Commentary

To the Editor:

We read with interest the Cutis article by Dobkin et al¹ (Cutis. 2022;109:218-220) regarding guidelines for inpatient and emergency department dermatology consultations. We agree with the authors that dermatology training is lacking in other medical specialties, which makes it challenging for teams to assess the appropriateness of a dermatology consultation in the inpatient setting. Inpatient dermatology consultation can be utilized in a hospital system to aid in rapid and accurate diagnosis, avoid inappropriate therapies, and decrease length of stay² and readmission rates³ while providing education to the primary teams. This is precisely why in many instances the availability of inpatient dermatology consultation is so important because nondermatologists often are unable to determine whether a rash is life-threatening, benign, or something in between. From the perspective of dermatology hospitalists, there is room for improvement in the flowchart Dobkin et al¹ presented to guide inpatient dermatology consultation.

To have a productive relationship with our internal medicine, surgery, pediatrics, psychiatry, and other hospital-based colleagues, we must keep an open mind when a consultation is received. We feel that the flowchart proposed by Dobkin et al¹ presents too narrow a viewpoint on the utility of inpatient dermatology. It rests on assertions that other teams will be able to determine the appropriate dermatologic diagnosis without involving a dermatologist, which often is not the case.

We disagree with several recommendations in the flowchart, the first being the assertion that patients who are “hemodynamically unstable due to [a] nondermatologic problem (eg, intubated on pressors, febrile, and hypotensive)” are not appropriate for inpatient dermatology consultation.¹ Although dermatologists do not commonly encounter patients with critical illness in the outpatient clinic, dermatology consultation can be extremely helpful and even lifesaving in the inpatient setting. It is unrealistic to expect the primary teams to know whether cutaneous manifestations potentially could be related to the patient’s overall clinical picture. On the contrary, we would encourage the primary team in charge of a hemodynamically unstable patient to consult dermatology at the first sign of an unexplained rash. Take for example an acutely ill patient who develops retiform purpura. There are well-established dermatology guidelines for the workup of retiform purpura,⁴ including prompt biopsy and assessment of broad, potentially life-threatening differential diagnoses from calciphylaxis to angioinvasive fungal infection. In this scenario, the dermatology consultant may render the correct diagnosis and recommend immediate treatment that could be lifesaving.

Secondly, we do not agree with the recommendation that a patient in hospice care is not appropriate for inpatient dermatology consultation. Patients receiving hospice or palliative care have high rates of potentially symptomatic cutaneous diseases,⁵ including intertrigo and dermatitis—comprising stasis, seborrheic, and contact dermatitis.⁶ Although aggressive intervention for asymptomatic benign or malignant skin conditions may not be in line with their goals of care, an inpatient dermatology consultation can reduce symptoms and improve quality of life. This population also is one that is unlikely to be able to attend an outpatient dermatology clinic appointment and therefore are good candidates for inpatient consultation.

Lastly, we want to highlight the difference between a stable chronic dermatologic disease and an acute flare that may occur while a patient is hospitalized, regardless of whether it is the reason for admission. For example, a patient with psoriasis affecting limited body surface area who is hospitalized for a myocardial infarction is not appropriate for a dermatology consultation. However, if that same patient develops erythroderma while they are hospitalized for cardiac monitoring, it would certainly be appropriate for dermatology to be consulted. Additionally, there are times when a chronic skin disease is the reason for hospitalization; dermatology, although technically a consulting service, would be the primary decision-maker for the patient’s care in this situation. In these scenarios, it is important for the patient to be able to establish care for long-term outpatient management of their condition; however, it is prudent to involve dermatology while the patient is acutely hospitalized to guide their treatment plan until they are able to see a dermatologist after discharge.

In conclusion, we believe that hospital dermatology is a valuable tool that can be utilized in many different scenarios. Although there are certainly situations more appropriate for outpatient dermatology referral, we would caution against overly simplified algorithms that could discourage valuable inpatient dermatology consultations. It often is worth a conversation with your dermatology consultant (when available at an institution) to determine the best course of action for each patient. Additionally, we recognize the need for more formalized guidelines on when to pursue inpatient dermatology consultation. We are members of the Society of Dermatology Hospitalists and encourage readers to reference their website, which provides additional resources on inpatient dermatology (https://societydermatologyhospitalists.com/inpatient-dermatology-literature/).

 

 

Authors’ Response

We appreciate the letter in response to our commentary on the appropriateness of inpatient dermatology consultations. It is the continued refining and re-evaluation of concepts such as these that allow our field to grow and improve knowledge and patient care.

We sought to provide a nonpatronizing yet simple consultation flowchart that would help guide triage of patients in need or not in need of dermatologic evaluation by the inpatient teams. Understandably, the impressions of our flowchart have been variable based on different readers’ medical backgrounds and experiences. It is certainly possible that our flowchart lacked certain exceptions and oversimplified certain concepts, and we welcome further refining of this flowchart to better guide inpatient dermatology consultations.

We do, however, disagree that the primary team would not know whether a patient is intubated in the intensive care unit for a dermatology reason. If the patient is in such a status, it would be pertinent for the primary team to conduct a timely workup that could include consultations until a diagnosis is made. We were not implying that every dermatology consultation in the intensive care unit is unwarranted, especially if it can lead to a primary dermatologic diagnosis. We do believe that a thorough history could elicit an allergy or other chronic skin condition that could save resources and spending within a hospital. Likewise, psoriasis comes in many different presentations, and although we do not believe a consultation for chronic psoriatic plaques is appropriate in the hospital, it is absolutely appropriate for a patient who is erythrodermic from any cause.

