. Fosbøl EL et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;74:15-23.

2. Sperry BW et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Oct 23;72(17):2040-50.

3. Pinney JH et al. J Am Heart Assoc. 2013 Apr 22;2(2):e000098.

4. Aus dem Siepen F et al. Clin Res Cardiol. 2019 Apr 5. doi: 10.1007/s00392-019-01467-1.
 

A 69-year-old man presents with increasing dyspnea on exertion. He has had recent orthopnea and paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnoea. He has a history of well controlled hypertension and hyperlipidemia. He takes the following medications: felodipine and atorvastatin. On exam, his blood pressure is 110/60 mm Hg, and his pulse is 90 beats per minute.

A cardiac examination found normal heart sounds with no murmurs.

A chest examination found dullness to percussion at both bases and rales.

A chest x-ray showed bilateral effusions and mild pulmonary edema.

The brain natriuretic peptide test found a level of 1,300 picograms/mL.

An ECG found increased ventricular wall thickness, an ejection fraction of 32%, and normal aortic and mitral valves.

What history would be the most helpful in making a diagnosis?
 

A. History of prostate cancer

B. History of carpal tunnel syndrome

C. History of playing professional football

D. History of hyperlipidemia

E. History of ulcerative colitis

The correct answer here would be B. history of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). This patient has clinical heart failure, without a history of clinical ischemic disease. The differential diagnosis for causes of heart failure is long, with the most common causes being chronic hypertension and ischemic heart disease. Other common causes include chronic untreated sleep apnea and valvular heart disease.

This patient really does not have clear reasons for having clinical heart failure. His cardiovascular risk factors have been well controlled, and no valvular disease was found on ECG.

Several recent reports have raised the importance of a history of CTS significantly increasing the likelihood of amyloidosis being the cause of underlying heart failure.

CTS is such a common clinical entity that it is easy to not appreciate its presence as a clue to possible amyloid cardiomyopathy. Fosbøl et al. reported that a diagnosis of CTS was associated with a higher incidence of heart failure (hazard ratio, 1.54; CI, 1.45-1.64).¹ They found a highly increased risk of amyloid (HR, 12.2) in patients who had surgery for CTS.

Sperry et al. found that over 10% of patients who underwent carpal tunnel release stained for amyloid on biopsy specimens, and that concomitant cardiac evaluation identified patients with cardiac involvement.²

Pinney et al. found that 48% of patients with transthyretin amyloidosis had a history of CTS.³

In a retrospective study of patients with wild-type transthyretin amyloid (253), patients with hereditary transthyretin amyloid (136), and asymptomatic gene carriers (77), participants were screened for a history of spinal stenosis and CTS.⁴ Almost 60% of the patients with amyloid had a history of CTS, and 11% had a history of spinal stenosis. Patients with CTS and hereditary amyloid had thicker interventricular septums, higher left ventricular mass, and lower Karnovsky index than those without CTS.

The diagnosis of CTS, especially in those who need surgery for treatment or have bilateral disease, should make us consider the possibility of underlying amyloidosis.

Pearl: In patients who have heart failure and a history of CTS, amyloidosis should be considered as a cause.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at that university. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].

References

1. Fosbøl EL et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;74:15-23.

2. Sperry BW et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Oct 23;72(17):2040-50.

3. Pinney JH et al. J Am Heart Assoc. 2013 Apr 22;2(2):e000098.

4. Aus dem Siepen F et al. Clin Res Cardiol. 2019 Apr 5. doi: 10.1007/s00392-019-01467-1.
 

A 69-year-old man presents with increasing dyspnea on exertion. He has had recent orthopnea and paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnoea. He has a history of well controlled hypertension and hyperlipidemia. He takes the following medications: felodipine and atorvastatin. On exam, his blood pressure is 110/60 mm Hg, and his pulse is 90 beats per minute.

A cardiac examination found normal heart sounds with no murmurs.

A chest examination found dullness to percussion at both bases and rales.

A chest x-ray showed bilateral effusions and mild pulmonary edema.

The brain natriuretic peptide test found a level of 1,300 picograms/mL.

An ECG found increased ventricular wall thickness, an ejection fraction of 32%, and normal aortic and mitral valves.

What history would be the most helpful in making a diagnosis?
 

A. History of prostate cancer

B. History of carpal tunnel syndrome

C. History of playing professional football

D. History of hyperlipidemia

E. History of ulcerative colitis

The correct answer here would be B. history of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). This patient has clinical heart failure, without a history of clinical ischemic disease. The differential diagnosis for causes of heart failure is long, with the most common causes being chronic hypertension and ischemic heart disease. Other common causes include chronic untreated sleep apnea and valvular heart disease.

This patient really does not have clear reasons for having clinical heart failure. His cardiovascular risk factors have been well controlled, and no valvular disease was found on ECG.

Several recent reports have raised the importance of a history of CTS significantly increasing the likelihood of amyloidosis being the cause of underlying heart failure.

CTS is such a common clinical entity that it is easy to not appreciate its presence as a clue to possible amyloid cardiomyopathy. Fosbøl et al. reported that a diagnosis of CTS was associated with a higher incidence of heart failure (hazard ratio, 1.54; CI, 1.45-1.64).¹ They found a highly increased risk of amyloid (HR, 12.2) in patients who had surgery for CTS.

Sperry et al. found that over 10% of patients who underwent carpal tunnel release stained for amyloid on biopsy specimens, and that concomitant cardiac evaluation identified patients with cardiac involvement.²

Pinney et al. found that 48% of patients with transthyretin amyloidosis had a history of CTS.³

In a retrospective study of patients with wild-type transthyretin amyloid (253), patients with hereditary transthyretin amyloid (136), and asymptomatic gene carriers (77), participants were screened for a history of spinal stenosis and CTS.⁴ Almost 60% of the patients with amyloid had a history of CTS, and 11% had a history of spinal stenosis. Patients with CTS and hereditary amyloid had thicker interventricular septums, higher left ventricular mass, and lower Karnovsky index than those without CTS.

The diagnosis of CTS, especially in those who need surgery for treatment or have bilateral disease, should make us consider the possibility of underlying amyloidosis.

Pearl: In patients who have heart failure and a history of CTS, amyloidosis should be considered as a cause.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at that university. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].

References

1. Fosbøl EL et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;74:15-23.

2. Sperry BW et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Oct 23;72(17):2040-50.

3. Pinney JH et al. J Am Heart Assoc. 2013 Apr 22;2(2):e000098.

4. Aus dem Siepen F et al. Clin Res Cardiol. 2019 Apr 5. doi: 10.1007/s00392-019-01467-1.
 

Almost three-quarters of primary care physicians believe that their patients will take their controlled medications as prescribed, but more than half of drug-monitoring lab tests show signs of misuse, according to a new report from Quest Diagnostics.

“Primary care physicians, who are on the front lines of the drug epidemic, are well intentioned but underprepared and may miss some of the drug misuse risks affecting their patients,” report coauthor Harvey W. Kaufman, MD, Quest’s senior medical director, said in a written statement.

Analysis of more than 4.4 million drug-monitoring tests showed that 51% involved an inconsistent result, such as detection of a nonprescribed drug or nondetection of a drug that was prescribed. The report also included a survey of 500 primary care physicians, of whom 72% said they trusted their patents to properly use opioids and other controlled substances.

“The intersection of these two data sets reveals, for the first time, the contrast between physician expectations about patient drug use and the evolution of the drug epidemic and actual patient behavior, as revealed by objective lab data, amid a national drug crisis that claimed an estimated 68,500 lives last year,” the report said.

A majority (62%) of the physicians surveyed also said that the opioid crisis will evolve into a new prescription drug crisis, and even more (72%) think that patients with chronic pain will use illicit drugs if they cannot get prescription opioids. Evidence from the drug test dataset suggests that “misuse of nonprescribed fentanyl and nonprescribed gabapentin warrant[s] a closer look,” the report said. In the survey, 78% of respondents reported prescribing gabapentin as an alternative to opioids for patients with chronic pain.

Those two drugs, along with alcohol, are the only three drug groups for which misuse increased from 2017 to 2018, and both are frequently involved in drug mixing, which is the most common form of misuse. Gabapentin went from 9.6% of all nonprescribed misuse in 2017 to 13.4% in 2018, an increase of 40%. Nonprescribed fentanyl was found in 64% of test results that were positive for heroin and 24% that were positive for cocaine, the Quest data showed.

The survey results, however, suggest that gabapentin is not on physicians’ radar, as only 34% said that they were concerned about its misuse, compared with 96% for opioids and 90% for benzodiazepines, according to the report.

“While gabapentin may not have opioids’ addictive potential, it can exaggerate euphoric effects when combined with opioids or anxiety medications. This drug mixing is dangerous,” said report coauthor Jeffrey Gudin, MD, senior medical advisor, prescription drug monitoring, for Quest Diagnostics.

The survey was conducted online among family physicians, general practitioners, and internists from July 31 to Aug. 16, 2019, by the Harris Poll on behalf of Quest and Center for Addiction. The test result data were collected in all 50 states and Washington, D.C., from 2011 to 2018, and results from drug rehabilitation clinics and addiction specialists were excluded from the analysis, so actual misuse rates are probably higher than reported.

[email protected]

Almost three-quarters of primary care physicians believe that their patients will take their controlled medications as prescribed, but more than half of drug-monitoring lab tests show signs of misuse, according to a new report from Quest Diagnostics.

“Primary care physicians, who are on the front lines of the drug epidemic, are well intentioned but underprepared and may miss some of the drug misuse risks affecting their patients,” report coauthor Harvey W. Kaufman, MD, Quest’s senior medical director, said in a written statement.

