To the Editor:

Reactive angioendotheliomatosis (RAE) is a rare self-limited cutaneous vascular proliferation of endothelial cells within blood vessels that manifests clinically as infiltrated red-blue patches and plaques with purpura that can progress to occlude vascular lumina. The etiology of RAE is mostly idiopathic; however, the disorder typically occurs in association with a range of systemic diseases, including infection, cryoglobulinemia, leukemia, antiphospholipid syndrome, peripheral vascular disease, and arteriovenous fistula. Histopathologic examination of these lesions shows marked proliferation of endothelial cells, including occlusion of the lumen of blood vessels over wide areas.

After ruling out malignancy, treatment of RAE focuses on targeting the underlying cause or disease, if any is present; 75% of reported cases occur in association with systemic disease.¹ Onset can occur at any age without predilection for sex. Reactive angioendotheliomatosis commonly manifests on the extremities but may occur on the head and neck in rare instances.²

The rarity of the condition and its poorly defined clinical characteristics make it difficult to develop a treatment plan. There are no standardized treatment guidelines for the reactive form of angiomatosis. We report a case of RAE that developed 2 weeks after vaccination with the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine (Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine [formerly Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson]) that improved following 2 weeks of treatment with a topical corticosteroid and an oral antihistamine.

A 58-year-old man presented to an outpatient dermatology clinic with pruritus and occasional paresthesia associated with a rash over the left arm of 1 month’s duration. The patient suspected that the rash may have formed secondary to the bite of oak mites on the arms and chest while he was carrying milled wood. Further inquiry into the patient’s history revealed that he received the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine 2 weeks prior to the appearance of the rash. He denied mechanical trauma. His medical history included hypercholesterolemia and a mild COVID-19 infection 8 months prior to the appearance of the rash that did not require hospitalization. He denied fever or chills during the 2 weeks following vaccination. The pruritus was minimally relieved for short periods with over-the-counter calamine lotion. The patient’s medication regimen included daily pravastatin and loratadine at the time of the initial visit. He used acetaminophen as needed for knee pain.

Physical examination revealed palpable purpura in a dermatomal distribution with nonpitting edema over the left scapula (Figure 1A), left anterolateral shoulder, left lateral volar forearm, and thenar eminence of the left hand (Figure 1B). Notably, the entire right arm, conjunctivae, tongue, lips, and bilateral fingernails were clear. Three 4-mm punch biopsies were performed at the initial presentation: 1 perilesional biopsy for direct immunofluorescence testing and 2 lesional biopsies for routine histologic evaluation. An extensive serologic workup failed to reveal abnormalities. An activated partial thromboplastin time, dilute Russell viper venom time, serum protein electrophoresis, and levels of rheumatoid factor and angiotensin-converting enzyme were within reference range. Anticardiolipin antibodies IgA, IgM, and IgG were negative. A cryoglobulin test was negative.

Histopathology revealed a proliferation of irregularly shaped vascular spaces with plump endothelium in the papillary dermis (Figure 2). Scattered leukocyte common antigen-positive lymphocytes were noted within lesions. The epidermis appeared normal, without evidence of spongiosis or alteration of the stratum corneum. Immunohistochemical studies of the perilesional skin biopsy revealed positivity for CD31 and D2-40 (Figure 3). Specimens were negative for CD20 and human herpesvirus 8. Direct immunofluorescence of the perilesional biopsy was negative.

A diagnosis of RAE was made based on clinical and histologic findings. Treatment with triamcinolone ointment 0.1% twice daily and oral cetirizine 10 mg twice daily was initiated. Re-evaluation 2 weeks later revealed notable improvement in the affected areas, including decreased edema, improvement of the purpura, and absence of pruritus. The patient noted no further spread or blister formation while the active areas were being treated with the topical steroid. The treatment regimen was modified to triamcinolone ointment 0.1% once daily, and cetirizine was discontinued. At 3-month follow-up, active areas had completely resolved (Figure 4) and triamcinolone was discontinued. To date, the patient has not had recurrence of symptoms and remains healthy.

Gottron and Nikolowski³ reported the first case of RAE in an adult patient who presented with purpuric patches secondary to skin infarction. Current definitions use the umbrella term cutaneous reactive angiomatosis to cover 3 major subtypes: reactive angioendotheliomatosis, diffuse dermal angioendotheliomatosis, and acroangiodermatitis (pseudo-Kaposi sarcoma [KS]). The manifestation of these subgroups is clinically similar, and they must be differentiated through histologic evaluation.⁴

Reactive angioendotheliomatosis has an unknown pathogenesis and is poorly defined clinically. The exact pathophysiology is unknown but likely is linked to vaso-occlusion and hypoxia.¹ A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE, as well as a review of Science Direct, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library, using the terms reactive angioendotheliomatosis, COVID, vaccine, Ad26.COV2.S, and RAE in any combination revealed no prior cases of RAE in association with Ad26.COV2.S vaccination.

By the late 1980s, systemic angioendotheliomatosis was segregated into 2 distinct entities: malignant and reactive.⁴ The differential diagnosis of malignant systemic angioendotheliomatosis includes KS and angiosarcoma; nonmalignant causes are the variants of cutaneous reactive angiomatosis. It is important to rule out KS because of its malignant and deceptive nature. It is unknown if KS originates in blood vessels or lymphatic endothelial cells; however, evidence is strongly in favor of blood vessel origin using CD31 and CD34 endothelial markers.⁵ CD34 positivity is more reliable than CD31 in diagnosing KS, but the absence of both markers does not offer enough evidence to rule out KS on its own.⁶

In our patient, histopathology revealed cells positive for CD31 and D2-40; the latter is a lymphatic endothelial cell marker that stains the endothelium of lymphatic channels but not blood vessels.⁷ Positive D2-40 can be indicative of KS and non-KS lesions, each with a distinct staining pattern. D2-40 staining on non-KS lesions is confined to lymphatic vessels, as it was in our patient; in contrast, spindle-shaped cells also will be stained in KS lesions.⁸

Another cell marker, CD20, is a B cell–specific protein that can be measured to help diagnose malignant diseases such as B-cell lymphoma and leukemia. Human herpesvirus 8 (also known as KS-associated herpesvirus) is the infectious cause of KS and traditionally has been detected using methods such as the polymerase chain reaction.^9,10

Most cases of RAE are idiopathic and occur in association with systemic disease, which was not the case in our patient. We speculated that his reaction was most likely triggered by vascular transfection of endothelial cells secondary to Ad26.COV2.S vaccination. Alternatively, vaccination may have caused vascular occlusion, though the lack of cyanosis, nail changes, and route of inoculant make this less likely.

All approved COVID-19 vaccines are designed solely for intramuscular injection. In comparison to other types of tissue, muscles have superior vascularity, allowing for enhanced mobilization of compounds, which results in faster systemic circulation.¹¹ Alternative methods of injection, including intravascular, subcutaneous, and intradermal, may lead to decreased efficacy or adverse events, or both.

Prior cases of RAE have been treated with laser therapy, topical or systemic corticosteroids, excisional removal, or topical β-blockers, such as timolol.¹² β-Blocking agents act on β-adrenergic receptors on endothelial cells to inhibit angiogenesis by reducing release of blood vessel growth-signaling molecules and triggering apoptosis. In this patient, topical steroids and oral antihistamines were sufficient treatment.

Vaccine-related adverse events have been reported but remain rare. The benefits of Ad26.COV2.S vaccination for protection against COVID-19 outweigh the extremely low risk for adverse events.¹³ For that reason, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends a booster for individuals who are eligible to maximize protection. Intramuscular injection of Ad26.COV2.S resulted in a lower incidence of moderate to severe COVID-19 cases in all age groups vs the placebo group. Hypersensitivity adverse events were reported in 0.4% of Ad26.COV2.S-vaccinated patients vs 0.4% of patients who received a placebo; the more common reactions were nonanaphylactic.¹³

There have been 12 reports of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis with thrombocytopenia after Ad26.COV2.S vaccination, which sparked nationwide controversy over the safety of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine.¹⁴ After further investigation into those reports, the US Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded that the benefits of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine outweigh the low risk for associated thrombosis.¹⁵

Although adverse reactions are rare, it is important that health care providers take proper safety measures before and while administering any COVID-19 vaccine. Patients should be screened for contraindications to the COVID-19 vaccine to mitigate adverse effects seen in the small percentage of patients who may need to take alternative precautions.

The broad tissue tropism and high transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 are the main contributors to its infection having reached pandemic scale. The spike (S) protein on SARS-CoV-2 binds to ACE2, the most thoroughly studied SARS-CoV-2 receptor, which is found in a range of tissues, including arterial endothelial cells, leading to its transfection. Several studies have proposed that expression of the S protein causes endothelial dysfunction through cytokine release, activation of complement, and ultimately microvascular occlusion.¹⁶

Recent developments in the use of viral-like particles, such as vesicular stomatitis virus, may mitigate future cases of RAE that are associated with endothelial cell transfection. Vesicular stomatitis virus is a popular model virus for research applications due to its glycoprotein and matrix protein contributing to its broad tropism. Recent efforts to alter these proteins have successfully limited the broad tropism of vesicular stomatitis virus.¹⁷

The SARS-CoV-2 virus must be handled in a Biosafety Level 3 laboratory. Conversely, pseudoviruses can be handled in lower containment facilities due to their safe and efficacious nature, offering an avenue to expedite vaccine development against many viral outbreaks, including SARS-CoV-2.¹⁸

An increasing number of cutaneous manifestations have been associated with COVID-19 infection and vaccination. Eruptive pseudoangiomatosis, a rare self-limiting exanthem, has been reported in association with ­COVID-19 vaccination.¹⁹ Eruptive pseudoangiomatosis manifests as erythematous blanchable papules that resemble angiomas, typically in a widespread distribution. Eruptive pseudoangiomatosis has striking similarities to RAE histologically; both manifest as dilated dermal blood vessels with plump endothelial cells.

Our case is unique because of the vasculitic palpable nature of the lesions, which were localized to the left arm. Eruptive pseudoangiomatosis formation after COVID-19 infection or SARS-CoV-2 vaccination may suggest alteration of ACE2 by binding of S protein.²⁰ Such alteration of the ACE2 pathway would lead to inflammation of angiotensin II, causing proliferation of endothelial cells in the formation of angiomalike lesions. This hypothesis suggests a paraviral eruption secondary to an immunologic reaction, not a classical virtual eruption from direct contact of the virus on blood vessels. Although EPA and RAE are harmless and self-limiting, these reports will spread awareness of the increasing number of skin manifestations related to COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 virus vaccination.

Acknowledgment—Thoughtful insights and comments on this manuscript were provided by Christine J. Ko, MD (New Haven, Connecticut); Christine L. Egan, MD (Glen Mills, Pennsylvania); Howard A. Bueller, MD (Delray Beach, Florida); and Juan Pablo Robles, PhD (Juriquilla, Mexico).

To the Editor:

Reactive angioendotheliomatosis (RAE) is a rare self-limited cutaneous vascular proliferation of endothelial cells within blood vessels that manifests clinically as infiltrated red-blue patches and plaques with purpura that can progress to occlude vascular lumina. The etiology of RAE is mostly idiopathic; however, the disorder typically occurs in association with a range of systemic diseases, including infection, cryoglobulinemia, leukemia, antiphospholipid syndrome, peripheral vascular disease, and arteriovenous fistula. Histopathologic examination of these lesions shows marked proliferation of endothelial cells, including occlusion of the lumen of blood vessels over wide areas.

After ruling out malignancy, treatment of RAE focuses on targeting the underlying cause or disease, if any is present; 75% of reported cases occur in association with systemic disease.¹ Onset can occur at any age without predilection for sex. Reactive angioendotheliomatosis commonly manifests on the extremities but may occur on the head and neck in rare instances.²

The rarity of the condition and its poorly defined clinical characteristics make it difficult to develop a treatment plan. There are no standardized treatment guidelines for the reactive form of angiomatosis. We report a case of RAE that developed 2 weeks after vaccination with the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine (Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine [formerly Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson]) that improved following 2 weeks of treatment with a topical corticosteroid and an oral antihistamine.

A 58-year-old man presented to an outpatient dermatology clinic with pruritus and occasional paresthesia associated with a rash over the left arm of 1 month’s duration. The patient suspected that the rash may have formed secondary to the bite of oak mites on the arms and chest while he was carrying milled wood. Further inquiry into the patient’s history revealed that he received the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine 2 weeks prior to the appearance of the rash. He denied mechanical trauma. His medical history included hypercholesterolemia and a mild COVID-19 infection 8 months prior to the appearance of the rash that did not require hospitalization. He denied fever or chills during the 2 weeks following vaccination. The pruritus was minimally relieved for short periods with over-the-counter calamine lotion. The patient’s medication regimen included daily pravastatin and loratadine at the time of the initial visit. He used acetaminophen as needed for knee pain.

Physical examination revealed palpable purpura in a dermatomal distribution with nonpitting edema over the left scapula (Figure 1A), left anterolateral shoulder, left lateral volar forearm, and thenar eminence of the left hand (Figure 1B). Notably, the entire right arm, conjunctivae, tongue, lips, and bilateral fingernails were clear. Three 4-mm punch biopsies were performed at the initial presentation: 1 perilesional biopsy for direct immunofluorescence testing and 2 lesional biopsies for routine histologic evaluation. An extensive serologic workup failed to reveal abnormalities. An activated partial thromboplastin time, dilute Russell viper venom time, serum protein electrophoresis, and levels of rheumatoid factor and angiotensin-converting enzyme were within reference range. Anticardiolipin antibodies IgA, IgM, and IgG were negative. A cryoglobulin test was negative.

Histopathology revealed a proliferation of irregularly shaped vascular spaces with plump endothelium in the papillary dermis (Figure 2). Scattered leukocyte common antigen-positive lymphocytes were noted within lesions. The epidermis appeared normal, without evidence of spongiosis or alteration of the stratum corneum. Immunohistochemical studies of the perilesional skin biopsy revealed positivity for CD31 and D2-40 (Figure 3). Specimens were negative for CD20 and human herpesvirus 8. Direct immunofluorescence of the perilesional biopsy was negative.

A diagnosis of RAE was made based on clinical and histologic findings. Treatment with triamcinolone ointment 0.1% twice daily and oral cetirizine 10 mg twice daily was initiated. Re-evaluation 2 weeks later revealed notable improvement in the affected areas, including decreased edema, improvement of the purpura, and absence of pruritus. The patient noted no further spread or blister formation while the active areas were being treated with the topical steroid. The treatment regimen was modified to triamcinolone ointment 0.1% once daily, and cetirizine was discontinued. At 3-month follow-up, active areas had completely resolved (Figure 4) and triamcinolone was discontinued. To date, the patient has not had recurrence of symptoms and remains healthy.

Gottron and Nikolowski³ reported the first case of RAE in an adult patient who presented with purpuric patches secondary to skin infarction. Current definitions use the umbrella term cutaneous reactive angiomatosis to cover 3 major subtypes: reactive angioendotheliomatosis, diffuse dermal angioendotheliomatosis, and acroangiodermatitis (pseudo-Kaposi sarcoma [KS]). The manifestation of these subgroups is clinically similar, and they must be differentiated through histologic evaluation.⁴

Reactive angioendotheliomatosis has an unknown pathogenesis and is poorly defined clinically. The exact pathophysiology is unknown but likely is linked to vaso-occlusion and hypoxia.¹ A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE, as well as a review of Science Direct, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library, using the terms reactive angioendotheliomatosis, COVID, vaccine, Ad26.COV2.S, and RAE in any combination revealed no prior cases of RAE in association with Ad26.COV2.S vaccination.

By the late 1980s, systemic angioendotheliomatosis was segregated into 2 distinct entities: malignant and reactive.⁴ The differential diagnosis of malignant systemic angioendotheliomatosis includes KS and angiosarcoma; nonmalignant causes are the variants of cutaneous reactive angiomatosis. It is important to rule out KS because of its malignant and deceptive nature. It is unknown if KS originates in blood vessels or lymphatic endothelial cells; however, evidence is strongly in favor of blood vessel origin using CD31 and CD34 endothelial markers.⁵ CD34 positivity is more reliable than CD31 in diagnosing KS, but the absence of both markers does not offer enough evidence to rule out KS on its own.⁶

In our patient, histopathology revealed cells positive for CD31 and D2-40; the latter is a lymphatic endothelial cell marker that stains the endothelium of lymphatic channels but not blood vessels.⁷ Positive D2-40 can be indicative of KS and non-KS lesions, each with a distinct staining pattern. D2-40 staining on non-KS lesions is confined to lymphatic vessels, as it was in our patient; in contrast, spindle-shaped cells also will be stained in KS lesions.⁸

Another cell marker, CD20, is a B cell–specific protein that can be measured to help diagnose malignant diseases such as B-cell lymphoma and leukemia. Human herpesvirus 8 (also known as KS-associated herpesvirus) is the infectious cause of KS and traditionally has been detected using methods such as the polymerase chain reaction.^9,10

Most cases of RAE are idiopathic and occur in association with systemic disease, which was not the case in our patient. We speculated that his reaction was most likely triggered by vascular transfection of endothelial cells secondary to Ad26.COV2.S vaccination. Alternatively, vaccination may have caused vascular occlusion, though the lack of cyanosis, nail changes, and route of inoculant make this less likely.

All approved COVID-19 vaccines are designed solely for intramuscular injection. In comparison to other types of tissue, muscles have superior vascularity, allowing for enhanced mobilization of compounds, which results in faster systemic circulation.¹¹ Alternative methods of injection, including intravascular, subcutaneous, and intradermal, may lead to decreased efficacy or adverse events, or both.

Prior cases of RAE have been treated with laser therapy, topical or systemic corticosteroids, excisional removal, or topical β-blockers, such as timolol.¹² β-Blocking agents act on β-adrenergic receptors on endothelial cells to inhibit angiogenesis by reducing release of blood vessel growth-signaling molecules and triggering apoptosis. In this patient, topical steroids and oral antihistamines were sufficient treatment.

Vaccine-related adverse events have been reported but remain rare. The benefits of Ad26.COV2.S vaccination for protection against COVID-19 outweigh the extremely low risk for adverse events.¹³ For that reason, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends a booster for individuals who are eligible to maximize protection. Intramuscular injection of Ad26.COV2.S resulted in a lower incidence of moderate to severe COVID-19 cases in all age groups vs the placebo group. Hypersensitivity adverse events were reported in 0.4% of Ad26.COV2.S-vaccinated patients vs 0.4% of patients who received a placebo; the more common reactions were nonanaphylactic.¹³

There have been 12 reports of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis with thrombocytopenia after Ad26.COV2.S vaccination, which sparked nationwide controversy over the safety of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine.¹⁴ After further investigation into those reports, the US Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded that the benefits of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine outweigh the low risk for associated thrombosis.¹⁵

Although adverse reactions are rare, it is important that health care providers take proper safety measures before and while administering any COVID-19 vaccine. Patients should be screened for contraindications to the COVID-19 vaccine to mitigate adverse effects seen in the small percentage of patients who may need to take alternative precautions.

The broad tissue tropism and high transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 are the main contributors to its infection having reached pandemic scale. The spike (S) protein on SARS-CoV-2 binds to ACE2, the most thoroughly studied SARS-CoV-2 receptor, which is found in a range of tissues, including arterial endothelial cells, leading to its transfection. Several studies have proposed that expression of the S protein causes endothelial dysfunction through cytokine release, activation of complement, and ultimately microvascular occlusion.¹⁶

Recent developments in the use of viral-like particles, such as vesicular stomatitis virus, may mitigate future cases of RAE that are associated with endothelial cell transfection. Vesicular stomatitis virus is a popular model virus for research applications due to its glycoprotein and matrix protein contributing to its broad tropism. Recent efforts to alter these proteins have successfully limited the broad tropism of vesicular stomatitis virus.¹⁷

The SARS-CoV-2 virus must be handled in a Biosafety Level 3 laboratory. Conversely, pseudoviruses can be handled in lower containment facilities due to their safe and efficacious nature, offering an avenue to expedite vaccine development against many viral outbreaks, including SARS-CoV-2.¹⁸

An increasing number of cutaneous manifestations have been associated with COVID-19 infection and vaccination. Eruptive pseudoangiomatosis, a rare self-limiting exanthem, has been reported in association with ­COVID-19 vaccination.¹⁹ Eruptive pseudoangiomatosis manifests as erythematous blanchable papules that resemble angiomas, typically in a widespread distribution. Eruptive pseudoangiomatosis has striking similarities to RAE histologically; both manifest as dilated dermal blood vessels with plump endothelial cells.

Our case is unique because of the vasculitic palpable nature of the lesions, which were localized to the left arm. Eruptive pseudoangiomatosis formation after COVID-19 infection or SARS-CoV-2 vaccination may suggest alteration of ACE2 by binding of S protein.²⁰ Such alteration of the ACE2 pathway would lead to inflammation of angiotensin II, causing proliferation of endothelial cells in the formation of angiomalike lesions. This hypothesis suggests a paraviral eruption secondary to an immunologic reaction, not a classical virtual eruption from direct contact of the virus on blood vessels. Although EPA and RAE are harmless and self-limiting, these reports will spread awareness of the increasing number of skin manifestations related to COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 virus vaccination.

Acknowledgment—Thoughtful insights and comments on this manuscript were provided by Christine J. Ko, MD (New Haven, Connecticut); Christine L. Egan, MD (Glen Mills, Pennsylvania); Howard A. Bueller, MD (Delray Beach, Florida); and Juan Pablo Robles, PhD (Juriquilla, Mexico).

To the Editor:

Reactive angioendotheliomatosis (RAE) is a rare self-limited cutaneous vascular proliferation of endothelial cells within blood vessels that manifests clinically as infiltrated red-blue patches and plaques with purpura that can progress to occlude vascular lumina. The etiology of RAE is mostly idiopathic; however, the disorder typically occurs in association with a range of systemic diseases, including infection, cryoglobulinemia, leukemia, antiphospholipid syndrome, peripheral vascular disease, and arteriovenous fistula. Histopathologic examination of these lesions shows marked proliferation of endothelial cells, including occlusion of the lumen of blood vessels over wide areas.

After ruling out malignancy, treatment of RAE focuses on targeting the underlying cause or disease, if any is present; 75% of reported cases occur in association with systemic disease.¹ Onset can occur at any age without predilection for sex. Reactive angioendotheliomatosis commonly manifests on the extremities but may occur on the head and neck in rare instances.²

The rarity of the condition and its poorly defined clinical characteristics make it difficult to develop a treatment plan. There are no standardized treatment guidelines for the reactive form of angiomatosis. We report a case of RAE that developed 2 weeks after vaccination with the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine (Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine [formerly Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson]) that improved following 2 weeks of treatment with a topical corticosteroid and an oral antihistamine.

A 58-year-old man presented to an outpatient dermatology clinic with pruritus and occasional paresthesia associated with a rash over the left arm of 1 month’s duration. The patient suspected that the rash may have formed secondary to the bite of oak mites on the arms and chest while he was carrying milled wood. Further inquiry into the patient’s history revealed that he received the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine 2 weeks prior to the appearance of the rash. He denied mechanical trauma. His medical history included hypercholesterolemia and a mild COVID-19 infection 8 months prior to the appearance of the rash that did not require hospitalization. He denied fever or chills during the 2 weeks following vaccination. The pruritus was minimally relieved for short periods with over-the-counter calamine lotion. The patient’s medication regimen included daily pravastatin and loratadine at the time of the initial visit. He used acetaminophen as needed for knee pain.

Physical examination revealed palpable purpura in a dermatomal distribution with nonpitting edema over the left scapula (Figure 1A), left anterolateral shoulder, left lateral volar forearm, and thenar eminence of the left hand (Figure 1B). Notably, the entire right arm, conjunctivae, tongue, lips, and bilateral fingernails were clear. Three 4-mm punch biopsies were performed at the initial presentation: 1 perilesional biopsy for direct immunofluorescence testing and 2 lesional biopsies for routine histologic evaluation. An extensive serologic workup failed to reveal abnormalities. An activated partial thromboplastin time, dilute Russell viper venom time, serum protein electrophoresis, and levels of rheumatoid factor and angiotensin-converting enzyme were within reference range. Anticardiolipin antibodies IgA, IgM, and IgG were negative. A cryoglobulin test was negative.

Histopathology revealed a proliferation of irregularly shaped vascular spaces with plump endothelium in the papillary dermis (Figure 2). Scattered leukocyte common antigen-positive lymphocytes were noted within lesions. The epidermis appeared normal, without evidence of spongiosis or alteration of the stratum corneum. Immunohistochemical studies of the perilesional skin biopsy revealed positivity for CD31 and D2-40 (Figure 3). Specimens were negative for CD20 and human herpesvirus 8. Direct immunofluorescence of the perilesional biopsy was negative.

A diagnosis of RAE was made based on clinical and histologic findings. Treatment with triamcinolone ointment 0.1% twice daily and oral cetirizine 10 mg twice daily was initiated. Re-evaluation 2 weeks later revealed notable improvement in the affected areas, including decreased edema, improvement of the purpura, and absence of pruritus. The patient noted no further spread or blister formation while the active areas were being treated with the topical steroid. The treatment regimen was modified to triamcinolone ointment 0.1% once daily, and cetirizine was discontinued. At 3-month follow-up, active areas had completely resolved (Figure 4) and triamcinolone was discontinued. To date, the patient has not had recurrence of symptoms and remains healthy.