Analysis of more than 4.4 million drug-monitoring tests showed that 51% involved an inconsistent result, such as detection of a nonprescribed drug or nondetection of a drug that was prescribed. The report also included a survey of 500 primary care physicians, of whom 72% said they trusted their patents to properly use opioids and other controlled substances.

“The intersection of these two data sets reveals, for the first time, the contrast between physician expectations about patient drug use and the evolution of the drug epidemic and actual patient behavior, as revealed by objective lab data, amid a national drug crisis that claimed an estimated 68,500 lives last year,” the report said.

A majority (62%) of the physicians surveyed also said that the opioid crisis will evolve into a new prescription drug crisis, and even more (72%) think that patients with chronic pain will use illicit drugs if they cannot get prescription opioids. Evidence from the drug test dataset suggests that “misuse of nonprescribed fentanyl and nonprescribed gabapentin warrant[s] a closer look,” the report said. In the survey, 78% of respondents reported prescribing gabapentin as an alternative to opioids for patients with chronic pain.

Those two drugs, along with alcohol, are the only three drug groups for which misuse increased from 2017 to 2018, and both are frequently involved in drug mixing, which is the most common form of misuse. Gabapentin went from 9.6% of all nonprescribed misuse in 2017 to 13.4% in 2018, an increase of 40%. Nonprescribed fentanyl was found in 64% of test results that were positive for heroin and 24% that were positive for cocaine, the Quest data showed.

The survey results, however, suggest that gabapentin is not on physicians’ radar, as only 34% said that they were concerned about its misuse, compared with 96% for opioids and 90% for benzodiazepines, according to the report.

“While gabapentin may not have opioids’ addictive potential, it can exaggerate euphoric effects when combined with opioids or anxiety medications. This drug mixing is dangerous,” said report coauthor Jeffrey Gudin, MD, senior medical advisor, prescription drug monitoring, for Quest Diagnostics.

The survey was conducted online among family physicians, general practitioners, and internists from July 31 to Aug. 16, 2019, by the Harris Poll on behalf of Quest and Center for Addiction. The test result data were collected in all 50 states and Washington, D.C., from 2011 to 2018, and results from drug rehabilitation clinics and addiction specialists were excluded from the analysis, so actual misuse rates are probably higher than reported.

[email protected]

Almost three-quarters of primary care physicians believe that their patients will take their controlled medications as prescribed, but more than half of drug-monitoring lab tests show signs of misuse, according to a new report from Quest Diagnostics.

“Primary care physicians, who are on the front lines of the drug epidemic, are well intentioned but underprepared and may miss some of the drug misuse risks affecting their patients,” report coauthor Harvey W. Kaufman, MD, Quest’s senior medical director, said in a written statement.

Analysis of more than 4.4 million drug-monitoring tests showed that 51% involved an inconsistent result, such as detection of a nonprescribed drug or nondetection of a drug that was prescribed. The report also included a survey of 500 primary care physicians, of whom 72% said they trusted their patents to properly use opioids and other controlled substances.

“The intersection of these two data sets reveals, for the first time, the contrast between physician expectations about patient drug use and the evolution of the drug epidemic and actual patient behavior, as revealed by objective lab data, amid a national drug crisis that claimed an estimated 68,500 lives last year,” the report said.

A majority (62%) of the physicians surveyed also said that the opioid crisis will evolve into a new prescription drug crisis, and even more (72%) think that patients with chronic pain will use illicit drugs if they cannot get prescription opioids. Evidence from the drug test dataset suggests that “misuse of nonprescribed fentanyl and nonprescribed gabapentin warrant[s] a closer look,” the report said. In the survey, 78% of respondents reported prescribing gabapentin as an alternative to opioids for patients with chronic pain.

Those two drugs, along with alcohol, are the only three drug groups for which misuse increased from 2017 to 2018, and both are frequently involved in drug mixing, which is the most common form of misuse. Gabapentin went from 9.6% of all nonprescribed misuse in 2017 to 13.4% in 2018, an increase of 40%. Nonprescribed fentanyl was found in 64% of test results that were positive for heroin and 24% that were positive for cocaine, the Quest data showed.

The survey results, however, suggest that gabapentin is not on physicians’ radar, as only 34% said that they were concerned about its misuse, compared with 96% for opioids and 90% for benzodiazepines, according to the report.

“While gabapentin may not have opioids’ addictive potential, it can exaggerate euphoric effects when combined with opioids or anxiety medications. This drug mixing is dangerous,” said report coauthor Jeffrey Gudin, MD, senior medical advisor, prescription drug monitoring, for Quest Diagnostics.

The survey was conducted online among family physicians, general practitioners, and internists from July 31 to Aug. 16, 2019, by the Harris Poll on behalf of Quest and Center for Addiction. The test result data were collected in all 50 states and Washington, D.C., from 2011 to 2018, and results from drug rehabilitation clinics and addiction specialists were excluded from the analysis, so actual misuse rates are probably higher than reported.

[email protected]

Thomas Peter Stossel, MD, a physician-researcher known for his discovery of cellular proteins and advocacy for academic-industry relationships, died unexpectedly on Sept. 29 at the age of 78.

Dr. Stossel’s research was largely focused on cell motility. He is known for discovering the cellular proteins filamin and gelsolin, which regulate the assembly of actin. Dr. Stossel is also known for promoting relationships between physicians and industry. He believed these relationships accelerate medical innovation.

Dr. Stossel graduated from Princeton University and Harvard Medical School. He served as chief of the hematology-oncology unit at Massachusetts General Hospital, head of experimental medicine and codirector of the hematology and translational medicine units at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and a professor at Harvard Medical School. When he died, Dr. Stossel was chief scientific officer of BioAegis Therapeutics, a company he cofounded.

Dr. Stossel also cofounded Options for Children in Zambia, a charity that works with Zambian partners to provide preventive dental and medical care. And he helped establish a sickle cell disease clinical and research center at University Teaching Hospital in Lusaka.

In happier news, Jeff Vacirca, MD, recently won the 2019 American Red Cross Greater New York Region’s Humanitarian Award. Dr. Vacirca received the award at the 2019 Heroes Among Us Gala on Oct. 16.

[email protected]

Thomas Peter Stossel, MD, a physician-researcher known for his discovery of cellular proteins and advocacy for academic-industry relationships, died unexpectedly on Sept. 29 at the age of 78.

Dr. Stossel’s research was largely focused on cell motility. He is known for discovering the cellular proteins filamin and gelsolin, which regulate the assembly of actin. Dr. Stossel is also known for promoting relationships between physicians and industry. He believed these relationships accelerate medical innovation.

Dr. Stossel graduated from Princeton University and Harvard Medical School. He served as chief of the hematology-oncology unit at Massachusetts General Hospital, head of experimental medicine and codirector of the hematology and translational medicine units at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and a professor at Harvard Medical School. When he died, Dr. Stossel was chief scientific officer of BioAegis Therapeutics, a company he cofounded.

Dr. Stossel also cofounded Options for Children in Zambia, a charity that works with Zambian partners to provide preventive dental and medical care. And he helped establish a sickle cell disease clinical and research center at University Teaching Hospital in Lusaka.

In happier news, Jeff Vacirca, MD, recently won the 2019 American Red Cross Greater New York Region’s Humanitarian Award. Dr. Vacirca received the award at the 2019 Heroes Among Us Gala on Oct. 16.

[email protected]

Thomas Peter Stossel, MD, a physician-researcher known for his discovery of cellular proteins and advocacy for academic-industry relationships, died unexpectedly on Sept. 29 at the age of 78.

Dr. Stossel’s research was largely focused on cell motility. He is known for discovering the cellular proteins filamin and gelsolin, which regulate the assembly of actin. Dr. Stossel is also known for promoting relationships between physicians and industry. He believed these relationships accelerate medical innovation.

Dr. Stossel graduated from Princeton University and Harvard Medical School. He served as chief of the hematology-oncology unit at Massachusetts General Hospital, head of experimental medicine and codirector of the hematology and translational medicine units at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and a professor at Harvard Medical School. When he died, Dr. Stossel was chief scientific officer of BioAegis Therapeutics, a company he cofounded.

Dr. Stossel also cofounded Options for Children in Zambia, a charity that works with Zambian partners to provide preventive dental and medical care. And he helped establish a sickle cell disease clinical and research center at University Teaching Hospital in Lusaka.

In happier news, Jeff Vacirca, MD, recently won the 2019 American Red Cross Greater New York Region’s Humanitarian Award. Dr. Vacirca received the award at the 2019 Heroes Among Us Gala on Oct. 16.

[email protected]

Case

A 60-year-old man with cirrhosis is admitted to the hospital with concern for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. His body mass index is 35 kg/m². He is severely deconditioned and largely bed bound. His admission labs show thrombocytopenia (platelets 65,000/mcL) and an elevated international normalized ratio (INR) of 1.6. Should this patient be placed on venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis on admission?

Brief overview

Patients with chronic liver disease (CLD) have previously been considered “auto-anticoagulated” because of markers of increased bleeding risk, including a decreased platelet count and elevated INR, prothrombin time, and activated partial thromboplastin time. It is being increasingly recognized, however, that CLD often represents a hypercoagulable state despite these abnormalities.¹

While cirrhotic patients produce less of several procoagulant substances (such as factors II, V, VII, X, XI, XII, XIII, and fibrinogen), they are also deficient in multiple anticoagulant factors (such as proteins C and S and antithrombin) and fibrinolytics (plasminogen). While the prothrombin time and activated partial thromboplastin time are sensitive to levels of procoagulant proteins in plasma, they do not measure response to the natural anticoagulants and therefore do not reflect an accurate picture of a cirrhotic patient’s risk of developing thrombosis. In addition, cirrhotic patients have many other risk factors for thrombosis, including poor functional status, frequent hospitalization, and elevated estrogen levels.