Gottron and Nikolowski³ reported the first case of RAE in an adult patient who presented with purpuric patches secondary to skin infarction. Current definitions use the umbrella term cutaneous reactive angiomatosis to cover 3 major subtypes: reactive angioendotheliomatosis, diffuse dermal angioendotheliomatosis, and acroangiodermatitis (pseudo-Kaposi sarcoma [KS]). The manifestation of these subgroups is clinically similar, and they must be differentiated through histologic evaluation.⁴

Reactive angioendotheliomatosis has an unknown pathogenesis and is poorly defined clinically. The exact pathophysiology is unknown but likely is linked to vaso-occlusion and hypoxia.¹ A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE, as well as a review of Science Direct, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library, using the terms reactive angioendotheliomatosis, COVID, vaccine, Ad26.COV2.S, and RAE in any combination revealed no prior cases of RAE in association with Ad26.COV2.S vaccination.

By the late 1980s, systemic angioendotheliomatosis was segregated into 2 distinct entities: malignant and reactive.⁴ The differential diagnosis of malignant systemic angioendotheliomatosis includes KS and angiosarcoma; nonmalignant causes are the variants of cutaneous reactive angiomatosis. It is important to rule out KS because of its malignant and deceptive nature. It is unknown if KS originates in blood vessels or lymphatic endothelial cells; however, evidence is strongly in favor of blood vessel origin using CD31 and CD34 endothelial markers.⁵ CD34 positivity is more reliable than CD31 in diagnosing KS, but the absence of both markers does not offer enough evidence to rule out KS on its own.⁶

In our patient, histopathology revealed cells positive for CD31 and D2-40; the latter is a lymphatic endothelial cell marker that stains the endothelium of lymphatic channels but not blood vessels.⁷ Positive D2-40 can be indicative of KS and non-KS lesions, each with a distinct staining pattern. D2-40 staining on non-KS lesions is confined to lymphatic vessels, as it was in our patient; in contrast, spindle-shaped cells also will be stained in KS lesions.⁸

Another cell marker, CD20, is a B cell–specific protein that can be measured to help diagnose malignant diseases such as B-cell lymphoma and leukemia. Human herpesvirus 8 (also known as KS-associated herpesvirus) is the infectious cause of KS and traditionally has been detected using methods such as the polymerase chain reaction.^9,10

Most cases of RAE are idiopathic and occur in association with systemic disease, which was not the case in our patient. We speculated that his reaction was most likely triggered by vascular transfection of endothelial cells secondary to Ad26.COV2.S vaccination. Alternatively, vaccination may have caused vascular occlusion, though the lack of cyanosis, nail changes, and route of inoculant make this less likely.

All approved COVID-19 vaccines are designed solely for intramuscular injection. In comparison to other types of tissue, muscles have superior vascularity, allowing for enhanced mobilization of compounds, which results in faster systemic circulation.¹¹ Alternative methods of injection, including intravascular, subcutaneous, and intradermal, may lead to decreased efficacy or adverse events, or both.

Prior cases of RAE have been treated with laser therapy, topical or systemic corticosteroids, excisional removal, or topical β-blockers, such as timolol.¹² β-Blocking agents act on β-adrenergic receptors on endothelial cells to inhibit angiogenesis by reducing release of blood vessel growth-signaling molecules and triggering apoptosis. In this patient, topical steroids and oral antihistamines were sufficient treatment.

Vaccine-related adverse events have been reported but remain rare. The benefits of Ad26.COV2.S vaccination for protection against COVID-19 outweigh the extremely low risk for adverse events.¹³ For that reason, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends a booster for individuals who are eligible to maximize protection. Intramuscular injection of Ad26.COV2.S resulted in a lower incidence of moderate to severe COVID-19 cases in all age groups vs the placebo group. Hypersensitivity adverse events were reported in 0.4% of Ad26.COV2.S-vaccinated patients vs 0.4% of patients who received a placebo; the more common reactions were nonanaphylactic.¹³

There have been 12 reports of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis with thrombocytopenia after Ad26.COV2.S vaccination, which sparked nationwide controversy over the safety of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine.¹⁴ After further investigation into those reports, the US Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded that the benefits of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine outweigh the low risk for associated thrombosis.¹⁵

Although adverse reactions are rare, it is important that health care providers take proper safety measures before and while administering any COVID-19 vaccine. Patients should be screened for contraindications to the COVID-19 vaccine to mitigate adverse effects seen in the small percentage of patients who may need to take alternative precautions.

The broad tissue tropism and high transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 are the main contributors to its infection having reached pandemic scale. The spike (S) protein on SARS-CoV-2 binds to ACE2, the most thoroughly studied SARS-CoV-2 receptor, which is found in a range of tissues, including arterial endothelial cells, leading to its transfection. Several studies have proposed that expression of the S protein causes endothelial dysfunction through cytokine release, activation of complement, and ultimately microvascular occlusion.¹⁶

Recent developments in the use of viral-like particles, such as vesicular stomatitis virus, may mitigate future cases of RAE that are associated with endothelial cell transfection. Vesicular stomatitis virus is a popular model virus for research applications due to its glycoprotein and matrix protein contributing to its broad tropism. Recent efforts to alter these proteins have successfully limited the broad tropism of vesicular stomatitis virus.¹⁷

The SARS-CoV-2 virus must be handled in a Biosafety Level 3 laboratory. Conversely, pseudoviruses can be handled in lower containment facilities due to their safe and efficacious nature, offering an avenue to expedite vaccine development against many viral outbreaks, including SARS-CoV-2.¹⁸

An increasing number of cutaneous manifestations have been associated with COVID-19 infection and vaccination. Eruptive pseudoangiomatosis, a rare self-limiting exanthem, has been reported in association with ­COVID-19 vaccination.¹⁹ Eruptive pseudoangiomatosis manifests as erythematous blanchable papules that resemble angiomas, typically in a widespread distribution. Eruptive pseudoangiomatosis has striking similarities to RAE histologically; both manifest as dilated dermal blood vessels with plump endothelial cells.

Our case is unique because of the vasculitic palpable nature of the lesions, which were localized to the left arm. Eruptive pseudoangiomatosis formation after COVID-19 infection or SARS-CoV-2 vaccination may suggest alteration of ACE2 by binding of S protein.²⁰ Such alteration of the ACE2 pathway would lead to inflammation of angiotensin II, causing proliferation of endothelial cells in the formation of angiomalike lesions. This hypothesis suggests a paraviral eruption secondary to an immunologic reaction, not a classical virtual eruption from direct contact of the virus on blood vessels. Although EPA and RAE are harmless and self-limiting, these reports will spread awareness of the increasing number of skin manifestations related to COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 virus vaccination.

Acknowledgment—Thoughtful insights and comments on this manuscript were provided by Christine J. Ko, MD (New Haven, Connecticut); Christine L. Egan, MD (Glen Mills, Pennsylvania); Howard A. Bueller, MD (Delray Beach, Florida); and Juan Pablo Robles, PhD (Juriquilla, Mexico).

Measuring serum hormone concentrations in postmenopausal women at high risk for developing breast cancer may help identify those most likely to benefit from preventive treatment with an aromatase inhibitor, according to findings from a case-control study using data from a large breast cancer prevention trial.

In the randomized, placebo-controlled IBIS-II prevention trial of 3864 women aged 40-70 years at increased risk for developing breast cancer, treatment with the aromatase inhibitor anastrozole was associated with a 49% reduction in breast cancer incidence. At median follow-up of 131 months, breast cancer occurred in 85 (4.4%) versus 165 (8.5%) of patients in the anastrozole and placebo arms, respectively.

A preplanned case-control study involving 212 participants from the anastrozole group (72 cases and 140 controls) and 416 from the placebo group (142 cases and 274 controls), showed a significant trend toward increasing breast cancer risk with increasing estradiol-to-sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG) ratio in the placebo group, but not in the anastrozole group (trend per quartile, 1.25 vs 1.06), reported Jack Cuzick, PhD, of the Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, UK, and colleagues.

A weaker but still significant effect was observed for the testosterone-SHBG ratio in the placebo group (trend, 1.21), but again, no such effect was seen in the anastrozole group (trend, 1.18).

A relative benefit was seen for anastrozole in estradiol concentration quartiles 2, 3, and 4 (relative risk [RR], 0.55, 0.54, and 0.56, respectively), but not in quartile 1.

The findings were published online December 6 in The Lancet Oncology.

Study participants were recruited from 153 breast cancer treatment centers across 18 countries and randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive 1 mg of oral anastrozole daily or placebo. For the case-control analysis, the investigators looked at the effects of baseline estradiol to SHBG ratio on the development of all breast cancers, including ductal carcinoma in situ. They also assessed the relative benefit of anastrozole versus placebo.

Case patients were those diagnosed with breast cancer after trial entry through data cutoff on October 22, 2019, and who had not used hormone replacement therapy within 3 months of trial entry or during the trial. Controls were participants without breast cancer who were randomly selected and matched according to treatment group, age, and follow-up time.

“Although the association between estradiol and breast cancer risk is well established, less is known about whether the concentrations of these hormones have an effect on the efficacy of preventive therapy with selective estrogen receptor modulators or aromatase inhibitors in women at increased risk of developing breast cancer,” the investigators noted, explaining that in the current analysis, they “tested the hypothesis that, for women with a low estradiol–SHBG ratio, anastrozole would provide little or no reduction in the risk of breast cancer.”

The results from the placebo group “confirm the increasing risk of breast cancer associated with higher estradiol and testosterone concentrations, and a decreasing risk associated with increasing SHBG concentrations in women who were not randomly allocated to receive anastrozole,” they said.

“However, to our knowledge, this is the first report of the effect of low concentrations of estradiol or testosterone on a lack of response to aromatase inhibitor treatment, either as a preventive measure or in the adjuvant setting,” they added. “These data provide support for the hypothesis that preventive therapy with an aromatase inhibitor is likely to be most effective for women with higher estradiol-to-SHBG ratios and, conversely, of little or no benefit for those with low estradiol-to-SHBG ratios.”

Thus, measurement of estradiol and SHBG concentrations might be helpful in making decisions about using inhibitors both for treatment and prevention, they continued, underscoring the importance of using assays sensitive enough to measure low estradiol concentrations in the plasma in postmenopausal women.

“We used a very sensitive liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectroscopy assay (lower limit of sensitivity of 3 pmol/L), which allowed us to accurately measure the low concentrations of estradiol and SHBG in the serum samples from our population of postmenopausal women. Wider use of this type of assay or a similar assay will be necessary to implement any of the actions suggested by this study,” they explained.

The findings “suggest a potential role for measuring estradiol, testosterone, and SHBG more widely, both in determining which individuals are at high risk and the likely response to endocrine treatment,” they concluded, noting that measuring serum hormones is inexpensive and, if used more routinely in high-risk clinics and for treatment of early breast cancer, could “substantially improve disease management.”

This study was funded by Cancer Research UK, National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and DaCosta Fund. Dr. Cuzick reported receiving royalties from Cancer Research UK for commercial use of the IBIS (Tyrer-Cuzick) breast cancer risk evaluation software.

Measuring serum hormone concentrations in postmenopausal women at high risk for developing breast cancer may help identify those most likely to benefit from preventive treatment with an aromatase inhibitor, according to findings from a case-control study using data from a large breast cancer prevention trial.

In the randomized, placebo-controlled IBIS-II prevention trial of 3864 women aged 40-70 years at increased risk for developing breast cancer, treatment with the aromatase inhibitor anastrozole was associated with a 49% reduction in breast cancer incidence. At median follow-up of 131 months, breast cancer occurred in 85 (4.4%) versus 165 (8.5%) of patients in the anastrozole and placebo arms, respectively.

A preplanned case-control study involving 212 participants from the anastrozole group (72 cases and 140 controls) and 416 from the placebo group (142 cases and 274 controls), showed a significant trend toward increasing breast cancer risk with increasing estradiol-to-sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG) ratio in the placebo group, but not in the anastrozole group (trend per quartile, 1.25 vs 1.06), reported Jack Cuzick, PhD, of the Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, UK, and colleagues.

A weaker but still significant effect was observed for the testosterone-SHBG ratio in the placebo group (trend, 1.21), but again, no such effect was seen in the anastrozole group (trend, 1.18).

A relative benefit was seen for anastrozole in estradiol concentration quartiles 2, 3, and 4 (relative risk [RR], 0.55, 0.54, and 0.56, respectively), but not in quartile 1.

The findings were published online December 6 in The Lancet Oncology.

Study participants were recruited from 153 breast cancer treatment centers across 18 countries and randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive 1 mg of oral anastrozole daily or placebo. For the case-control analysis, the investigators looked at the effects of baseline estradiol to SHBG ratio on the development of all breast cancers, including ductal carcinoma in situ. They also assessed the relative benefit of anastrozole versus placebo.

Case patients were those diagnosed with breast cancer after trial entry through data cutoff on October 22, 2019, and who had not used hormone replacement therapy within 3 months of trial entry or during the trial. Controls were participants without breast cancer who were randomly selected and matched according to treatment group, age, and follow-up time.

“Although the association between estradiol and breast cancer risk is well established, less is known about whether the concentrations of these hormones have an effect on the efficacy of preventive therapy with selective estrogen receptor modulators or aromatase inhibitors in women at increased risk of developing breast cancer,” the investigators noted, explaining that in the current analysis, they “tested the hypothesis that, for women with a low estradiol–SHBG ratio, anastrozole would provide little or no reduction in the risk of breast cancer.”