Overview of the data

VTE incidence among patients with CLD has varied across studies, ranging from 0.5% to 6.3%.² A systemic review of VTE risk in cirrhotic patients concluded that they “have a significant risk of VTE, if not higher than noncirrhotic patients and this risk cannot be trivialized or ignored.”²

In a nationwide Danish case-control study, patients with cirrhosis had a 1.7 times increased risk of VTE, compared with the general population.³ Hypoalbuminemia appears to be one of the strongest associated risk factors for VTE in these patients, likely as a reflection of the degree of liver synthetic dysfunction (and therefore decreased synthesis of anticoagulant factors). One study showed that patients with an albumin of less than 1.9 g/dL had a VTE risk five times higher than patients with an albumin of 2.8 g/dL or higher.⁴

Prophylaxis

Given the increased risks of bleeding and thrombosis in patients with cirrhosis, how should VTE prophylaxis be managed in hospitalized patients? While current guidelines do not specifically address the use of pharmacologic prophylaxis in cirrhotic patients, the Padua Predictor Score, which is used to assess VTE risk in the general hospital population, has also been shown to be helpful in the subpopulation of patients with CLD (Table 1).

In one study, cirrhotic patients who were “high risk” by Padua Predictor score were over 12 times more likely to develop VTE than those who were “low risk.”⁵ Bleeding risk appears to be fairly low, and similar to those patients not receiving prophylactic anticoagulation. One retrospective case series of hospitalized cirrhotic patients receiving thromboprophylaxis showed a rate of GI bleeding of 2.5% (9 of 355 patients); the rate of major bleeding was less than 1%.⁶

Selection of anticoagulant for VTE prophylaxis should be similar to non-CLD patients. The choice of agent (low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) or unfractionated heparin) and dosing depends on factors including renal function and bodyweight. If anticoagulation is contraindicated (because of thrombocytopenia, for example), then mechanical prophylaxis should be considered.⁷

Treatment

What about anticoagulation in patients with a known VTE? Food and Drug Administration safety recommendations are based on Child-Pugh class, although the current data on the safety and efficacy of full dose anticoagulation therapy for VTE in patients with cirrhosis are limited (Table 2). At this point, LMWH is often the preferred choice for anticoagulation in CLD patients. However, some limitations exist including the need for frequent subcutaneous injections and limited reliability of anti–factor Xa levels.

Cirrhotic patients often fail to achieve target anti–factor Xa levels on standard prophylactic and therapeutic doses of enoxaparin. This, however, is likely a lab anomaly as in vitro studies have shown that cirrhotic patients may show an increased response to LMWH despite reduced anti–factor Xa levels.⁸ Thus, LMWH remains the standard of care for many CLD patients.

The use of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) such as warfarin for VTE treatment can be difficult to manage. Traditionally CLD patients have been started on lower doses of warfarin but given their already elevated INR, this may lead to a subtherapeutic dose of VKAs. A recent study of 23 patients with cirrhosis demonstrated that a target INR of 2-3 can be reached with VKA doses similar to those in noncirrhotic patients.⁹ These data support the practice of using the same VKA dosing strategies for CLD patients, and selecting a starting dose based on patient parameters such as age and weight.

While the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for this patient population is still not a common practice, they may be a practical option for some CLD patients. A meta-analysis found that the currently used DOACs have no significant risk of drug-induced hepatic injury.¹⁰ Currently, only observational data are available to assess the benefits and risks of bleeding with DOACs in this patient population, as patients with significant liver disease were excluded from the major randomized trials.¹¹ DOACs may also represent a complicated choice for some patients given the effect of liver injury on their metabolism (Table 3).

Application of data to the original case

This patient should be assessed for both risk of VTE and risk of bleeding during the hospital admission. CLD patients likely have a risk of VTE similar to (or even greater than) that of general medical patients. The Padua score for this patient is 4 (bed rest, body mass index) indicating that he is at high risk of VTE. While he is thrombocytopenic, he is not below the threshold for receiving anticoagulation. His INR is elevated but this does not confer any reduced risk of VTE.

Bottom line

This patient should receive VTE prophylaxis with either subcutaneous heparin or LMWH during his hospital admission.

References

1. Khoury T et al. The complex role of anticoagulation in cirrhosis: An updated review of where we are and where we are going. Digestion. 2016 Mar;93(2):149-59.

2. Aggarwal A. Deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in cirrhotic patients: Systematic review. World J Gastroenterol. 2014 May 21;20(19):5737-45.

3. Søgaard KK et al. Risk of venous thromboembolism in patients with liver disease: A nationwide population-based case-control study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009 Jan;104(1):96-101.

4. Walsh KA et al. Risk factors for venous thromboembolism in patients with chronic liver disease. Ann Pharmacother. 2013;47(3):333-9.

5. Bogari H et al. Risk-assessment and pharmacological prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients with chronic liver disease. Thromb Res. 2014 Dec;134(6):1220-3.

6. Intagliata NM et al. Prophylactic anticoagulation for venous thromboembolism in hospitalized cirrhosis patients is not associated with high rates of gastrointestinal bleeding. Liver Int. 2014 Jan;34(1):26-32.

7. Pincus KJ et al. Risk of venous thromboembolism in patients with chronic liver disease and the utility of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis. Ann Pharmacother. 2012 Jun;46(6):873-8.

8. Lishman T et al. Established and new-generation antithrombotic drugs in patients with cirrhosis – possibilities and caveats. J Hepatol. 2013 Aug;59(2):358-66.

9. Tripodi A et al. Coagulation parameters in patients with cirrhosis and portal vein thrombosis treated sequentially with low molecular weight heparin and vitamin K antagonists. Dig Liver Dis. 2016 Oct;48(10):1208-13.

10. Caldeira D et al. Risk of drug-induced liver injury with the new oral anticoagulants: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Heart. 2014 Apr;100(7):550-6.

11. Qamar A et al. Oral anticoagulation in patients with liver disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 May 15;71(19):2162-75.

12. Barbar S et al. A risk assessment model for the identification of hospitalized medical patients at risk for venous thromboembolism: The Padua prediction score. J Thromb Haemost. 2010 Nov;8(11):2450-7.

Case

A 60-year-old man with cirrhosis is admitted to the hospital with concern for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. His body mass index is 35 kg/m². He is severely deconditioned and largely bed bound. His admission labs show thrombocytopenia (platelets 65,000/mcL) and an elevated international normalized ratio (INR) of 1.6. Should this patient be placed on venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis on admission?

Brief overview

Patients with chronic liver disease (CLD) have previously been considered “auto-anticoagulated” because of markers of increased bleeding risk, including a decreased platelet count and elevated INR, prothrombin time, and activated partial thromboplastin time. It is being increasingly recognized, however, that CLD often represents a hypercoagulable state despite these abnormalities.¹

While cirrhotic patients produce less of several procoagulant substances (such as factors II, V, VII, X, XI, XII, XIII, and fibrinogen), they are also deficient in multiple anticoagulant factors (such as proteins C and S and antithrombin) and fibrinolytics (plasminogen). While the prothrombin time and activated partial thromboplastin time are sensitive to levels of procoagulant proteins in plasma, they do not measure response to the natural anticoagulants and therefore do not reflect an accurate picture of a cirrhotic patient’s risk of developing thrombosis. In addition, cirrhotic patients have many other risk factors for thrombosis, including poor functional status, frequent hospitalization, and elevated estrogen levels.

Overview of the data

VTE incidence among patients with CLD has varied across studies, ranging from 0.5% to 6.3%.² A systemic review of VTE risk in cirrhotic patients concluded that they “have a significant risk of VTE, if not higher than noncirrhotic patients and this risk cannot be trivialized or ignored.”²

In a nationwide Danish case-control study, patients with cirrhosis had a 1.7 times increased risk of VTE, compared with the general population.³ Hypoalbuminemia appears to be one of the strongest associated risk factors for VTE in these patients, likely as a reflection of the degree of liver synthetic dysfunction (and therefore decreased synthesis of anticoagulant factors). One study showed that patients with an albumin of less than 1.9 g/dL had a VTE risk five times higher than patients with an albumin of 2.8 g/dL or higher.⁴

Prophylaxis

Given the increased risks of bleeding and thrombosis in patients with cirrhosis, how should VTE prophylaxis be managed in hospitalized patients? While current guidelines do not specifically address the use of pharmacologic prophylaxis in cirrhotic patients, the Padua Predictor Score, which is used to assess VTE risk in the general hospital population, has also been shown to be helpful in the subpopulation of patients with CLD (Table 1).

In one study, cirrhotic patients who were “high risk” by Padua Predictor score were over 12 times more likely to develop VTE than those who were “low risk.”⁵ Bleeding risk appears to be fairly low, and similar to those patients not receiving prophylactic anticoagulation. One retrospective case series of hospitalized cirrhotic patients receiving thromboprophylaxis showed a rate of GI bleeding of 2.5% (9 of 355 patients); the rate of major bleeding was less than 1%.⁶

Selection of anticoagulant for VTE prophylaxis should be similar to non-CLD patients. The choice of agent (low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) or unfractionated heparin) and dosing depends on factors including renal function and bodyweight. If anticoagulation is contraindicated (because of thrombocytopenia, for example), then mechanical prophylaxis should be considered.⁷

Treatment

What about anticoagulation in patients with a known VTE? Food and Drug Administration safety recommendations are based on Child-Pugh class, although the current data on the safety and efficacy of full dose anticoagulation therapy for VTE in patients with cirrhosis are limited (Table 2). At this point, LMWH is often the preferred choice for anticoagulation in CLD patients. However, some limitations exist including the need for frequent subcutaneous injections and limited reliability of anti–factor Xa levels.