The results from the placebo group “confirm the increasing risk of breast cancer associated with higher estradiol and testosterone concentrations, and a decreasing risk associated with increasing SHBG concentrations in women who were not randomly allocated to receive anastrozole,” they said.

“However, to our knowledge, this is the first report of the effect of low concentrations of estradiol or testosterone on a lack of response to aromatase inhibitor treatment, either as a preventive measure or in the adjuvant setting,” they added. “These data provide support for the hypothesis that preventive therapy with an aromatase inhibitor is likely to be most effective for women with higher estradiol-to-SHBG ratios and, conversely, of little or no benefit for those with low estradiol-to-SHBG ratios.”

Thus, measurement of estradiol and SHBG concentrations might be helpful in making decisions about using inhibitors both for treatment and prevention, they continued, underscoring the importance of using assays sensitive enough to measure low estradiol concentrations in the plasma in postmenopausal women.

“We used a very sensitive liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectroscopy assay (lower limit of sensitivity of 3 pmol/L), which allowed us to accurately measure the low concentrations of estradiol and SHBG in the serum samples from our population of postmenopausal women. Wider use of this type of assay or a similar assay will be necessary to implement any of the actions suggested by this study,” they explained.

The findings “suggest a potential role for measuring estradiol, testosterone, and SHBG more widely, both in determining which individuals are at high risk and the likely response to endocrine treatment,” they concluded, noting that measuring serum hormones is inexpensive and, if used more routinely in high-risk clinics and for treatment of early breast cancer, could “substantially improve disease management.”

This study was funded by Cancer Research UK, National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and DaCosta Fund. Dr. Cuzick reported receiving royalties from Cancer Research UK for commercial use of the IBIS (Tyrer-Cuzick) breast cancer risk evaluation software.

Measuring serum hormone concentrations in postmenopausal women at high risk for developing breast cancer may help identify those most likely to benefit from preventive treatment with an aromatase inhibitor, according to findings from a case-control study using data from a large breast cancer prevention trial.

In the randomized, placebo-controlled IBIS-II prevention trial of 3864 women aged 40-70 years at increased risk for developing breast cancer, treatment with the aromatase inhibitor anastrozole was associated with a 49% reduction in breast cancer incidence. At median follow-up of 131 months, breast cancer occurred in 85 (4.4%) versus 165 (8.5%) of patients in the anastrozole and placebo arms, respectively.

A preplanned case-control study involving 212 participants from the anastrozole group (72 cases and 140 controls) and 416 from the placebo group (142 cases and 274 controls), showed a significant trend toward increasing breast cancer risk with increasing estradiol-to-sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG) ratio in the placebo group, but not in the anastrozole group (trend per quartile, 1.25 vs 1.06), reported Jack Cuzick, PhD, of the Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, UK, and colleagues.

A weaker but still significant effect was observed for the testosterone-SHBG ratio in the placebo group (trend, 1.21), but again, no such effect was seen in the anastrozole group (trend, 1.18).

A relative benefit was seen for anastrozole in estradiol concentration quartiles 2, 3, and 4 (relative risk [RR], 0.55, 0.54, and 0.56, respectively), but not in quartile 1.

The findings were published online December 6 in The Lancet Oncology.

Study participants were recruited from 153 breast cancer treatment centers across 18 countries and randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive 1 mg of oral anastrozole daily or placebo. For the case-control analysis, the investigators looked at the effects of baseline estradiol to SHBG ratio on the development of all breast cancers, including ductal carcinoma in situ. They also assessed the relative benefit of anastrozole versus placebo.

Case patients were those diagnosed with breast cancer after trial entry through data cutoff on October 22, 2019, and who had not used hormone replacement therapy within 3 months of trial entry or during the trial. Controls were participants without breast cancer who were randomly selected and matched according to treatment group, age, and follow-up time.

“Although the association between estradiol and breast cancer risk is well established, less is known about whether the concentrations of these hormones have an effect on the efficacy of preventive therapy with selective estrogen receptor modulators or aromatase inhibitors in women at increased risk of developing breast cancer,” the investigators noted, explaining that in the current analysis, they “tested the hypothesis that, for women with a low estradiol–SHBG ratio, anastrozole would provide little or no reduction in the risk of breast cancer.”

The results from the placebo group “confirm the increasing risk of breast cancer associated with higher estradiol and testosterone concentrations, and a decreasing risk associated with increasing SHBG concentrations in women who were not randomly allocated to receive anastrozole,” they said.

“However, to our knowledge, this is the first report of the effect of low concentrations of estradiol or testosterone on a lack of response to aromatase inhibitor treatment, either as a preventive measure or in the adjuvant setting,” they added. “These data provide support for the hypothesis that preventive therapy with an aromatase inhibitor is likely to be most effective for women with higher estradiol-to-SHBG ratios and, conversely, of little or no benefit for those with low estradiol-to-SHBG ratios.”

Thus, measurement of estradiol and SHBG concentrations might be helpful in making decisions about using inhibitors both for treatment and prevention, they continued, underscoring the importance of using assays sensitive enough to measure low estradiol concentrations in the plasma in postmenopausal women.

“We used a very sensitive liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectroscopy assay (lower limit of sensitivity of 3 pmol/L), which allowed us to accurately measure the low concentrations of estradiol and SHBG in the serum samples from our population of postmenopausal women. Wider use of this type of assay or a similar assay will be necessary to implement any of the actions suggested by this study,” they explained.

The findings “suggest a potential role for measuring estradiol, testosterone, and SHBG more widely, both in determining which individuals are at high risk and the likely response to endocrine treatment,” they concluded, noting that measuring serum hormones is inexpensive and, if used more routinely in high-risk clinics and for treatment of early breast cancer, could “substantially improve disease management.”

This study was funded by Cancer Research UK, National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and DaCosta Fund. Dr. Cuzick reported receiving royalties from Cancer Research UK for commercial use of the IBIS (Tyrer-Cuzick) breast cancer risk evaluation software.

TOPLINE:

Removing race and incorporating social determinants of health (SDOH) into the pooled cohort risk equations (PCEs) for predicting atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) outcomes made no difference to patients’ risk scores.

METHODOLOGY:

• Primary prevention guidelines recommend using risk prediction algorithms to assess the 10-year ASCVD risk, with the currently recommended PCEs including race.
• Researchers evaluated the incremental value of revised risk prediction equations excluding race and introducing SDOH in 11,638 participants from the Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) cohort.
• Participants were aged between 45 and 79 years, had no history of ASCVD, and were not taking statins.
• Participants were followed up to 10 years for incident ASCVD, including myocardial infarction, coronary heart disease death, and fatal and nonfatal stroke.

TAKEAWAY:

• Risk prediction equations performed similarly in race- and sex-stratified PCEs (C-statistic [95% CI])
• Black female: 0.71 (0.68-0.75); Black male: 0.68 (0.64-0.73); White female: 0.77 (0.74-0.80); White male: 0.68 (0.65-0.71)
• Race-free sex-specific PCEs yielded similar discrimination as race- and sex-stratified PCEs (C-statistic [95% CI]):
• Black female: 0.71 (0.67-0.75); Black male: 0.68 (0.63-0.72); White female: 0.76 (0.73-0.80); White male: 0.68 (0.65-0.71)
• The addition of SDOH to race-free sex-specific PCEs did not improve model performance (C-statistic [95% CI]):
• Black female: 0.72 (0.68-0.76); Black male: 0.68 (0.64-0.72); White female: 0.77 (0.74-0.80); White male: 0.68 (0.65-0.71)

IN PRACTICE:

“The major takeaway is we need to rethink the idea of race in cardiovascular risk prediction,” lead author Arnab Ghosh, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College and a hospitalist at New York-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, said in a press release.

“It’s essential for clinicians and scientists to consider how to appropriately address the health effects of race as a social construct, which has contributed to health disparities in cardiovascular outcomes,” Dr. Ghosh added.

SOURCE:

The study led by Dr. Ghosh was published online on December 6, 2023, in JAMA Cardiology with an Editor’s Note.

LIMITATIONS:

The study required informed consent for inclusion, which may have led to selection bias.

The REGARDS cohort’s SDOH may not have captured all social and socioeconomic influences on ASCVD outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

The research was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, and others. Some authors declared receiving funding, grants, or personal fees from various sources.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Removing race and incorporating social determinants of health (SDOH) into the pooled cohort risk equations (PCEs) for predicting atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) outcomes made no difference to patients’ risk scores.

METHODOLOGY:

• Primary prevention guidelines recommend using risk prediction algorithms to assess the 10-year ASCVD risk, with the currently recommended PCEs including race.
• Researchers evaluated the incremental value of revised risk prediction equations excluding race and introducing SDOH in 11,638 participants from the Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) cohort.
• Participants were aged between 45 and 79 years, had no history of ASCVD, and were not taking statins.
• Participants were followed up to 10 years for incident ASCVD, including myocardial infarction, coronary heart disease death, and fatal and nonfatal stroke.

TAKEAWAY:

• Risk prediction equations performed similarly in race- and sex-stratified PCEs (C-statistic [95% CI])
• Black female: 0.71 (0.68-0.75); Black male: 0.68 (0.64-0.73); White female: 0.77 (0.74-0.80); White male: 0.68 (0.65-0.71)
• Race-free sex-specific PCEs yielded similar discrimination as race- and sex-stratified PCEs (C-statistic [95% CI]):
• Black female: 0.71 (0.67-0.75); Black male: 0.68 (0.63-0.72); White female: 0.76 (0.73-0.80); White male: 0.68 (0.65-0.71)
• The addition of SDOH to race-free sex-specific PCEs did not improve model performance (C-statistic [95% CI]):
• Black female: 0.72 (0.68-0.76); Black male: 0.68 (0.64-0.72); White female: 0.77 (0.74-0.80); White male: 0.68 (0.65-0.71)

IN PRACTICE:

“The major takeaway is we need to rethink the idea of race in cardiovascular risk prediction,” lead author Arnab Ghosh, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College and a hospitalist at New York-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, said in a press release.

“It’s essential for clinicians and scientists to consider how to appropriately address the health effects of race as a social construct, which has contributed to health disparities in cardiovascular outcomes,” Dr. Ghosh added.

SOURCE:

The study led by Dr. Ghosh was published online on December 6, 2023, in JAMA Cardiology with an Editor’s Note.

LIMITATIONS:

The study required informed consent for inclusion, which may have led to selection bias.

The REGARDS cohort’s SDOH may not have captured all social and socioeconomic influences on ASCVD outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

The research was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, and others. Some authors declared receiving funding, grants, or personal fees from various sources.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Removing race and incorporating social determinants of health (SDOH) into the pooled cohort risk equations (PCEs) for predicting atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) outcomes made no difference to patients’ risk scores.

METHODOLOGY:

• Primary prevention guidelines recommend using risk prediction algorithms to assess the 10-year ASCVD risk, with the currently recommended PCEs including race.
• Researchers evaluated the incremental value of revised risk prediction equations excluding race and introducing SDOH in 11,638 participants from the Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) cohort.
• Participants were aged between 45 and 79 years, had no history of ASCVD, and were not taking statins.
• Participants were followed up to 10 years for incident ASCVD, including myocardial infarction, coronary heart disease death, and fatal and nonfatal stroke.

TAKEAWAY:

• Risk prediction equations performed similarly in race- and sex-stratified PCEs (C-statistic [95% CI])
• Black female: 0.71 (0.68-0.75); Black male: 0.68 (0.64-0.73); White female: 0.77 (0.74-0.80); White male: 0.68 (0.65-0.71)
• Race-free sex-specific PCEs yielded similar discrimination as race- and sex-stratified PCEs (C-statistic [95% CI]):
• Black female: 0.71 (0.67-0.75); Black male: 0.68 (0.63-0.72); White female: 0.76 (0.73-0.80); White male: 0.68 (0.65-0.71)
• The addition of SDOH to race-free sex-specific PCEs did not improve model performance (C-statistic [95% CI]):
• Black female: 0.72 (0.68-0.76); Black male: 0.68 (0.64-0.72); White female: 0.77 (0.74-0.80); White male: 0.68 (0.65-0.71)

IN PRACTICE:

“The major takeaway is we need to rethink the idea of race in cardiovascular risk prediction,” lead author Arnab Ghosh, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College and a hospitalist at New York-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, said in a press release.

“It’s essential for clinicians and scientists to consider how to appropriately address the health effects of race as a social construct, which has contributed to health disparities in cardiovascular outcomes,” Dr. Ghosh added.

SOURCE:

The study led by Dr. Ghosh was published online on December 6, 2023, in JAMA Cardiology with an Editor’s Note.

LIMITATIONS:

The study required informed consent for inclusion, which may have led to selection bias.

The REGARDS cohort’s SDOH may not have captured all social and socioeconomic influences on ASCVD outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

The research was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, and others. Some authors declared receiving funding, grants, or personal fees from various sources.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Two proposed new multiple myeloma staging systems offer similar prognostic accuracy compared with the standard staging system, but the new systems provide more refined risk classifications across different disease stages. 