Cirrhotic patients often fail to achieve target anti–factor Xa levels on standard prophylactic and therapeutic doses of enoxaparin. This, however, is likely a lab anomaly as in vitro studies have shown that cirrhotic patients may show an increased response to LMWH despite reduced anti–factor Xa levels.⁸ Thus, LMWH remains the standard of care for many CLD patients.

The use of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) such as warfarin for VTE treatment can be difficult to manage. Traditionally CLD patients have been started on lower doses of warfarin but given their already elevated INR, this may lead to a subtherapeutic dose of VKAs. A recent study of 23 patients with cirrhosis demonstrated that a target INR of 2-3 can be reached with VKA doses similar to those in noncirrhotic patients.⁹ These data support the practice of using the same VKA dosing strategies for CLD patients, and selecting a starting dose based on patient parameters such as age and weight.

While the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for this patient population is still not a common practice, they may be a practical option for some CLD patients. A meta-analysis found that the currently used DOACs have no significant risk of drug-induced hepatic injury.¹⁰ Currently, only observational data are available to assess the benefits and risks of bleeding with DOACs in this patient population, as patients with significant liver disease were excluded from the major randomized trials.¹¹ DOACs may also represent a complicated choice for some patients given the effect of liver injury on their metabolism (Table 3).

Application of data to the original case

This patient should be assessed for both risk of VTE and risk of bleeding during the hospital admission. CLD patients likely have a risk of VTE similar to (or even greater than) that of general medical patients. The Padua score for this patient is 4 (bed rest, body mass index) indicating that he is at high risk of VTE. While he is thrombocytopenic, he is not below the threshold for receiving anticoagulation. His INR is elevated but this does not confer any reduced risk of VTE.

Bottom line

This patient should receive VTE prophylaxis with either subcutaneous heparin or LMWH during his hospital admission.

References

1. Khoury T et al. The complex role of anticoagulation in cirrhosis: An updated review of where we are and where we are going. Digestion. 2016 Mar;93(2):149-59.

2. Aggarwal A. Deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in cirrhotic patients: Systematic review. World J Gastroenterol. 2014 May 21;20(19):5737-45.

3. Søgaard KK et al. Risk of venous thromboembolism in patients with liver disease: A nationwide population-based case-control study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009 Jan;104(1):96-101.

4. Walsh KA et al. Risk factors for venous thromboembolism in patients with chronic liver disease. Ann Pharmacother. 2013;47(3):333-9.

5. Bogari H et al. Risk-assessment and pharmacological prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients with chronic liver disease. Thromb Res. 2014 Dec;134(6):1220-3.

6. Intagliata NM et al. Prophylactic anticoagulation for venous thromboembolism in hospitalized cirrhosis patients is not associated with high rates of gastrointestinal bleeding. Liver Int. 2014 Jan;34(1):26-32.

7. Pincus KJ et al. Risk of venous thromboembolism in patients with chronic liver disease and the utility of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis. Ann Pharmacother. 2012 Jun;46(6):873-8.

8. Lishman T et al. Established and new-generation antithrombotic drugs in patients with cirrhosis – possibilities and caveats. J Hepatol. 2013 Aug;59(2):358-66.

9. Tripodi A et al. Coagulation parameters in patients with cirrhosis and portal vein thrombosis treated sequentially with low molecular weight heparin and vitamin K antagonists. Dig Liver Dis. 2016 Oct;48(10):1208-13.

10. Caldeira D et al. Risk of drug-induced liver injury with the new oral anticoagulants: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Heart. 2014 Apr;100(7):550-6.

11. Qamar A et al. Oral anticoagulation in patients with liver disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 May 15;71(19):2162-75.

12. Barbar S et al. A risk assessment model for the identification of hospitalized medical patients at risk for venous thromboembolism: The Padua prediction score. J Thromb Haemost. 2010 Nov;8(11):2450-7.

Case

A 60-year-old man with cirrhosis is admitted to the hospital with concern for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. His body mass index is 35 kg/m². He is severely deconditioned and largely bed bound. His admission labs show thrombocytopenia (platelets 65,000/mcL) and an elevated international normalized ratio (INR) of 1.6. Should this patient be placed on venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis on admission?

Brief overview

Patients with chronic liver disease (CLD) have previously been considered “auto-anticoagulated” because of markers of increased bleeding risk, including a decreased platelet count and elevated INR, prothrombin time, and activated partial thromboplastin time. It is being increasingly recognized, however, that CLD often represents a hypercoagulable state despite these abnormalities.¹

While cirrhotic patients produce less of several procoagulant substances (such as factors II, V, VII, X, XI, XII, XIII, and fibrinogen), they are also deficient in multiple anticoagulant factors (such as proteins C and S and antithrombin) and fibrinolytics (plasminogen). While the prothrombin time and activated partial thromboplastin time are sensitive to levels of procoagulant proteins in plasma, they do not measure response to the natural anticoagulants and therefore do not reflect an accurate picture of a cirrhotic patient’s risk of developing thrombosis. In addition, cirrhotic patients have many other risk factors for thrombosis, including poor functional status, frequent hospitalization, and elevated estrogen levels.

Overview of the data

VTE incidence among patients with CLD has varied across studies, ranging from 0.5% to 6.3%.² A systemic review of VTE risk in cirrhotic patients concluded that they “have a significant risk of VTE, if not higher than noncirrhotic patients and this risk cannot be trivialized or ignored.”²

In a nationwide Danish case-control study, patients with cirrhosis had a 1.7 times increased risk of VTE, compared with the general population.³ Hypoalbuminemia appears to be one of the strongest associated risk factors for VTE in these patients, likely as a reflection of the degree of liver synthetic dysfunction (and therefore decreased synthesis of anticoagulant factors). One study showed that patients with an albumin of less than 1.9 g/dL had a VTE risk five times higher than patients with an albumin of 2.8 g/dL or higher.⁴

Prophylaxis

Given the increased risks of bleeding and thrombosis in patients with cirrhosis, how should VTE prophylaxis be managed in hospitalized patients? While current guidelines do not specifically address the use of pharmacologic prophylaxis in cirrhotic patients, the Padua Predictor Score, which is used to assess VTE risk in the general hospital population, has also been shown to be helpful in the subpopulation of patients with CLD (Table 1).

In one study, cirrhotic patients who were “high risk” by Padua Predictor score were over 12 times more likely to develop VTE than those who were “low risk.”⁵ Bleeding risk appears to be fairly low, and similar to those patients not receiving prophylactic anticoagulation. One retrospective case series of hospitalized cirrhotic patients receiving thromboprophylaxis showed a rate of GI bleeding of 2.5% (9 of 355 patients); the rate of major bleeding was less than 1%.⁶

Selection of anticoagulant for VTE prophylaxis should be similar to non-CLD patients. The choice of agent (low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) or unfractionated heparin) and dosing depends on factors including renal function and bodyweight. If anticoagulation is contraindicated (because of thrombocytopenia, for example), then mechanical prophylaxis should be considered.⁷

Treatment

What about anticoagulation in patients with a known VTE? Food and Drug Administration safety recommendations are based on Child-Pugh class, although the current data on the safety and efficacy of full dose anticoagulation therapy for VTE in patients with cirrhosis are limited (Table 2). At this point, LMWH is often the preferred choice for anticoagulation in CLD patients. However, some limitations exist including the need for frequent subcutaneous injections and limited reliability of anti–factor Xa levels.

Cirrhotic patients often fail to achieve target anti–factor Xa levels on standard prophylactic and therapeutic doses of enoxaparin. This, however, is likely a lab anomaly as in vitro studies have shown that cirrhotic patients may show an increased response to LMWH despite reduced anti–factor Xa levels.⁸ Thus, LMWH remains the standard of care for many CLD patients.

The use of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) such as warfarin for VTE treatment can be difficult to manage. Traditionally CLD patients have been started on lower doses of warfarin but given their already elevated INR, this may lead to a subtherapeutic dose of VKAs. A recent study of 23 patients with cirrhosis demonstrated that a target INR of 2-3 can be reached with VKA doses similar to those in noncirrhotic patients.⁹ These data support the practice of using the same VKA dosing strategies for CLD patients, and selecting a starting dose based on patient parameters such as age and weight.

While the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for this patient population is still not a common practice, they may be a practical option for some CLD patients. A meta-analysis found that the currently used DOACs have no significant risk of drug-induced hepatic injury.¹⁰ Currently, only observational data are available to assess the benefits and risks of bleeding with DOACs in this patient population, as patients with significant liver disease were excluded from the major randomized trials.¹¹ DOACs may also represent a complicated choice for some patients given the effect of liver injury on their metabolism (Table 3).

Application of data to the original case

This patient should be assessed for both risk of VTE and risk of bleeding during the hospital admission. CLD patients likely have a risk of VTE similar to (or even greater than) that of general medical patients. The Padua score for this patient is 4 (bed rest, body mass index) indicating that he is at high risk of VTE. While he is thrombocytopenic, he is not below the threshold for receiving anticoagulation. His INR is elevated but this does not confer any reduced risk of VTE.

Bottom line

This patient should receive VTE prophylaxis with either subcutaneous heparin or LMWH during his hospital admission.

References

1. Khoury T et al. The complex role of anticoagulation in cirrhosis: An updated review of where we are and where we are going. Digestion. 2016 Mar;93(2):149-59.

2. Aggarwal A. Deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in cirrhotic patients: Systematic review. World J Gastroenterol. 2014 May 21;20(19):5737-45.

3. Søgaard KK et al. Risk of venous thromboembolism in patients with liver disease: A nationwide population-based case-control study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009 Jan;104(1):96-101.

4. Walsh KA et al. Risk factors for venous thromboembolism in patients with chronic liver disease. Ann Pharmacother. 2013;47(3):333-9.

5. Bogari H et al. Risk-assessment and pharmacological prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients with chronic liver disease. Thromb Res. 2014 Dec;134(6):1220-3.

6. Intagliata NM et al. Prophylactic anticoagulation for venous thromboembolism in hospitalized cirrhosis patients is not associated with high rates of gastrointestinal bleeding. Liver Int. 2014 Jan;34(1):26-32.

7. Pincus KJ et al. Risk of venous thromboembolism in patients with chronic liver disease and the utility of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis. Ann Pharmacother. 2012 Jun;46(6):873-8.

8. Lishman T et al. Established and new-generation antithrombotic drugs in patients with cirrhosis – possibilities and caveats. J Hepatol. 2013 Aug;59(2):358-66.

9. Tripodi A et al. Coagulation parameters in patients with cirrhosis and portal vein thrombosis treated sequentially with low molecular weight heparin and vitamin K antagonists. Dig Liver Dis. 2016 Oct;48(10):1208-13.

10. Caldeira D et al. Risk of drug-induced liver injury with the new oral anticoagulants: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Heart. 2014 Apr;100(7):550-6.

11. Qamar A et al. Oral anticoagulation in patients with liver disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 May 15;71(19):2162-75.

12. Barbar S et al. A risk assessment model for the identification of hospitalized medical patients at risk for venous thromboembolism: The Padua prediction score. J Thromb Haemost. 2010 Nov;8(11):2450-7.

To the Editor:

Demodicosis is an infection of humans caused by species of the genus of saprophytic mites Demodex (most commonly Demodex brevis and Demodex folliculorum) that feed on the pilosebaceous unit.¹Demodex mites are believed to be a commensal species in humans; an increase in mite concentration or mite penetration of the dermis, however, can cause a shift from a commensal to a pathologic form.² Demodicosis manifests in a variety of forms, including pityriasis folliculorum, rosacealike demodicosis, and demodicosis gravis. The likelihood of colonization increases with age; the mite rarely is observed in children but is found at a rate approaching 100% in the elderly population.³ It is hypothesized that manifestation of disease might be due to a decrease in immune function or an inherited HLA antigen that causes local immunosuppression.⁴

A 51-year-old man who was otherwise healthy presented to our clinic with a crusting rash on the face of 9 weeks’ duration. The rash began a few days after he demolished a rotting wooden shed in his backyard. Lesions began as pustules on the left cheek, which then developed notable crusting over the next 5 to 7 days and spread to involve the forehead, nose, and right cheek (Figure 1A).

At our initial evaluation, biopsy was performed; specimens were sent for histopathologic analysis and culture. Findings included a dermal neutrophilic inflammation, a dense perivascular and perifollicular lymphoplasmacytic infiltrate with foci of neutrophilic pustules within the follicles (Figure 2), numerous intrafollicular Demodex mites (Figure 3), perifollicular vague noncaseating granuloma, and mild sebaceous hyperplasia. Grocott methenamine-silver stain and acid-fast bacilli stain were negative.

The 2 species of Demodex that cause disease in humans each behave distinctively: D folliculorum, with a cigar-shaped body, favors superficial hair follicles; D brevis, a smaller form, burrows deeper into skin where it feeds on the pilosebaceous unit.¹ Colonization occurs through direct skin-skin contact that begins as early as infancy and becomes more common with age due to development of sebaceous glands, the main source of nourishment for the mites.²

Demodicosis is classified as primary and secondary. In a prospective study of patients with clinical findings of demodicosis, Akilov et al¹ discovered that the 2 forms can be differentiated by skin distribution, seasonality, mite species, and preexisting dermatoses. Primary demodicosis is categorized by sudden onset of symptoms on healthy skin, usually the face. Secondary demodicosis develops progressively in patients with preexisting skin disease, such as rosacea, and can have a broader distribution, involving the face and trunk.² Clinical manifestations of demodicosis are broad and include pruritic papulopustular, nodulocystic, crusted, and abscesslike lesions.⁵

Most cases of demodicosis reported in the literature are associated with either local or systemic immunosuppression.^6-8 In a case report, an otherwise immunocompetent child developed facial demodicosis after local immunosuppression from chronic use of 2 topical steroid agents.⁹

Demodex infestation can be diagnosed using a variety of methods, including standardized skin surface biopsy, punch biopsy, and potassium hydroxide analysis. Standardized skin surface biopsy is the preferred method to diagnose demodicosis because it is noninvasive and samples the superficial follicle where Demodex mites typically reside. Diagnosis is made by identifying 5 or more Demodex mites in a low-power field or more than 5 mites per square centimeter in standardized skin surface biopsy.² Other potential diagnostic tools reported in the literature include dermoscopy and confocal laser scanning microscopy.^10,11

There is no standard therapeutic regimen for demodicosis because evidence-based trials regarding the efficacy of treatments are lacking. Oral ivermectin 200 µg/kg in a single dose is considered the preferred treatment; it can be combined with oral erythromycin, topical permethrin, or topical metronidazole.^5-7,9

Our case is unique, as crusted demodicosis developed in an immunocompetent adult. Demodicosis usually causes severe eruptions in immunocompromised persons, with only 1 case report detailing a papulopustular rash in an immunocompetent adult.^12,13

The pathogenesis of demodicosis remains unclear. Many mechanisms have been hypothesized to play a role in its pathogenesis, including mechanical obstruction of hair follicles, hypersensitivity reaction to Demodex mites, immune dysregulation, and a foreign-body granulomatous reaction to the skeleton of the mite.^2,3 Our patient’s particular infestation could have been caused by an exuberant reaction to Demodex; however, it is likely that many factors played a role in his disease process to cause an increase in mite density and subsequent manifestations of disease.

To the Editor:

Demodicosis is an infection of humans caused by species of the genus of saprophytic mites Demodex (most commonly Demodex brevis and Demodex folliculorum) that feed on the pilosebaceous unit.¹Demodex mites are believed to be a commensal species in humans; an increase in mite concentration or mite penetration of the dermis, however, can cause a shift from a commensal to a pathologic form.² Demodicosis manifests in a variety of forms, including pityriasis folliculorum, rosacealike demodicosis, and demodicosis gravis. The likelihood of colonization increases with age; the mite rarely is observed in children but is found at a rate approaching 100% in the elderly population.³ It is hypothesized that manifestation of disease might be due to a decrease in immune function or an inherited HLA antigen that causes local immunosuppression.⁴

A 51-year-old man who was otherwise healthy presented to our clinic with a crusting rash on the face of 9 weeks’ duration. The rash began a few days after he demolished a rotting wooden shed in his backyard. Lesions began as pustules on the left cheek, which then developed notable crusting over the next 5 to 7 days and spread to involve the forehead, nose, and right cheek (Figure 1A).

At our initial evaluation, biopsy was performed; specimens were sent for histopathologic analysis and culture. Findings included a dermal neutrophilic inflammation, a dense perivascular and perifollicular lymphoplasmacytic infiltrate with foci of neutrophilic pustules within the follicles (Figure 2), numerous intrafollicular Demodex mites (Figure 3), perifollicular vague noncaseating granuloma, and mild sebaceous hyperplasia. Grocott methenamine-silver stain and acid-fast bacilli stain were negative.

The 2 species of Demodex that cause disease in humans each behave distinctively: D folliculorum, with a cigar-shaped body, favors superficial hair follicles; D brevis, a smaller form, burrows deeper into skin where it feeds on the pilosebaceous unit.¹ Colonization occurs through direct skin-skin contact that begins as early as infancy and becomes more common with age due to development of sebaceous glands, the main source of nourishment for the mites.²

Demodicosis is classified as primary and secondary. In a prospective study of patients with clinical findings of demodicosis, Akilov et al¹ discovered that the 2 forms can be differentiated by skin distribution, seasonality, mite species, and preexisting dermatoses. Primary demodicosis is categorized by sudden onset of symptoms on healthy skin, usually the face. Secondary demodicosis develops progressively in patients with preexisting skin disease, such as rosacea, and can have a broader distribution, involving the face and trunk.² Clinical manifestations of demodicosis are broad and include pruritic papulopustular, nodulocystic, crusted, and abscesslike lesions.⁵

Most cases of demodicosis reported in the literature are associated with either local or systemic immunosuppression.^6-8 In a case report, an otherwise immunocompetent child developed facial demodicosis after local immunosuppression from chronic use of 2 topical steroid agents.⁹

Demodex infestation can be diagnosed using a variety of methods, including standardized skin surface biopsy, punch biopsy, and potassium hydroxide analysis. Standardized skin surface biopsy is the preferred method to diagnose demodicosis because it is noninvasive and samples the superficial follicle where Demodex mites typically reside. Diagnosis is made by identifying 5 or more Demodex mites in a low-power field or more than 5 mites per square centimeter in standardized skin surface biopsy.² Other potential diagnostic tools reported in the literature include dermoscopy and confocal laser scanning microscopy.^10,11

There is no standard therapeutic regimen for demodicosis because evidence-based trials regarding the efficacy of treatments are lacking. Oral ivermectin 200 µg/kg in a single dose is considered the preferred treatment; it can be combined with oral erythromycin, topical permethrin, or topical metronidazole.^5-7,9

Our case is unique, as crusted demodicosis developed in an immunocompetent adult. Demodicosis usually causes severe eruptions in immunocompromised persons, with only 1 case report detailing a papulopustular rash in an immunocompetent adult.^12,13

The pathogenesis of demodicosis remains unclear. Many mechanisms have been hypothesized to play a role in its pathogenesis, including mechanical obstruction of hair follicles, hypersensitivity reaction to Demodex mites, immune dysregulation, and a foreign-body granulomatous reaction to the skeleton of the mite.^2,3 Our patient’s particular infestation could have been caused by an exuberant reaction to Demodex; however, it is likely that many factors played a role in his disease process to cause an increase in mite density and subsequent manifestations of disease.