The findings should encourage greater use of these newer staging systems in routine clinical practice, first author Manni Mohyuddin, MD, said during a presentation at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.

Dr. Mohyuddin and his colleagues retrospectively compared the standard Revised International Staging System (R-ISS) with two newer systems, the Second Revision of the R-ISS (R2-ISS) and the Mayo Additive Staging System (MASS), using real-world data from nearly 500 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

The R-ISS, the most common multiple myeloma staging system, incorporates a range of prognostic features, including high-risk genetic markers assessed using fluorescence in situ hybridization as well as levels of lactate dehydrogenase, albumin, and beta-2 microglobulin, explained Dr. Mohyuddin, assistant professor at the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

R2-ISS and MASS include additional factors that reflect experts’ growing understanding of multiple myeloma. Specifically, the systems also evaluate a gain of chromosome 1q, in which patients have an extra copy of chromosome 1q, as well as the additive effects of multiple high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, both of which indicate worse prognosis in multiple myeloma, Dr. Mohyuddin said in an interview.

To compare the three staging systems, the investigators used information on newly diagnosed patients in the Flatiron Health EHR–derived deidentified database, which includes data from cancer clinics across the United States. Patients were followed from first-line treatment initiation until death, the end of the study period, or last recorded activity.

The patients from the database had a median age of 70 years, and most had not received a transplant. The most common cytogenetic abnormality was gain 1q, present in about one third of patients. 

Given that the R2-ISS originated from patients in clinical trials, Dr. Mohyuddin noted the importance of assessing how the system would perform in a real-world setting. 

Of the 497 patients in the analysis, the R-ISS staging system classified 24% as stage I, 63% as stage II, and 13% as stage III. Overall survival differed across these R-ISS stages, indicating the system was prognostic for survival. Median overall survival was not reached for those with stage I disease, was 62.9 months for those with stage II disease, and 37.6 months for those with stage III disease.

Because the R-ISS doesn’t consider the additive effect of multiple cytogenetic abnormalities, many patients end up in the R-ISS stage II category but ultimately may have vastly different outcomes, Dr. Mohyuddin said.

The R2-ISS includes four risk categories, which provide more granularity to the stage II classification: Stage I is low risk, stage II is low-intermediate, stage III is intermediate, and stage IV is high risk. Using this staging system, 20% of patients were stage I, 25% were stage II, 46% were stage III, and 9% were stage IV.

The R2-ISS was also prognostic for survival, which generally worsened from stage I to stage IV: Median overall survival was not reached in stage I patients, was 69.3 months for stage II, 50.0 months for stage III, and 50.6 months for stage IV patients. However, Dr. Mohyuddin noted that there was some overlap in the survival curves for stages I and II and for stages III and IV.

When applying MASS, 34% of patients were categorized as stage I, 35% as stage II, and 31% as stage III disease. This system was prognostic for survival as well, with median overall survival of 76.9 months for stage I, 61.2 months for stage II, and 45.0 months for stage III.

With R2-ISS, many of those in R-ISS stage II are moved into stage I and III. With MASS, the R-ISS stage II patients are more evenly distributed across stages I, II, and III.

In other words, “we show that both these newer staging systems basically recategorize patients into different stages,” essentially “decreasing the number of people in the large, ambiguous (R-ISS) stage II category,” said Dr. Mohyuddin. 

Dr. Mohyuddin and colleagues also evaluated the staging systems in fully adjusted analyses that controlled for age, race/ethnicity, sex, practice type, and diagnosis year. 

Using R2-ISS, stage I patients had a similar risk for death compared with stage II patients (hazard ratio [HR], 1.2). Compared with stage I patients, stage III and IV patients had comparable risks for death, both about 2.5-fold higher than in those with stage I disease (HR, 2.4 and 2.6, respectively). 

Compared with stage I MASS patients, those with stage II had a twofold higher risk for death (HR, 2.0), and those with stage III had an almost threefold higher risk (HR, 2.7). 

Although no system considers all factors associated with myeloma outcomes, R2-ISS and MASS do offer a benefit over R-ISS, Dr. Mohyuddin said.

He added that the R2-ISS and MASS are similar from a statistical standpoint, but he gave MASS a slight edge for use in clinical practice.

MASS “more cleanly demarcated [patients] into prognostic subsets,” plus it is “a little easier to remember by heart,” he explained. MASS also puts more emphasis on the presence of multiple high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, which is a worse prognostic in this era of quadruplet therapy for multiple myeloma, he added.

Because the study largely took place in an era when triplet therapy dominated, “we would be curious to see, with longer follow-up and more use of quadruplets, how these staging systems would perform,” he said. 

Despite the benefits of these newer staging systems, many factors play a role in multiple myeloma outcomes, Dr. Mohyuddin explained. Staging systems are “only a piece of the puzzle.”

Dr. Mohyuddin reported having no financial interests to disclose.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Two proposed new multiple myeloma staging systems offer similar prognostic accuracy compared with the standard staging system, but the new systems provide more refined risk classifications across different disease stages. 

The findings should encourage greater use of these newer staging systems in routine clinical practice, first author Manni Mohyuddin, MD, said during a presentation at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.

Dr. Mohyuddin and his colleagues retrospectively compared the standard Revised International Staging System (R-ISS) with two newer systems, the Second Revision of the R-ISS (R2-ISS) and the Mayo Additive Staging System (MASS), using real-world data from nearly 500 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

The R-ISS, the most common multiple myeloma staging system, incorporates a range of prognostic features, including high-risk genetic markers assessed using fluorescence in situ hybridization as well as levels of lactate dehydrogenase, albumin, and beta-2 microglobulin, explained Dr. Mohyuddin, assistant professor at the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

R2-ISS and MASS include additional factors that reflect experts’ growing understanding of multiple myeloma. Specifically, the systems also evaluate a gain of chromosome 1q, in which patients have an extra copy of chromosome 1q, as well as the additive effects of multiple high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, both of which indicate worse prognosis in multiple myeloma, Dr. Mohyuddin said in an interview.

To compare the three staging systems, the investigators used information on newly diagnosed patients in the Flatiron Health EHR–derived deidentified database, which includes data from cancer clinics across the United States. Patients were followed from first-line treatment initiation until death, the end of the study period, or last recorded activity.

The patients from the database had a median age of 70 years, and most had not received a transplant. The most common cytogenetic abnormality was gain 1q, present in about one third of patients. 

Given that the R2-ISS originated from patients in clinical trials, Dr. Mohyuddin noted the importance of assessing how the system would perform in a real-world setting. 

Of the 497 patients in the analysis, the R-ISS staging system classified 24% as stage I, 63% as stage II, and 13% as stage III. Overall survival differed across these R-ISS stages, indicating the system was prognostic for survival. Median overall survival was not reached for those with stage I disease, was 62.9 months for those with stage II disease, and 37.6 months for those with stage III disease.

Because the R-ISS doesn’t consider the additive effect of multiple cytogenetic abnormalities, many patients end up in the R-ISS stage II category but ultimately may have vastly different outcomes, Dr. Mohyuddin said.

The R2-ISS includes four risk categories, which provide more granularity to the stage II classification: Stage I is low risk, stage II is low-intermediate, stage III is intermediate, and stage IV is high risk. Using this staging system, 20% of patients were stage I, 25% were stage II, 46% were stage III, and 9% were stage IV.

The R2-ISS was also prognostic for survival, which generally worsened from stage I to stage IV: Median overall survival was not reached in stage I patients, was 69.3 months for stage II, 50.0 months for stage III, and 50.6 months for stage IV patients. However, Dr. Mohyuddin noted that there was some overlap in the survival curves for stages I and II and for stages III and IV.

When applying MASS, 34% of patients were categorized as stage I, 35% as stage II, and 31% as stage III disease. This system was prognostic for survival as well, with median overall survival of 76.9 months for stage I, 61.2 months for stage II, and 45.0 months for stage III.

With R2-ISS, many of those in R-ISS stage II are moved into stage I and III. With MASS, the R-ISS stage II patients are more evenly distributed across stages I, II, and III.

In other words, “we show that both these newer staging systems basically recategorize patients into different stages,” essentially “decreasing the number of people in the large, ambiguous (R-ISS) stage II category,” said Dr. Mohyuddin. 

Dr. Mohyuddin and colleagues also evaluated the staging systems in fully adjusted analyses that controlled for age, race/ethnicity, sex, practice type, and diagnosis year. 

Using R2-ISS, stage I patients had a similar risk for death compared with stage II patients (hazard ratio [HR], 1.2). Compared with stage I patients, stage III and IV patients had comparable risks for death, both about 2.5-fold higher than in those with stage I disease (HR, 2.4 and 2.6, respectively). 

Compared with stage I MASS patients, those with stage II had a twofold higher risk for death (HR, 2.0), and those with stage III had an almost threefold higher risk (HR, 2.7). 

Although no system considers all factors associated with myeloma outcomes, R2-ISS and MASS do offer a benefit over R-ISS, Dr. Mohyuddin said.

He added that the R2-ISS and MASS are similar from a statistical standpoint, but he gave MASS a slight edge for use in clinical practice.

MASS “more cleanly demarcated [patients] into prognostic subsets,” plus it is “a little easier to remember by heart,” he explained. MASS also puts more emphasis on the presence of multiple high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, which is a worse prognostic in this era of quadruplet therapy for multiple myeloma, he added.

Because the study largely took place in an era when triplet therapy dominated, “we would be curious to see, with longer follow-up and more use of quadruplets, how these staging systems would perform,” he said. 

Despite the benefits of these newer staging systems, many factors play a role in multiple myeloma outcomes, Dr. Mohyuddin explained. Staging systems are “only a piece of the puzzle.”

Dr. Mohyuddin reported having no financial interests to disclose.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Two proposed new multiple myeloma staging systems offer similar prognostic accuracy compared with the standard staging system, but the new systems provide more refined risk classifications across different disease stages. 

The findings should encourage greater use of these newer staging systems in routine clinical practice, first author Manni Mohyuddin, MD, said during a presentation at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.

Dr. Mohyuddin and his colleagues retrospectively compared the standard Revised International Staging System (R-ISS) with two newer systems, the Second Revision of the R-ISS (R2-ISS) and the Mayo Additive Staging System (MASS), using real-world data from nearly 500 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

The R-ISS, the most common multiple myeloma staging system, incorporates a range of prognostic features, including high-risk genetic markers assessed using fluorescence in situ hybridization as well as levels of lactate dehydrogenase, albumin, and beta-2 microglobulin, explained Dr. Mohyuddin, assistant professor at the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

R2-ISS and MASS include additional factors that reflect experts’ growing understanding of multiple myeloma. Specifically, the systems also evaluate a gain of chromosome 1q, in which patients have an extra copy of chromosome 1q, as well as the additive effects of multiple high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, both of which indicate worse prognosis in multiple myeloma, Dr. Mohyuddin said in an interview.

To compare the three staging systems, the investigators used information on newly diagnosed patients in the Flatiron Health EHR–derived deidentified database, which includes data from cancer clinics across the United States. Patients were followed from first-line treatment initiation until death, the end of the study period, or last recorded activity.

The patients from the database had a median age of 70 years, and most had not received a transplant. The most common cytogenetic abnormality was gain 1q, present in about one third of patients. 

Given that the R2-ISS originated from patients in clinical trials, Dr. Mohyuddin noted the importance of assessing how the system would perform in a real-world setting. 

Of the 497 patients in the analysis, the R-ISS staging system classified 24% as stage I, 63% as stage II, and 13% as stage III. Overall survival differed across these R-ISS stages, indicating the system was prognostic for survival. Median overall survival was not reached for those with stage I disease, was 62.9 months for those with stage II disease, and 37.6 months for those with stage III disease.

Because the R-ISS doesn’t consider the additive effect of multiple cytogenetic abnormalities, many patients end up in the R-ISS stage II category but ultimately may have vastly different outcomes, Dr. Mohyuddin said.

The R2-ISS includes four risk categories, which provide more granularity to the stage II classification: Stage I is low risk, stage II is low-intermediate, stage III is intermediate, and stage IV is high risk. Using this staging system, 20% of patients were stage I, 25% were stage II, 46% were stage III, and 9% were stage IV.

The R2-ISS was also prognostic for survival, which generally worsened from stage I to stage IV: Median overall survival was not reached in stage I patients, was 69.3 months for stage II, 50.0 months for stage III, and 50.6 months for stage IV patients. However, Dr. Mohyuddin noted that there was some overlap in the survival curves for stages I and II and for stages III and IV.

When applying MASS, 34% of patients were categorized as stage I, 35% as stage II, and 31% as stage III disease. This system was prognostic for survival as well, with median overall survival of 76.9 months for stage I, 61.2 months for stage II, and 45.0 months for stage III.

With R2-ISS, many of those in R-ISS stage II are moved into stage I and III. With MASS, the R-ISS stage II patients are more evenly distributed across stages I, II, and III.