To the Editor:

Demodicosis is an infection of humans caused by species of the genus of saprophytic mites Demodex (most commonly Demodex brevis and Demodex folliculorum) that feed on the pilosebaceous unit.¹Demodex mites are believed to be a commensal species in humans; an increase in mite concentration or mite penetration of the dermis, however, can cause a shift from a commensal to a pathologic form.² Demodicosis manifests in a variety of forms, including pityriasis folliculorum, rosacealike demodicosis, and demodicosis gravis. The likelihood of colonization increases with age; the mite rarely is observed in children but is found at a rate approaching 100% in the elderly population.³ It is hypothesized that manifestation of disease might be due to a decrease in immune function or an inherited HLA antigen that causes local immunosuppression.⁴

A 51-year-old man who was otherwise healthy presented to our clinic with a crusting rash on the face of 9 weeks’ duration. The rash began a few days after he demolished a rotting wooden shed in his backyard. Lesions began as pustules on the left cheek, which then developed notable crusting over the next 5 to 7 days and spread to involve the forehead, nose, and right cheek (Figure 1A).

At our initial evaluation, biopsy was performed; specimens were sent for histopathologic analysis and culture. Findings included a dermal neutrophilic inflammation, a dense perivascular and perifollicular lymphoplasmacytic infiltrate with foci of neutrophilic pustules within the follicles (Figure 2), numerous intrafollicular Demodex mites (Figure 3), perifollicular vague noncaseating granuloma, and mild sebaceous hyperplasia. Grocott methenamine-silver stain and acid-fast bacilli stain were negative.

The 2 species of Demodex that cause disease in humans each behave distinctively: D folliculorum, with a cigar-shaped body, favors superficial hair follicles; D brevis, a smaller form, burrows deeper into skin where it feeds on the pilosebaceous unit.¹ Colonization occurs through direct skin-skin contact that begins as early as infancy and becomes more common with age due to development of sebaceous glands, the main source of nourishment for the mites.²

Demodicosis is classified as primary and secondary. In a prospective study of patients with clinical findings of demodicosis, Akilov et al¹ discovered that the 2 forms can be differentiated by skin distribution, seasonality, mite species, and preexisting dermatoses. Primary demodicosis is categorized by sudden onset of symptoms on healthy skin, usually the face. Secondary demodicosis develops progressively in patients with preexisting skin disease, such as rosacea, and can have a broader distribution, involving the face and trunk.² Clinical manifestations of demodicosis are broad and include pruritic papulopustular, nodulocystic, crusted, and abscesslike lesions.⁵

Most cases of demodicosis reported in the literature are associated with either local or systemic immunosuppression.^6-8 In a case report, an otherwise immunocompetent child developed facial demodicosis after local immunosuppression from chronic use of 2 topical steroid agents.⁹

Demodex infestation can be diagnosed using a variety of methods, including standardized skin surface biopsy, punch biopsy, and potassium hydroxide analysis. Standardized skin surface biopsy is the preferred method to diagnose demodicosis because it is noninvasive and samples the superficial follicle where Demodex mites typically reside. Diagnosis is made by identifying 5 or more Demodex mites in a low-power field or more than 5 mites per square centimeter in standardized skin surface biopsy.² Other potential diagnostic tools reported in the literature include dermoscopy and confocal laser scanning microscopy.^10,11

There is no standard therapeutic regimen for demodicosis because evidence-based trials regarding the efficacy of treatments are lacking. Oral ivermectin 200 µg/kg in a single dose is considered the preferred treatment; it can be combined with oral erythromycin, topical permethrin, or topical metronidazole.^5-7,9

Our case is unique, as crusted demodicosis developed in an immunocompetent adult. Demodicosis usually causes severe eruptions in immunocompromised persons, with only 1 case report detailing a papulopustular rash in an immunocompetent adult.^12,13

The pathogenesis of demodicosis remains unclear. Many mechanisms have been hypothesized to play a role in its pathogenesis, including mechanical obstruction of hair follicles, hypersensitivity reaction to Demodex mites, immune dysregulation, and a foreign-body granulomatous reaction to the skeleton of the mite.^2,3 Our patient’s particular infestation could have been caused by an exuberant reaction to Demodex; however, it is likely that many factors played a role in his disease process to cause an increase in mite density and subsequent manifestations of disease.

NEW ORLEANS – When initiated early, a palliative care consultation may increase the number of discharges to hospice critical care patients meeting certain end-of-life criteria, results of a recent randomized clinical trial suggest.

The rate of in-hospital mortality was lower for critical care patients receiving an early consultation, compared with those who received palliative care initiated according to usual standards in the randomized, controlled trial, described at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

In addition, more health care surrogates were chosen in the hospital when palliative care medicine was involved earlier, according to investigator Scott Helgeson, MD, fellow in pulmonary critical care at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.

Taken together, Dr. Helgeson said, those findings suggest the importance of getting palliative care involved “very early, while the patient can still make decisions.”

“There are a lot of things that can get in the way of adequate conversations, and that’s when the palliative care team can come in,” Dr. Helgeson said in an interview.

This study is the first reported to date to look at the impact on patient care outcomes specifically within 24 hours of medical ICU admission, according to Dr. Helgeson and coinvestigators

In their randomized study, patients were eligible if they met at least one of several criteria, including advanced age (80 years or older), late-stage dementia, post–cardiac arrest, metastatic cancer, end-stage organ failure, recurrent ICU admissions, an APACHE II score of 14 or higher, a SOFA score of 9 or higher, preexisting functional dependency, or consideration for a tracheostomy or permanent feeding tube.

Of 29 patients randomized, 14 received early palliative care, and 15 received standard palliative care, which was defined as starting “whenever the treating team deems (it) is appropriate,” according to the published abstract.

Hospital mortality occurred in none of the patients in the early palliative care group, versus six in the usual care group (P = .01), Dr. Helgeson and colleagues found. Moreover, seven health care surrogates were chosen in hospital in the early palliative care group, versus none in the usual care group (P less than .01).

Length of stay in the ICU or in hospital did not vary by treatment group, according to the investigators.

About one-fifth of deaths in the United States take place in or around ICU admissions, according to the investigators, who noted that those admissions can result in changing goals from cure to comfort – though sometimes too late.

Dr. Helgeson and coauthors disclosed that they had no relationships relevant to this research presentation.

SOURCE: Helgeson S, et al. CHEST 2019. Abstract, doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.08.803.

NEW ORLEANS – When initiated early, a palliative care consultation may increase the number of discharges to hospice critical care patients meeting certain end-of-life criteria, results of a recent randomized clinical trial suggest.

The rate of in-hospital mortality was lower for critical care patients receiving an early consultation, compared with those who received palliative care initiated according to usual standards in the randomized, controlled trial, described at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

In addition, more health care surrogates were chosen in the hospital when palliative care medicine was involved earlier, according to investigator Scott Helgeson, MD, fellow in pulmonary critical care at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.

Taken together, Dr. Helgeson said, those findings suggest the importance of getting palliative care involved “very early, while the patient can still make decisions.”

“There are a lot of things that can get in the way of adequate conversations, and that’s when the palliative care team can come in,” Dr. Helgeson said in an interview.

This study is the first reported to date to look at the impact on patient care outcomes specifically within 24 hours of medical ICU admission, according to Dr. Helgeson and coinvestigators

In their randomized study, patients were eligible if they met at least one of several criteria, including advanced age (80 years or older), late-stage dementia, post–cardiac arrest, metastatic cancer, end-stage organ failure, recurrent ICU admissions, an APACHE II score of 14 or higher, a SOFA score of 9 or higher, preexisting functional dependency, or consideration for a tracheostomy or permanent feeding tube.

Of 29 patients randomized, 14 received early palliative care, and 15 received standard palliative care, which was defined as starting “whenever the treating team deems (it) is appropriate,” according to the published abstract.

Hospital mortality occurred in none of the patients in the early palliative care group, versus six in the usual care group (P = .01), Dr. Helgeson and colleagues found. Moreover, seven health care surrogates were chosen in hospital in the early palliative care group, versus none in the usual care group (P less than .01).

Length of stay in the ICU or in hospital did not vary by treatment group, according to the investigators.

About one-fifth of deaths in the United States take place in or around ICU admissions, according to the investigators, who noted that those admissions can result in changing goals from cure to comfort – though sometimes too late.

Dr. Helgeson and coauthors disclosed that they had no relationships relevant to this research presentation.

SOURCE: Helgeson S, et al. CHEST 2019. Abstract, doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.08.803.

NEW ORLEANS – When initiated early, a palliative care consultation may increase the number of discharges to hospice critical care patients meeting certain end-of-life criteria, results of a recent randomized clinical trial suggest.

The rate of in-hospital mortality was lower for critical care patients receiving an early consultation, compared with those who received palliative care initiated according to usual standards in the randomized, controlled trial, described at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

In addition, more health care surrogates were chosen in the hospital when palliative care medicine was involved earlier, according to investigator Scott Helgeson, MD, fellow in pulmonary critical care at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.

Taken together, Dr. Helgeson said, those findings suggest the importance of getting palliative care involved “very early, while the patient can still make decisions.”

“There are a lot of things that can get in the way of adequate conversations, and that’s when the palliative care team can come in,” Dr. Helgeson said in an interview.

This study is the first reported to date to look at the impact on patient care outcomes specifically within 24 hours of medical ICU admission, according to Dr. Helgeson and coinvestigators

In their randomized study, patients were eligible if they met at least one of several criteria, including advanced age (80 years or older), late-stage dementia, post–cardiac arrest, metastatic cancer, end-stage organ failure, recurrent ICU admissions, an APACHE II score of 14 or higher, a SOFA score of 9 or higher, preexisting functional dependency, or consideration for a tracheostomy or permanent feeding tube.