In other words, “we show that both these newer staging systems basically recategorize patients into different stages,” essentially “decreasing the number of people in the large, ambiguous (R-ISS) stage II category,” said Dr. Mohyuddin. 

Dr. Mohyuddin and colleagues also evaluated the staging systems in fully adjusted analyses that controlled for age, race/ethnicity, sex, practice type, and diagnosis year. 

Using R2-ISS, stage I patients had a similar risk for death compared with stage II patients (hazard ratio [HR], 1.2). Compared with stage I patients, stage III and IV patients had comparable risks for death, both about 2.5-fold higher than in those with stage I disease (HR, 2.4 and 2.6, respectively). 

Compared with stage I MASS patients, those with stage II had a twofold higher risk for death (HR, 2.0), and those with stage III had an almost threefold higher risk (HR, 2.7). 

Although no system considers all factors associated with myeloma outcomes, R2-ISS and MASS do offer a benefit over R-ISS, Dr. Mohyuddin said.

He added that the R2-ISS and MASS are similar from a statistical standpoint, but he gave MASS a slight edge for use in clinical practice.

MASS “more cleanly demarcated [patients] into prognostic subsets,” plus it is “a little easier to remember by heart,” he explained. MASS also puts more emphasis on the presence of multiple high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, which is a worse prognostic in this era of quadruplet therapy for multiple myeloma, he added.

Because the study largely took place in an era when triplet therapy dominated, “we would be curious to see, with longer follow-up and more use of quadruplets, how these staging systems would perform,” he said. 

Despite the benefits of these newer staging systems, many factors play a role in multiple myeloma outcomes, Dr. Mohyuddin explained. Staging systems are “only a piece of the puzzle.”

Dr. Mohyuddin reported having no financial interests to disclose.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In patients with Hashimoto disease and persistent symptoms despite adequate medical treatment, total thyroidectomy had a beneficial effect up to 5 years but with a substantially higher risk for complications than initially anticipated.

METHODOLOGY:

• The 5-year follow-up of 65 participants in a randomized, open-label trial of thyroidectomy plus medical management vs medical management alone aimed at testing the hypothesis that persistent symptoms despite adequate thyroxine replacement may be related to extrathyroidal autoimmune reactions and that complete removal of thyroid tissues may attenuate autoimmune responses and relieve symptoms.
• Patients in the control group were given the option of having surgery 18 months after enrollment, depending on trial results.
• The primary outcome was patient-reported health-related quality of life measured by the dimensional general health score in the generic Short Form-36 Health Survey questionnaire.

TAKEAWAY:

• The positive treatment effect seen after 18 months was maintained throughout the 3-year follow-up.
• In the intervention group, the improved general health score remained at the same level during the 5-year follow-up.
• Results were similar for the other Short Form-36 Health Survey domains and for total fatigue and chronic fatigue.
• Short-term (<12 months) or longer-lasting complications occurred in 23 patients, including 6 with recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis (4 were long-term) and 12 with hypoparathyroidism (6 long-term, including 3 permanent).
• Five patients had postoperative hematoma and/or infection requiring intervention.

IN PRACTICE:

“The improvements in patient-reported outcome measures reported at 18 months after surgery were maintained at 5 years after surgery in the intervention group. In contrast, no spontaneous improvement was seen during 3 years in the control group.”

“Long-term complications in 10 of 73 (14%) patients despite use of meticulous dissection to achieve total thyroidectomy is unacceptably high. Medication and compensatory mechanisms for hypoparathyroidism and unilateral recurrent nerve injury, respectively, did alleviate symptoms.”

SOURCE:

This study was published in Annals of Internal Medicine, by Geir Hoff, MD, PhD, of the Department of Research, Telemark Hospital, Skien, and the Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway, and colleagues.

LIMITATIONS:

None listed.

DISCLOSURES:

None.

TOPLINE:

In patients with Hashimoto disease and persistent symptoms despite adequate medical treatment, total thyroidectomy had a beneficial effect up to 5 years but with a substantially higher risk for complications than initially anticipated.

METHODOLOGY:

• The 5-year follow-up of 65 participants in a randomized, open-label trial of thyroidectomy plus medical management vs medical management alone aimed at testing the hypothesis that persistent symptoms despite adequate thyroxine replacement may be related to extrathyroidal autoimmune reactions and that complete removal of thyroid tissues may attenuate autoimmune responses and relieve symptoms.
• Patients in the control group were given the option of having surgery 18 months after enrollment, depending on trial results.
• The primary outcome was patient-reported health-related quality of life measured by the dimensional general health score in the generic Short Form-36 Health Survey questionnaire.

TAKEAWAY:

• The positive treatment effect seen after 18 months was maintained throughout the 3-year follow-up.
• In the intervention group, the improved general health score remained at the same level during the 5-year follow-up.
• Results were similar for the other Short Form-36 Health Survey domains and for total fatigue and chronic fatigue.
• Short-term (<12 months) or longer-lasting complications occurred in 23 patients, including 6 with recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis (4 were long-term) and 12 with hypoparathyroidism (6 long-term, including 3 permanent).
• Five patients had postoperative hematoma and/or infection requiring intervention.

IN PRACTICE:

“The improvements in patient-reported outcome measures reported at 18 months after surgery were maintained at 5 years after surgery in the intervention group. In contrast, no spontaneous improvement was seen during 3 years in the control group.”

“Long-term complications in 10 of 73 (14%) patients despite use of meticulous dissection to achieve total thyroidectomy is unacceptably high. Medication and compensatory mechanisms for hypoparathyroidism and unilateral recurrent nerve injury, respectively, did alleviate symptoms.”

SOURCE:

This study was published in Annals of Internal Medicine, by Geir Hoff, MD, PhD, of the Department of Research, Telemark Hospital, Skien, and the Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway, and colleagues.

LIMITATIONS:

None listed.

DISCLOSURES:

None.

TOPLINE:

In patients with Hashimoto disease and persistent symptoms despite adequate medical treatment, total thyroidectomy had a beneficial effect up to 5 years but with a substantially higher risk for complications than initially anticipated.

METHODOLOGY:

• The 5-year follow-up of 65 participants in a randomized, open-label trial of thyroidectomy plus medical management vs medical management alone aimed at testing the hypothesis that persistent symptoms despite adequate thyroxine replacement may be related to extrathyroidal autoimmune reactions and that complete removal of thyroid tissues may attenuate autoimmune responses and relieve symptoms.
• Patients in the control group were given the option of having surgery 18 months after enrollment, depending on trial results.
• The primary outcome was patient-reported health-related quality of life measured by the dimensional general health score in the generic Short Form-36 Health Survey questionnaire.

TAKEAWAY:

• The positive treatment effect seen after 18 months was maintained throughout the 3-year follow-up.
• In the intervention group, the improved general health score remained at the same level during the 5-year follow-up.
• Results were similar for the other Short Form-36 Health Survey domains and for total fatigue and chronic fatigue.
• Short-term (<12 months) or longer-lasting complications occurred in 23 patients, including 6 with recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis (4 were long-term) and 12 with hypoparathyroidism (6 long-term, including 3 permanent).
• Five patients had postoperative hematoma and/or infection requiring intervention.

IN PRACTICE:

“The improvements in patient-reported outcome measures reported at 18 months after surgery were maintained at 5 years after surgery in the intervention group. In contrast, no spontaneous improvement was seen during 3 years in the control group.”

“Long-term complications in 10 of 73 (14%) patients despite use of meticulous dissection to achieve total thyroidectomy is unacceptably high. Medication and compensatory mechanisms for hypoparathyroidism and unilateral recurrent nerve injury, respectively, did alleviate symptoms.”

SOURCE:

This study was published in Annals of Internal Medicine, by Geir Hoff, MD, PhD, of the Department of Research, Telemark Hospital, Skien, and the Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway, and colleagues.

LIMITATIONS:

None listed.

DISCLOSURES:

None.

Systematically biased artificial intelligence (AI) models did not improve clinicians’ accuracy in diagnosing hospitalized patients, based on data from more than 450 clinicians.

“Artificial Intelligence (AI) could support clinicians in their diagnostic decisions of hospitalized patients but could also be biased and cause potential harm,” said Sarah Jabbour, MSE, a PhD candidate in computer science and engineering at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in an interview.

“Regulatory guidance has suggested that the use of AI explanations could mitigate these harms, but the effectiveness of using AI explanations has not been established,” she said.

To examine whether AI explanations can be effective in mitigating the potential harms of systemic bias in AI models, Ms. Jabbour and colleagues conducted a randomized clinical vignette survey study. The survey was administered between April 2022 and January 2023 across 13 states, and the study population included hospitalist physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. The results were published in JAMA.

Participants were randomized to AI predictions with AI explanations (226 clinicians) or without AI explanations (231 clinicians).

The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy for pneumonia, heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, defined as the number of correct diagnoses over the total number of assessments, the researchers wrote.

The clinicians viewed nine clinical vignettes of patients hospitalized with acute respiratory failure, including their presenting symptoms, physical examination, laboratory results, and chest radiographs. Clinicians viewed two vignettes with no AI model input to establish baseline diagnostic accuracy. They made three assessments in each vignette, one for each diagnosis. The order of the vignettes was two without AI predictions (to establish baseline diagnostic accuracy), six with AI predictions, and one with a clinical consultation by a hypothetical colleague. The vignettes included standard and systematically biased AI models.

The baseline diagnostic accuracy was 73% for the diagnoses of pneumonia, heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Clinicians’ accuracy increased by 2.9% when they viewed a standard diagnostic AI model without explanations and by 4.4% when they viewed models with AI explanations.

However, clinicians’ accuracy decreased by 11.3% after viewing systematically biased AI model predictions without explanations compared with baseline, and biased AI model predictions with explanations decreased accuracy by 9.1%.

The decrease in accuracy with systematically biased AI predictions without explanations was mainly attributable to a decrease in the participants’ diagnostic specificity, the researchers noted, but the addition of explanations did little to improve it, the researchers said.

Potentially Useful but Still Imperfect

The findings were limited by several factors including the use of a web-based survey, which differs from surveys in a clinical setting, the researchers wrote. Other limitations included the younger than average study population, and the focus on the clinicians making treatment decisions, vs other clinicians who might have a better understanding of the AI explanations.

“In our study, explanations were presented in a way that were considered to be obvious, where the AI model was completely focused on areas of the chest X-rays unrelated to the clinical condition,” Ms. Jabbour told this news organization. “We hypothesized that if presented with such explanations, the participants in our study would notice that the model was behaving incorrectly and not rely on its predictions. This was surprisingly not the case, and the explanations when presented alongside biased AI predictions had seemingly no effect in mitigating clinicians’ overreliance on biased AI,” she said.

“AI is being developed at an extraordinary rate, and our study shows that it has the potential to improve clinical decision-making. At the same time, it could harm clinical decision-making when biased,” Ms. Jabbour said. “We must be thoughtful about how to carefully integrate AI into clinical workflows, with the goal of improving clinical care while not introducing systematic errors or harming patients,” she added.

Looking ahead, “There are several potential research areas that could be explored,” said Ms. Jabbour. “Researchers should focus on careful validation of AI models to identify biased model behavior prior to deployment. AI researchers should also continue including and communicating with clinicians during the development of AI tools to better understand clinicians’ needs and how they interact with AI,” she said. “This is not an exhaustive list of research directions, and it will take much discussion between experts across disciplines such as AI, human computer interaction, and medicine to ultimately deploy AI safely into clinical care.”

Don’t Overestimate AI

“With the increasing use of artificial intelligence and machine learning in other spheres, there has been an increase in interest in exploring how they can be utilized to improve clinical outcomes,” said Suman Pal, MD, assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, in an interview. “However, concerns remain regarding the possible harms and ways to mitigate them,” said Dr. Pal, who was not involved in the current study.

In the current study, “It was interesting to note that explanations did not significantly mitigate the decrease in clinician accuracy from systematically biased AI model predictions,” Dr. Pal said.

“For the clinician, the findings of this study caution against overreliance on AI in clinical decision-making, especially because of the risk of exacerbating existing health disparities due to systemic inequities in existing literature,” Dr. Pal told this news organization.

“Additional research is needed to explore how clinicians can be better trained in identifying both the utility and the limitations of AI and into methods of validation and continuous quality checks with integration of AI into clinical workflows,” he noted.

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

Systematically biased artificial intelligence (AI) models did not improve clinicians’ accuracy in diagnosing hospitalized patients, based on data from more than 450 clinicians.

“Artificial Intelligence (AI) could support clinicians in their diagnostic decisions of hospitalized patients but could also be biased and cause potential harm,” said Sarah Jabbour, MSE, a PhD candidate in computer science and engineering at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in an interview.

“Regulatory guidance has suggested that the use of AI explanations could mitigate these harms, but the effectiveness of using AI explanations has not been established,” she said.

To examine whether AI explanations can be effective in mitigating the potential harms of systemic bias in AI models, Ms. Jabbour and colleagues conducted a randomized clinical vignette survey study. The survey was administered between April 2022 and January 2023 across 13 states, and the study population included hospitalist physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. The results were published in JAMA.