Of 29 patients randomized, 14 received early palliative care, and 15 received standard palliative care, which was defined as starting “whenever the treating team deems (it) is appropriate,” according to the published abstract.

Hospital mortality occurred in none of the patients in the early palliative care group, versus six in the usual care group (P = .01), Dr. Helgeson and colleagues found. Moreover, seven health care surrogates were chosen in hospital in the early palliative care group, versus none in the usual care group (P less than .01).

Length of stay in the ICU or in hospital did not vary by treatment group, according to the investigators.

About one-fifth of deaths in the United States take place in or around ICU admissions, according to the investigators, who noted that those admissions can result in changing goals from cure to comfort – though sometimes too late.

Dr. Helgeson and coauthors disclosed that they had no relationships relevant to this research presentation.

SOURCE: Helgeson S, et al. CHEST 2019. Abstract, doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.08.803.

ID Week, the annual meeting of the Infectious Disease Society of America, provided valuable insights into past season’s endemic influenza burden and the effectiveness of prevention strategies. Each year, there are from 9million to 49 million influenza cases in the United States, 140,000-960,000 hospitalized cases, and 12,000-70,000 deaths directly attributable to influenza infection. The burden disproportionately falls on infants and adults 65 years of age and older; 11,000-48,000 children are hospitalized, and as many as several hundred children may die from influenza and related complications. School age children (aged 5-19 years) and adults (aged 30-39 years) are a major part of the transmission cycle. Influenza vaccine underlies the prevention strategy for limiting the burden of disease in U.S. populations. ID Week provided new insights into critical questions about influenza vaccines.

spukkato/Getty Images

1. What is the effectiveness of influenza vaccine against severe disease (hospitalization) in children? Does it vary by age? By type or subtype?

Angela P. Campbell, MD, MPH, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and associates presented data on influenza vaccine effectiveness from the New Vaccine Surveillance Network in children for the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 season (ID Week session 99; Abstract 899). During both 2016-2017 and 2017-2018, H3N2 was the dominant virus and influenza B represented about one-third of cases, and H1N1 was a greater percentage of cases in 2017-2018. Influenza positivity among children younger than 18 years of age admitted to hospital with respiratory disease was 14% among unvaccinated and 8% among vaccinated children; effectiveness again hospitalization was 50%. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) was not statistically different between children younger than 8 years of age and those older that 8 years but did differ by vaccine type. VE was 76% against H1N1 disease, 59% again B disease, and only 33% against H3N2 disease.

Clearly, vaccination with influenza vaccine prevents serious respiratory disease. However, the impact of vaccine will vary by season and by which influenza stains are circulating in the community. The authors concluded that further understanding of the lower VE against H3N2 disease is needed.

2. Does the priming dose of influenza vaccine improve vaccine effectiveness?

Current recommendations call for a two-dose series for influenza vaccine in children aged 6 months through 8 years who have not had prior influenza vaccine. The recommendation is based on evidence demonstrating higher antibody responses in children receiving two doses, compared with a single dose. Using data from the U.S. Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network, Jessie R. Chung, MPH, of the CDC, and associates compared VE in children younger than 2 years receiving two doses in the first year of flu immunization (fully immunized), compared with those who received only one dose (partially immunized) (ID Week session 99; Abstract 900). VE was 53% for fully immunized and 23% for partially immunized children. Receipt of a single dose did not provide statistically significant protection against influenza. Surprisingly (to me), of 5,355 children aged 6 months to less than 2 years with no prior influenza vaccine, 1,870 (35%) received only one dose in the season.

The data strongly support the current recommendations for a priming dose, especially in young children, in the first season of influenza vaccine and warrants increased efforts to increase the update of second doses during the season. Hopefully we can do better in 2019!

3. Should we wait to vaccinate with influenza vaccine?

Some evidence suggests that waning immunity to influenza vaccine, primarily in those aged 65 years and older, may explain increased disease activity toward the end of influenza season. Other explanations include increasing viral diversity throughout the season, resulting in reduced effectiveness. Do such concerns warrant delaying immunization? The onset and peak of influenza season varies by year; in October 2019, 3% of tests performed on patients with respiratory illness were influenza positive. The trade-offs for delaying immunization until October are the unpredictability of onset of influenza season, the requirement for two doses in infants, the need for 2 weeks to achieve peak antibody concentrations, and the potential that fewer individuals will be vaccinated. Kathy Neuzil, MD, MPH, from the Center for Vaccine Development and Global Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, reviewed recent modeling (for adults aged 65 years and older) and reported that delaying vaccine programs until October is associated with greater burden of hospitalization if 14% fewer individuals (who would be vaccinated in August/September) are vaccinated (ID Week; Session 940).

In response to these concerns, the CDC recommendations for 2019 are that, in children aged 6 months through 8 years who need two doses, start early so that you can achieve both doses before influenza season (MMWR 2019 Aug 23;68[3]:1-21).In older children and adults, who need only a single dose, early vaccination (August and early September) may lead to reduced protection late in the influenza season?

4. How can we optimize vaccine impact?

Vaccine impact refers to the affect on a population level and not at an individual level. Meagan C. Fitzpatrick, PhD, from the Center for Vaccine Development and Global Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, evaluated the benefits of our moderately effective influenza vaccines (VE 40%-60%) to the population beyond those who are vaccinated. Her conclusions were that even a modestly effective vaccine prevents 21 million cases of influenza, 129,000 hospitalizations, and 62,000 deaths. And that two-thirds of the deaths prevented are from herd benefit (or indirect effects). Although both coverage and vaccine effectiveness are important, she reported that population impact was most sensitive to coverage, compared with vaccine effectiveness. Dr. Fitzpatrick found that targeting school-age children 6-19 years of age and adults 30-39 years of age maximizes the public health benefits (herd effects) of influenza vaccine. In 2018 season, influenza coverage was 63% for at least one dose in children aged 6 months through 17 years and 45% in adults aged 18 years and older; in the two target age groups 5-17 and 30-39 years, coverage was 59% and approximately 35%, respectively (ID Week; Session 939).

Clearly, even our modestly effective influenza vaccines have significant public health benefit in protecting the U.S. populations from serious disease and death. Efforts to increase vaccine uptake in school-age children, both those with and without comorbidity, and the 30- to 39-year-old adult cohort would likely further reduce the burden of serious disease from influenza.

In summary, despite a vaccine that is only moderately effective, there is clear evidence to support current recommendations of universal immunization beginning at 6 months of age. Optimizing the impact of the flu vaccine requires increasing coverage, including two doses for those less than 8 years of age being immunized for the first time. Delaying until October 1 is a good idea only if the same number of individuals will receive influenza vaccine, otherwise the hypothetical benefit is lost.
 

Dr. Pelton is professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at Boston University schools of medicine and public health and is senior attending physician, Boston Medical Center. Dr. Pelton has investigator-initiated research awards to Boston Medical Center from Pfizer and Merck Vaccines. He also received honorarium as an advisory board member, participation in symposium and consultation from Seqirus and Merck Vaccine, Pfizer, and Sanofi Pasteur. Email him at [email protected].

ID Week, the annual meeting of the Infectious Disease Society of America, provided valuable insights into past season’s endemic influenza burden and the effectiveness of prevention strategies. Each year, there are from 9million to 49 million influenza cases in the United States, 140,000-960,000 hospitalized cases, and 12,000-70,000 deaths directly attributable to influenza infection. The burden disproportionately falls on infants and adults 65 years of age and older; 11,000-48,000 children are hospitalized, and as many as several hundred children may die from influenza and related complications. School age children (aged 5-19 years) and adults (aged 30-39 years) are a major part of the transmission cycle. Influenza vaccine underlies the prevention strategy for limiting the burden of disease in U.S. populations. ID Week provided new insights into critical questions about influenza vaccines.

spukkato/Getty Images

1. What is the effectiveness of influenza vaccine against severe disease (hospitalization) in children? Does it vary by age? By type or subtype?

Angela P. Campbell, MD, MPH, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and associates presented data on influenza vaccine effectiveness from the New Vaccine Surveillance Network in children for the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 season (ID Week session 99; Abstract 899). During both 2016-2017 and 2017-2018, H3N2 was the dominant virus and influenza B represented about one-third of cases, and H1N1 was a greater percentage of cases in 2017-2018. Influenza positivity among children younger than 18 years of age admitted to hospital with respiratory disease was 14% among unvaccinated and 8% among vaccinated children; effectiveness again hospitalization was 50%. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) was not statistically different between children younger than 8 years of age and those older that 8 years but did differ by vaccine type. VE was 76% against H1N1 disease, 59% again B disease, and only 33% against H3N2 disease.

Clearly, vaccination with influenza vaccine prevents serious respiratory disease. However, the impact of vaccine will vary by season and by which influenza stains are circulating in the community. The authors concluded that further understanding of the lower VE against H3N2 disease is needed.

2. Does the priming dose of influenza vaccine improve vaccine effectiveness?

Current recommendations call for a two-dose series for influenza vaccine in children aged 6 months through 8 years who have not had prior influenza vaccine. The recommendation is based on evidence demonstrating higher antibody responses in children receiving two doses, compared with a single dose. Using data from the U.S. Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network, Jessie R. Chung, MPH, of the CDC, and associates compared VE in children younger than 2 years receiving two doses in the first year of flu immunization (fully immunized), compared with those who received only one dose (partially immunized) (ID Week session 99; Abstract 900). VE was 53% for fully immunized and 23% for partially immunized children. Receipt of a single dose did not provide statistically significant protection against influenza. Surprisingly (to me), of 5,355 children aged 6 months to less than 2 years with no prior influenza vaccine, 1,870 (35%) received only one dose in the season.

The data strongly support the current recommendations for a priming dose, especially in young children, in the first season of influenza vaccine and warrants increased efforts to increase the update of second doses during the season. Hopefully we can do better in 2019!

3. Should we wait to vaccinate with influenza vaccine?

Some evidence suggests that waning immunity to influenza vaccine, primarily in those aged 65 years and older, may explain increased disease activity toward the end of influenza season. Other explanations include increasing viral diversity throughout the season, resulting in reduced effectiveness. Do such concerns warrant delaying immunization? The onset and peak of influenza season varies by year; in October 2019, 3% of tests performed on patients with respiratory illness were influenza positive. The trade-offs for delaying immunization until October are the unpredictability of onset of influenza season, the requirement for two doses in infants, the need for 2 weeks to achieve peak antibody concentrations, and the potential that fewer individuals will be vaccinated. Kathy Neuzil, MD, MPH, from the Center for Vaccine Development and Global Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, reviewed recent modeling (for adults aged 65 years and older) and reported that delaying vaccine programs until October is associated with greater burden of hospitalization if 14% fewer individuals (who would be vaccinated in August/September) are vaccinated (ID Week; Session 940).

In response to these concerns, the CDC recommendations for 2019 are that, in children aged 6 months through 8 years who need two doses, start early so that you can achieve both doses before influenza season (MMWR 2019 Aug 23;68[3]:1-21).In older children and adults, who need only a single dose, early vaccination (August and early September) may lead to reduced protection late in the influenza season?

4. How can we optimize vaccine impact?

Vaccine impact refers to the affect on a population level and not at an individual level. Meagan C. Fitzpatrick, PhD, from the Center for Vaccine Development and Global Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, evaluated the benefits of our moderately effective influenza vaccines (VE 40%-60%) to the population beyond those who are vaccinated. Her conclusions were that even a modestly effective vaccine prevents 21 million cases of influenza, 129,000 hospitalizations, and 62,000 deaths. And that two-thirds of the deaths prevented are from herd benefit (or indirect effects). Although both coverage and vaccine effectiveness are important, she reported that population impact was most sensitive to coverage, compared with vaccine effectiveness. Dr. Fitzpatrick found that targeting school-age children 6-19 years of age and adults 30-39 years of age maximizes the public health benefits (herd effects) of influenza vaccine. In 2018 season, influenza coverage was 63% for at least one dose in children aged 6 months through 17 years and 45% in adults aged 18 years and older; in the two target age groups 5-17 and 30-39 years, coverage was 59% and approximately 35%, respectively (ID Week; Session 939).

Clearly, even our modestly effective influenza vaccines have significant public health benefit in protecting the U.S. populations from serious disease and death. Efforts to increase vaccine uptake in school-age children, both those with and without comorbidity, and the 30- to 39-year-old adult cohort would likely further reduce the burden of serious disease from influenza.

In summary, despite a vaccine that is only moderately effective, there is clear evidence to support current recommendations of universal immunization beginning at 6 months of age. Optimizing the impact of the flu vaccine requires increasing coverage, including two doses for those less than 8 years of age being immunized for the first time. Delaying until October 1 is a good idea only if the same number of individuals will receive influenza vaccine, otherwise the hypothetical benefit is lost.
 

Dr. Pelton is professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at Boston University schools of medicine and public health and is senior attending physician, Boston Medical Center. Dr. Pelton has investigator-initiated research awards to Boston Medical Center from Pfizer and Merck Vaccines. He also received honorarium as an advisory board member, participation in symposium and consultation from Seqirus and Merck Vaccine, Pfizer, and Sanofi Pasteur. Email him at [email protected].

ID Week, the annual meeting of the Infectious Disease Society of America, provided valuable insights into past season’s endemic influenza burden and the effectiveness of prevention strategies. Each year, there are from 9million to 49 million influenza cases in the United States, 140,000-960,000 hospitalized cases, and 12,000-70,000 deaths directly attributable to influenza infection. The burden disproportionately falls on infants and adults 65 years of age and older; 11,000-48,000 children are hospitalized, and as many as several hundred children may die from influenza and related complications. School age children (aged 5-19 years) and adults (aged 30-39 years) are a major part of the transmission cycle. Influenza vaccine underlies the prevention strategy for limiting the burden of disease in U.S. populations. ID Week provided new insights into critical questions about influenza vaccines.

spukkato/Getty Images

1. What is the effectiveness of influenza vaccine against severe disease (hospitalization) in children? Does it vary by age? By type or subtype?

Angela P. Campbell, MD, MPH, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and associates presented data on influenza vaccine effectiveness from the New Vaccine Surveillance Network in children for the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 season (ID Week session 99; Abstract 899). During both 2016-2017 and 2017-2018, H3N2 was the dominant virus and influenza B represented about one-third of cases, and H1N1 was a greater percentage of cases in 2017-2018. Influenza positivity among children younger than 18 years of age admitted to hospital with respiratory disease was 14% among unvaccinated and 8% among vaccinated children; effectiveness again hospitalization was 50%. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) was not statistically different between children younger than 8 years of age and those older that 8 years but did differ by vaccine type. VE was 76% against H1N1 disease, 59% again B disease, and only 33% against H3N2 disease.

Clearly, vaccination with influenza vaccine prevents serious respiratory disease. However, the impact of vaccine will vary by season and by which influenza stains are circulating in the community. The authors concluded that further understanding of the lower VE against H3N2 disease is needed.

2. Does the priming dose of influenza vaccine improve vaccine effectiveness?

Current recommendations call for a two-dose series for influenza vaccine in children aged 6 months through 8 years who have not had prior influenza vaccine. The recommendation is based on evidence demonstrating higher antibody responses in children receiving two doses, compared with a single dose. Using data from the U.S. Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Network, Jessie R. Chung, MPH, of the CDC, and associates compared VE in children younger than 2 years receiving two doses in the first year of flu immunization (fully immunized), compared with those who received only one dose (partially immunized) (ID Week session 99; Abstract 900). VE was 53% for fully immunized and 23% for partially immunized children. Receipt of a single dose did not provide statistically significant protection against influenza. Surprisingly (to me), of 5,355 children aged 6 months to less than 2 years with no prior influenza vaccine, 1,870 (35%) received only one dose in the season.

The data strongly support the current recommendations for a priming dose, especially in young children, in the first season of influenza vaccine and warrants increased efforts to increase the update of second doses during the season. Hopefully we can do better in 2019!

3. Should we wait to vaccinate with influenza vaccine?

Some evidence suggests that waning immunity to influenza vaccine, primarily in those aged 65 years and older, may explain increased disease activity toward the end of influenza season. Other explanations include increasing viral diversity throughout the season, resulting in reduced effectiveness. Do such concerns warrant delaying immunization? The onset and peak of influenza season varies by year; in October 2019, 3% of tests performed on patients with respiratory illness were influenza positive. The trade-offs for delaying immunization until October are the unpredictability of onset of influenza season, the requirement for two doses in infants, the need for 2 weeks to achieve peak antibody concentrations, and the potential that fewer individuals will be vaccinated. Kathy Neuzil, MD, MPH, from the Center for Vaccine Development and Global Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, reviewed recent modeling (for adults aged 65 years and older) and reported that delaying vaccine programs until October is associated with greater burden of hospitalization if 14% fewer individuals (who would be vaccinated in August/September) are vaccinated (ID Week; Session 940).

In response to these concerns, the CDC recommendations for 2019 are that, in children aged 6 months through 8 years who need two doses, start early so that you can achieve both doses before influenza season (MMWR 2019 Aug 23;68[3]:1-21).In older children and adults, who need only a single dose, early vaccination (August and early September) may lead to reduced protection late in the influenza season?

4. How can we optimize vaccine impact?

Vaccine impact refers to the affect on a population level and not at an individual level. Meagan C. Fitzpatrick, PhD, from the Center for Vaccine Development and Global Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, evaluated the benefits of our moderately effective influenza vaccines (VE 40%-60%) to the population beyond those who are vaccinated. Her conclusions were that even a modestly effective vaccine prevents 21 million cases of influenza, 129,000 hospitalizations, and 62,000 deaths. And that two-thirds of the deaths prevented are from herd benefit (or indirect effects). Although both coverage and vaccine effectiveness are important, she reported that population impact was most sensitive to coverage, compared with vaccine effectiveness. Dr. Fitzpatrick found that targeting school-age children 6-19 years of age and adults 30-39 years of age maximizes the public health benefits (herd effects) of influenza vaccine. In 2018 season, influenza coverage was 63% for at least one dose in children aged 6 months through 17 years and 45% in adults aged 18 years and older; in the two target age groups 5-17 and 30-39 years, coverage was 59% and approximately 35%, respectively (ID Week; Session 939).

Clearly, even our modestly effective influenza vaccines have significant public health benefit in protecting the U.S. populations from serious disease and death. Efforts to increase vaccine uptake in school-age children, both those with and without comorbidity, and the 30- to 39-year-old adult cohort would likely further reduce the burden of serious disease from influenza.

In summary, despite a vaccine that is only moderately effective, there is clear evidence to support current recommendations of universal immunization beginning at 6 months of age. Optimizing the impact of the flu vaccine requires increasing coverage, including two doses for those less than 8 years of age being immunized for the first time. Delaying until October 1 is a good idea only if the same number of individuals will receive influenza vaccine, otherwise the hypothetical benefit is lost.
 

Dr. Pelton is professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at Boston University schools of medicine and public health and is senior attending physician, Boston Medical Center. Dr. Pelton has investigator-initiated research awards to Boston Medical Center from Pfizer and Merck Vaccines. He also received honorarium as an advisory board member, participation in symposium and consultation from Seqirus and Merck Vaccine, Pfizer, and Sanofi Pasteur. Email him at [email protected].