Participants were randomized to AI predictions with AI explanations (226 clinicians) or without AI explanations (231 clinicians).

The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy for pneumonia, heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, defined as the number of correct diagnoses over the total number of assessments, the researchers wrote.

The clinicians viewed nine clinical vignettes of patients hospitalized with acute respiratory failure, including their presenting symptoms, physical examination, laboratory results, and chest radiographs. Clinicians viewed two vignettes with no AI model input to establish baseline diagnostic accuracy. They made three assessments in each vignette, one for each diagnosis. The order of the vignettes was two without AI predictions (to establish baseline diagnostic accuracy), six with AI predictions, and one with a clinical consultation by a hypothetical colleague. The vignettes included standard and systematically biased AI models.

The baseline diagnostic accuracy was 73% for the diagnoses of pneumonia, heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Clinicians’ accuracy increased by 2.9% when they viewed a standard diagnostic AI model without explanations and by 4.4% when they viewed models with AI explanations.

However, clinicians’ accuracy decreased by 11.3% after viewing systematically biased AI model predictions without explanations compared with baseline, and biased AI model predictions with explanations decreased accuracy by 9.1%.

The decrease in accuracy with systematically biased AI predictions without explanations was mainly attributable to a decrease in the participants’ diagnostic specificity, the researchers noted, but the addition of explanations did little to improve it, the researchers said.

Potentially Useful but Still Imperfect

The findings were limited by several factors including the use of a web-based survey, which differs from surveys in a clinical setting, the researchers wrote. Other limitations included the younger than average study population, and the focus on the clinicians making treatment decisions, vs other clinicians who might have a better understanding of the AI explanations.

“In our study, explanations were presented in a way that were considered to be obvious, where the AI model was completely focused on areas of the chest X-rays unrelated to the clinical condition,” Ms. Jabbour told this news organization. “We hypothesized that if presented with such explanations, the participants in our study would notice that the model was behaving incorrectly and not rely on its predictions. This was surprisingly not the case, and the explanations when presented alongside biased AI predictions had seemingly no effect in mitigating clinicians’ overreliance on biased AI,” she said.

“AI is being developed at an extraordinary rate, and our study shows that it has the potential to improve clinical decision-making. At the same time, it could harm clinical decision-making when biased,” Ms. Jabbour said. “We must be thoughtful about how to carefully integrate AI into clinical workflows, with the goal of improving clinical care while not introducing systematic errors or harming patients,” she added.

Looking ahead, “There are several potential research areas that could be explored,” said Ms. Jabbour. “Researchers should focus on careful validation of AI models to identify biased model behavior prior to deployment. AI researchers should also continue including and communicating with clinicians during the development of AI tools to better understand clinicians’ needs and how they interact with AI,” she said. “This is not an exhaustive list of research directions, and it will take much discussion between experts across disciplines such as AI, human computer interaction, and medicine to ultimately deploy AI safely into clinical care.”

Don’t Overestimate AI

“With the increasing use of artificial intelligence and machine learning in other spheres, there has been an increase in interest in exploring how they can be utilized to improve clinical outcomes,” said Suman Pal, MD, assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, in an interview. “However, concerns remain regarding the possible harms and ways to mitigate them,” said Dr. Pal, who was not involved in the current study.

In the current study, “It was interesting to note that explanations did not significantly mitigate the decrease in clinician accuracy from systematically biased AI model predictions,” Dr. Pal said.

“For the clinician, the findings of this study caution against overreliance on AI in clinical decision-making, especially because of the risk of exacerbating existing health disparities due to systemic inequities in existing literature,” Dr. Pal told this news organization.

“Additional research is needed to explore how clinicians can be better trained in identifying both the utility and the limitations of AI and into methods of validation and continuous quality checks with integration of AI into clinical workflows,” he noted.

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

Systematically biased artificial intelligence (AI) models did not improve clinicians’ accuracy in diagnosing hospitalized patients, based on data from more than 450 clinicians.

“Artificial Intelligence (AI) could support clinicians in their diagnostic decisions of hospitalized patients but could also be biased and cause potential harm,” said Sarah Jabbour, MSE, a PhD candidate in computer science and engineering at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in an interview.

“Regulatory guidance has suggested that the use of AI explanations could mitigate these harms, but the effectiveness of using AI explanations has not been established,” she said.

To examine whether AI explanations can be effective in mitigating the potential harms of systemic bias in AI models, Ms. Jabbour and colleagues conducted a randomized clinical vignette survey study. The survey was administered between April 2022 and January 2023 across 13 states, and the study population included hospitalist physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. The results were published in JAMA.

Participants were randomized to AI predictions with AI explanations (226 clinicians) or without AI explanations (231 clinicians).

The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy for pneumonia, heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, defined as the number of correct diagnoses over the total number of assessments, the researchers wrote.

The clinicians viewed nine clinical vignettes of patients hospitalized with acute respiratory failure, including their presenting symptoms, physical examination, laboratory results, and chest radiographs. Clinicians viewed two vignettes with no AI model input to establish baseline diagnostic accuracy. They made three assessments in each vignette, one for each diagnosis. The order of the vignettes was two without AI predictions (to establish baseline diagnostic accuracy), six with AI predictions, and one with a clinical consultation by a hypothetical colleague. The vignettes included standard and systematically biased AI models.

The baseline diagnostic accuracy was 73% for the diagnoses of pneumonia, heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Clinicians’ accuracy increased by 2.9% when they viewed a standard diagnostic AI model without explanations and by 4.4% when they viewed models with AI explanations.

However, clinicians’ accuracy decreased by 11.3% after viewing systematically biased AI model predictions without explanations compared with baseline, and biased AI model predictions with explanations decreased accuracy by 9.1%.

The decrease in accuracy with systematically biased AI predictions without explanations was mainly attributable to a decrease in the participants’ diagnostic specificity, the researchers noted, but the addition of explanations did little to improve it, the researchers said.

Potentially Useful but Still Imperfect

The findings were limited by several factors including the use of a web-based survey, which differs from surveys in a clinical setting, the researchers wrote. Other limitations included the younger than average study population, and the focus on the clinicians making treatment decisions, vs other clinicians who might have a better understanding of the AI explanations.

“In our study, explanations were presented in a way that were considered to be obvious, where the AI model was completely focused on areas of the chest X-rays unrelated to the clinical condition,” Ms. Jabbour told this news organization. “We hypothesized that if presented with such explanations, the participants in our study would notice that the model was behaving incorrectly and not rely on its predictions. This was surprisingly not the case, and the explanations when presented alongside biased AI predictions had seemingly no effect in mitigating clinicians’ overreliance on biased AI,” she said.

“AI is being developed at an extraordinary rate, and our study shows that it has the potential to improve clinical decision-making. At the same time, it could harm clinical decision-making when biased,” Ms. Jabbour said. “We must be thoughtful about how to carefully integrate AI into clinical workflows, with the goal of improving clinical care while not introducing systematic errors or harming patients,” she added.

Looking ahead, “There are several potential research areas that could be explored,” said Ms. Jabbour. “Researchers should focus on careful validation of AI models to identify biased model behavior prior to deployment. AI researchers should also continue including and communicating with clinicians during the development of AI tools to better understand clinicians’ needs and how they interact with AI,” she said. “This is not an exhaustive list of research directions, and it will take much discussion between experts across disciplines such as AI, human computer interaction, and medicine to ultimately deploy AI safely into clinical care.”

Don’t Overestimate AI

“With the increasing use of artificial intelligence and machine learning in other spheres, there has been an increase in interest in exploring how they can be utilized to improve clinical outcomes,” said Suman Pal, MD, assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, in an interview. “However, concerns remain regarding the possible harms and ways to mitigate them,” said Dr. Pal, who was not involved in the current study.

In the current study, “It was interesting to note that explanations did not significantly mitigate the decrease in clinician accuracy from systematically biased AI model predictions,” Dr. Pal said.

“For the clinician, the findings of this study caution against overreliance on AI in clinical decision-making, especially because of the risk of exacerbating existing health disparities due to systemic inequities in existing literature,” Dr. Pal told this news organization.

“Additional research is needed to explore how clinicians can be better trained in identifying both the utility and the limitations of AI and into methods of validation and continuous quality checks with integration of AI into clinical workflows,” he noted.

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

This is Dr. JoAnn Manson, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital. I’d like to talk about a recent report in the journal Hypertension that raises questions about whether blood pressure (BP) guidelines should be revisited and whether sex-specific thresholds and targets should be considered. Current BP guidelines are sex-agnostic.

This study was done in the large-scale nationally representative NHANES cohort. It included more than 53,000 US men and women. The average age was about 45 years, with an average duration of follow-up of 9.5 years. During that time, about 2400 cardiovascular (CVD) deaths were documented at baseline. The BP was measured three times, and the results were averaged. About 20% of the cohort were taking antihypertensive medications, and 80% were not.

Sex differences were observed in the association between BP and CVD mortality. The systolic BP associated with the lowest risk for CVD death was 110-119 mm Hg in men and 100-109 mm Hg in women. In men, however, compared with a reference category of systolic BP of 100-109 mm Hg, the risk for CVD death began to increase significantly at a systolic BP ≥ 160 mm Hg, at which point, the hazard ratio was 1.76, or 76% higher risk.

In women, the risk for CVD death began to increase significantly at a lower threshold. Compared with a reference category of systolic BP of 100-109 mm Hg, women whose systolic BP was 130-139 mm Hg had a significant 61% increase in CVD death, and among those with a systolic BP of 140-159 mm Hg, the risk was increased by 75%. With a systolic BP ≥ 160 mm Hg, CVD deaths among women were more than doubled, with a hazard ratio of 2.13.

Overall, these findings suggest sex differences, with women having an increased risk for CVD death beginning at a lower elevation of their systolic BP. For diastolic BP, both men and women showed the typical U-shaped curve and the diastolic BP associated with the lowest risk for CVD death was 70-80 mm Hg.

If these findings can be replicated with additional research and other large-scale cohort studies, and randomized trials show differences in lowering BP, then sex-specific BP guidelines could have advantages and should be seriously considered. Furthermore, some of the CVD risk scores and risk modeling should perhaps use sex-specific blood pressure thresholds.Dr. Manson received study pill donation and infrastructure support from Mars Symbioscience (for the COSMOS trial).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

This is Dr. JoAnn Manson, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital. I’d like to talk about a recent report in the journal Hypertension that raises questions about whether blood pressure (BP) guidelines should be revisited and whether sex-specific thresholds and targets should be considered. Current BP guidelines are sex-agnostic.

This study was done in the large-scale nationally representative NHANES cohort. It included more than 53,000 US men and women. The average age was about 45 years, with an average duration of follow-up of 9.5 years. During that time, about 2400 cardiovascular (CVD) deaths were documented at baseline. The BP was measured three times, and the results were averaged. About 20% of the cohort were taking antihypertensive medications, and 80% were not.

Sex differences were observed in the association between BP and CVD mortality. The systolic BP associated with the lowest risk for CVD death was 110-119 mm Hg in men and 100-109 mm Hg in women. In men, however, compared with a reference category of systolic BP of 100-109 mm Hg, the risk for CVD death began to increase significantly at a systolic BP ≥ 160 mm Hg, at which point, the hazard ratio was 1.76, or 76% higher risk.

In women, the risk for CVD death began to increase significantly at a lower threshold. Compared with a reference category of systolic BP of 100-109 mm Hg, women whose systolic BP was 130-139 mm Hg had a significant 61% increase in CVD death, and among those with a systolic BP of 140-159 mm Hg, the risk was increased by 75%. With a systolic BP ≥ 160 mm Hg, CVD deaths among women were more than doubled, with a hazard ratio of 2.13.

Overall, these findings suggest sex differences, with women having an increased risk for CVD death beginning at a lower elevation of their systolic BP. For diastolic BP, both men and women showed the typical U-shaped curve and the diastolic BP associated with the lowest risk for CVD death was 70-80 mm Hg.

If these findings can be replicated with additional research and other large-scale cohort studies, and randomized trials show differences in lowering BP, then sex-specific BP guidelines could have advantages and should be seriously considered. Furthermore, some of the CVD risk scores and risk modeling should perhaps use sex-specific blood pressure thresholds.Dr. Manson received study pill donation and infrastructure support from Mars Symbioscience (for the COSMOS trial).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

This is Dr. JoAnn Manson, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital. I’d like to talk about a recent report in the journal Hypertension that raises questions about whether blood pressure (BP) guidelines should be revisited and whether sex-specific thresholds and targets should be considered. Current BP guidelines are sex-agnostic.

This study was done in the large-scale nationally representative NHANES cohort. It included more than 53,000 US men and women. The average age was about 45 years, with an average duration of follow-up of 9.5 years. During that time, about 2400 cardiovascular (CVD) deaths were documented at baseline. The BP was measured three times, and the results were averaged. About 20% of the cohort were taking antihypertensive medications, and 80% were not.

Sex differences were observed in the association between BP and CVD mortality. The systolic BP associated with the lowest risk for CVD death was 110-119 mm Hg in men and 100-109 mm Hg in women. In men, however, compared with a reference category of systolic BP of 100-109 mm Hg, the risk for CVD death began to increase significantly at a systolic BP ≥ 160 mm Hg, at which point, the hazard ratio was 1.76, or 76% higher risk.

In women, the risk for CVD death began to increase significantly at a lower threshold. Compared with a reference category of systolic BP of 100-109 mm Hg, women whose systolic BP was 130-139 mm Hg had a significant 61% increase in CVD death, and among those with a systolic BP of 140-159 mm Hg, the risk was increased by 75%. With a systolic BP ≥ 160 mm Hg, CVD deaths among women were more than doubled, with a hazard ratio of 2.13.

Overall, these findings suggest sex differences, with women having an increased risk for CVD death beginning at a lower elevation of their systolic BP. For diastolic BP, both men and women showed the typical U-shaped curve and the diastolic BP associated with the lowest risk for CVD death was 70-80 mm Hg.

If these findings can be replicated with additional research and other large-scale cohort studies, and randomized trials show differences in lowering BP, then sex-specific BP guidelines could have advantages and should be seriously considered. Furthermore, some of the CVD risk scores and risk modeling should perhaps use sex-specific blood pressure thresholds.Dr. Manson received study pill donation and infrastructure support from Mars Symbioscience (for the COSMOS trial).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A study published last spring suggesting that hearing aids may help reduce dementia risk has been retracted due to a coding error identified by the authors. 

The study was published April 13 in The Lancet Public Health and reported at that time. It was retracted by the journal on December 12.

According to the retraction notice, the journal editors in late November were informed by the authors of the paper that an error was introduced in the output format setting of their SAS codes, which led to data for people with hearing loss using hearing aids and those with hearing loss without using hearing aids being switched. 

This led to errors in their analysis, “which render their findings and conclusions false and misleading,” the retraction notice states. 

These errors were identified by the researchers following an exchange with scientists seeking to reproduce the authors’ findings.In a statement, The Lancet Group said it “takes issues relating to research integrity extremely seriously” and follows best-practice guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). 

“Retractions are a rare but important part of the publishing process, and we are grateful to the scientists who prompted the re-examination of the data,” the statement reads. 

Despite the retraction, other studies have suggested a link between hearing and dementia. 

One study of US Medicare beneficiaries found a 61% higher dementia prevalence in those with moderate to severe hearing loss compared to those with normal hearing.

In this research, even mild hearing loss was associated with increased dementia risk, although it was not statistically significant, and use of hearing aids was tied to a 32% decrease in dementia prevalence. 

In addition, a large meta-analysis showed that hearing aids significantly reduce the risk for cognitive decline and dementia and even improve short-term cognitive function in individuals with hearing loss.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A study published last spring suggesting that hearing aids may help reduce dementia risk has been retracted due to a coding error identified by the authors. 

The study was published April 13 in The Lancet Public Health and reported at that time. It was retracted by the journal on December 12.

According to the retraction notice, the journal editors in late November were informed by the authors of the paper that an error was introduced in the output format setting of their SAS codes, which led to data for people with hearing loss using hearing aids and those with hearing loss without using hearing aids being switched. 

This led to errors in their analysis, “which render their findings and conclusions false and misleading,” the retraction notice states. 

These errors were identified by the researchers following an exchange with scientists seeking to reproduce the authors’ findings.In a statement, The Lancet Group said it “takes issues relating to research integrity extremely seriously” and follows best-practice guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). 

“Retractions are a rare but important part of the publishing process, and we are grateful to the scientists who prompted the re-examination of the data,” the statement reads. 

Despite the retraction, other studies have suggested a link between hearing and dementia. 

One study of US Medicare beneficiaries found a 61% higher dementia prevalence in those with moderate to severe hearing loss compared to those with normal hearing.

In this research, even mild hearing loss was associated with increased dementia risk, although it was not statistically significant, and use of hearing aids was tied to a 32% decrease in dementia prevalence. 

In addition, a large meta-analysis showed that hearing aids significantly reduce the risk for cognitive decline and dementia and even improve short-term cognitive function in individuals with hearing loss.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A study published last spring suggesting that hearing aids may help reduce dementia risk has been retracted due to a coding error identified by the authors. 

The study was published April 13 in The Lancet Public Health and reported at that time. It was retracted by the journal on December 12.

According to the retraction notice, the journal editors in late November were informed by the authors of the paper that an error was introduced in the output format setting of their SAS codes, which led to data for people with hearing loss using hearing aids and those with hearing loss without using hearing aids being switched. 

This led to errors in their analysis, “which render their findings and conclusions false and misleading,” the retraction notice states. 

These errors were identified by the researchers following an exchange with scientists seeking to reproduce the authors’ findings.In a statement, The Lancet Group said it “takes issues relating to research integrity extremely seriously” and follows best-practice guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). 

“Retractions are a rare but important part of the publishing process, and we are grateful to the scientists who prompted the re-examination of the data,” the statement reads. 

Despite the retraction, other studies have suggested a link between hearing and dementia. 

One study of US Medicare beneficiaries found a 61% higher dementia prevalence in those with moderate to severe hearing loss compared to those with normal hearing.

In this research, even mild hearing loss was associated with increased dementia risk, although it was not statistically significant, and use of hearing aids was tied to a 32% decrease in dementia prevalence. 

In addition, a large meta-analysis showed that hearing aids significantly reduce the risk for cognitive decline and dementia and even improve short-term cognitive function in individuals with hearing loss.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

‘Twas the night before Festivus and all through the house, everyone was griping.

In case you’ve only been watching Friends reruns lately, Festivus is a holiday that originated 25 years ago in the last season of Seinfeld. George’s father created it as an alternative to Christmas hype. In addition to an aluminum pole, the holiday features the annual airing of grievances, when one is encouraged to voice complaints. Aluminum poles haven’t replaced Christmas trees, but the spirit of Festivus is still with us in the widespread airing of grievances in 2023.

Kaiser Permanente

Complaining isn’t just a post-pandemic problem. Hector spends quite a bit of time complaining about Paris in the Iliad. That was a few pandemics ago. And repining is ubiquitous in literature — as human as walking on two limbs it seems. Ostensibly, we complain to effect change: Something is wrong and we expect it to be different. But that’s not the whole story. No one believes the weather will improve or the Patriots will play better because we complain about them. So why do we bother?

Even if nothing changes on the outside, it does seem to alter our internal state, serving a healthy psychological function. Putting to words what is aggravating can have the same benefit of deep breathing. We describe it as “getting something off our chest” because that’s what it feels like. We feel unburdened just by saying it out loud. Complaining is also a way to bond with others. We have a strong instinct to be with people like ourselves and what better way to connect than to find common suffering? Think about the last time you complained: Cranky staff, prior auths, Medicare, disrespectful patients, many of your colleagues will nod in agreement, validating your feelings and making you feel less isolated.

There are also maladaptive reasons for whining. It’s obviously an elementary way to get attention or to remove responsibility. It can also be a political weapon (office politics included). It’s such a potent way to connect that it’s used to build alliances and clout. “Washington is doing a great job,” said no candidate ever. No, if you want to get people on your side, find something irritating and complain to everyone how annoying it is. This solidifies “us” versus “them,” which can harm organizations and families alike.

Yet, eliminating all complaints is neither feasible, nor probably advisable. You could try to make your office a complaint-free zone, but the likely result would be to push any griping to the remote corners where you can no longer hear them. These criticisms might have uncovered missed opportunities, identify problems, and even improve cohesion if done in a safe and transparent setting. If they are left unaddressed or if the underlying culture isn’t sound, then they can propagate and lead to factions that harm productivity.

Griping is as much part of the holiday season as jingle bells and jelly donuts. I don’t believe complaining is up now because people were grumpier in 2023. Rather I think people just craved connection more than ever. So join in: Traffic after the time change, Tesla service, (super) late patients, prior auths, perioral dermatitis, post-COVID telogen effluvium.

I feel better.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X (formerly Twitter). Write to him at [email protected].

‘Twas the night before Festivus and all through the house, everyone was griping.

In case you’ve only been watching Friends reruns lately, Festivus is a holiday that originated 25 years ago in the last season of Seinfeld. George’s father created it as an alternative to Christmas hype. In addition to an aluminum pole, the holiday features the annual airing of grievances, when one is encouraged to voice complaints. Aluminum poles haven’t replaced Christmas trees, but the spirit of Festivus is still with us in the widespread airing of grievances in 2023.

Kaiser Permanente

Complaining isn’t just a post-pandemic problem. Hector spends quite a bit of time complaining about Paris in the Iliad. That was a few pandemics ago. And repining is ubiquitous in literature — as human as walking on two limbs it seems. Ostensibly, we complain to effect change: Something is wrong and we expect it to be different. But that’s not the whole story. No one believes the weather will improve or the Patriots will play better because we complain about them. So why do we bother?

Even if nothing changes on the outside, it does seem to alter our internal state, serving a healthy psychological function. Putting to words what is aggravating can have the same benefit of deep breathing. We describe it as “getting something off our chest” because that’s what it feels like. We feel unburdened just by saying it out loud. Complaining is also a way to bond with others. We have a strong instinct to be with people like ourselves and what better way to connect than to find common suffering? Think about the last time you complained: Cranky staff, prior auths, Medicare, disrespectful patients, many of your colleagues will nod in agreement, validating your feelings and making you feel less isolated.

There are also maladaptive reasons for whining. It’s obviously an elementary way to get attention or to remove responsibility. It can also be a political weapon (office politics included). It’s such a potent way to connect that it’s used to build alliances and clout. “Washington is doing a great job,” said no candidate ever. No, if you want to get people on your side, find something irritating and complain to everyone how annoying it is. This solidifies “us” versus “them,” which can harm organizations and families alike.

Yet, eliminating all complaints is neither feasible, nor probably advisable. You could try to make your office a complaint-free zone, but the likely result would be to push any griping to the remote corners where you can no longer hear them. These criticisms might have uncovered missed opportunities, identify problems, and even improve cohesion if done in a safe and transparent setting. If they are left unaddressed or if the underlying culture isn’t sound, then they can propagate and lead to factions that harm productivity.

Griping is as much part of the holiday season as jingle bells and jelly donuts. I don’t believe complaining is up now because people were grumpier in 2023. Rather I think people just craved connection more than ever. So join in: Traffic after the time change, Tesla service, (super) late patients, prior auths, perioral dermatitis, post-COVID telogen effluvium.

I feel better.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X (formerly Twitter). Write to him at [email protected].

‘Twas the night before Festivus and all through the house, everyone was griping.

In case you’ve only been watching Friends reruns lately, Festivus is a holiday that originated 25 years ago in the last season of Seinfeld. George’s father created it as an alternative to Christmas hype. In addition to an aluminum pole, the holiday features the annual airing of grievances, when one is encouraged to voice complaints. Aluminum poles haven’t replaced Christmas trees, but the spirit of Festivus is still with us in the widespread airing of grievances in 2023.

Kaiser Permanente

Complaining isn’t just a post-pandemic problem. Hector spends quite a bit of time complaining about Paris in the Iliad. That was a few pandemics ago. And repining is ubiquitous in literature — as human as walking on two limbs it seems. Ostensibly, we complain to effect change: Something is wrong and we expect it to be different. But that’s not the whole story. No one believes the weather will improve or the Patriots will play better because we complain about them. So why do we bother?

Even if nothing changes on the outside, it does seem to alter our internal state, serving a healthy psychological function. Putting to words what is aggravating can have the same benefit of deep breathing. We describe it as “getting something off our chest” because that’s what it feels like. We feel unburdened just by saying it out loud. Complaining is also a way to bond with others. We have a strong instinct to be with people like ourselves and what better way to connect than to find common suffering? Think about the last time you complained: Cranky staff, prior auths, Medicare, disrespectful patients, many of your colleagues will nod in agreement, validating your feelings and making you feel less isolated.

There are also maladaptive reasons for whining. It’s obviously an elementary way to get attention or to remove responsibility. It can also be a political weapon (office politics included). It’s such a potent way to connect that it’s used to build alliances and clout. “Washington is doing a great job,” said no candidate ever. No, if you want to get people on your side, find something irritating and complain to everyone how annoying it is. This solidifies “us” versus “them,” which can harm organizations and families alike.

Yet, eliminating all complaints is neither feasible, nor probably advisable. You could try to make your office a complaint-free zone, but the likely result would be to push any griping to the remote corners where you can no longer hear them. These criticisms might have uncovered missed opportunities, identify problems, and even improve cohesion if done in a safe and transparent setting. If they are left unaddressed or if the underlying culture isn’t sound, then they can propagate and lead to factions that harm productivity.

Griping is as much part of the holiday season as jingle bells and jelly donuts. I don’t believe complaining is up now because people were grumpier in 2023. Rather I think people just craved connection more than ever. So join in: Traffic after the time change, Tesla service, (super) late patients, prior auths, perioral dermatitis, post-COVID telogen effluvium.

I feel better.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X (formerly Twitter). Write to him at [email protected].