Our flowchart was intended to be the first step to providing education on when consultations are appropriate, and further refinement will be necessary.

Hershel Dobkin, MD; Timothy Blackwell, BS; Robin Ashinoff, MD

Drs. Dobkin and Ashinoff are from Hackensack University Medical Center, New Jersey. Mr. Blackwell is from the Rowan University School of Osteopathic Medicine, Stratford, New Jersey.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Correspondence: Hershel Dobkin, MD, Hackensack University Medical Center, 30 Prospect Ave, Hackensack, NJ 07601 ([email protected]).

To the Editor:

We read with interest the Cutis article by Dobkin et al¹ (Cutis. 2022;109:218-220) regarding guidelines for inpatient and emergency department dermatology consultations. We agree with the authors that dermatology training is lacking in other medical specialties, which makes it challenging for teams to assess the appropriateness of a dermatology consultation in the inpatient setting. Inpatient dermatology consultation can be utilized in a hospital system to aid in rapid and accurate diagnosis, avoid inappropriate therapies, and decrease length of stay² and readmission rates³ while providing education to the primary teams. This is precisely why in many instances the availability of inpatient dermatology consultation is so important because nondermatologists often are unable to determine whether a rash is life-threatening, benign, or something in between. From the perspective of dermatology hospitalists, there is room for improvement in the flowchart Dobkin et al¹ presented to guide inpatient dermatology consultation.

To have a productive relationship with our internal medicine, surgery, pediatrics, psychiatry, and other hospital-based colleagues, we must keep an open mind when a consultation is received. We feel that the flowchart proposed by Dobkin et al¹ presents too narrow a viewpoint on the utility of inpatient dermatology. It rests on assertions that other teams will be able to determine the appropriate dermatologic diagnosis without involving a dermatologist, which often is not the case.

We disagree with several recommendations in the flowchart, the first being the assertion that patients who are “hemodynamically unstable due to [a] nondermatologic problem (eg, intubated on pressors, febrile, and hypotensive)” are not appropriate for inpatient dermatology consultation.¹ Although dermatologists do not commonly encounter patients with critical illness in the outpatient clinic, dermatology consultation can be extremely helpful and even lifesaving in the inpatient setting. It is unrealistic to expect the primary teams to know whether cutaneous manifestations potentially could be related to the patient’s overall clinical picture. On the contrary, we would encourage the primary team in charge of a hemodynamically unstable patient to consult dermatology at the first sign of an unexplained rash. Take for example an acutely ill patient who develops retiform purpura. There are well-established dermatology guidelines for the workup of retiform purpura,⁴ including prompt biopsy and assessment of broad, potentially life-threatening differential diagnoses from calciphylaxis to angioinvasive fungal infection. In this scenario, the dermatology consultant may render the correct diagnosis and recommend immediate treatment that could be lifesaving.

Secondly, we do not agree with the recommendation that a patient in hospice care is not appropriate for inpatient dermatology consultation. Patients receiving hospice or palliative care have high rates of potentially symptomatic cutaneous diseases,⁵ including intertrigo and dermatitis—comprising stasis, seborrheic, and contact dermatitis.⁶ Although aggressive intervention for asymptomatic benign or malignant skin conditions may not be in line with their goals of care, an inpatient dermatology consultation can reduce symptoms and improve quality of life. This population also is one that is unlikely to be able to attend an outpatient dermatology clinic appointment and therefore are good candidates for inpatient consultation.

Lastly, we want to highlight the difference between a stable chronic dermatologic disease and an acute flare that may occur while a patient is hospitalized, regardless of whether it is the reason for admission. For example, a patient with psoriasis affecting limited body surface area who is hospitalized for a myocardial infarction is not appropriate for a dermatology consultation. However, if that same patient develops erythroderma while they are hospitalized for cardiac monitoring, it would certainly be appropriate for dermatology to be consulted. Additionally, there are times when a chronic skin disease is the reason for hospitalization; dermatology, although technically a consulting service, would be the primary decision-maker for the patient’s care in this situation. In these scenarios, it is important for the patient to be able to establish care for long-term outpatient management of their condition; however, it is prudent to involve dermatology while the patient is acutely hospitalized to guide their treatment plan until they are able to see a dermatologist after discharge.

In conclusion, we believe that hospital dermatology is a valuable tool that can be utilized in many different scenarios. Although there are certainly situations more appropriate for outpatient dermatology referral, we would caution against overly simplified algorithms that could discourage valuable inpatient dermatology consultations. It often is worth a conversation with your dermatology consultant (when available at an institution) to determine the best course of action for each patient. Additionally, we recognize the need for more formalized guidelines on when to pursue inpatient dermatology consultation. We are members of the Society of Dermatology Hospitalists and encourage readers to reference their website, which provides additional resources on inpatient dermatology (https://societydermatologyhospitalists.com/inpatient-dermatology-literature/).

 

 

Authors’ Response

We appreciate the letter in response to our commentary on the appropriateness of inpatient dermatology consultations. It is the continued refining and re-evaluation of concepts such as these that allow our field to grow and improve knowledge and patient care.

We sought to provide a nonpatronizing yet simple consultation flowchart that would help guide triage of patients in need or not in need of dermatologic evaluation by the inpatient teams. Understandably, the impressions of our flowchart have been variable based on different readers’ medical backgrounds and experiences. It is certainly possible that our flowchart lacked certain exceptions and oversimplified certain concepts, and we welcome further refining of this flowchart to better guide inpatient dermatology consultations.

We do, however, disagree that the primary team would not know whether a patient is intubated in the intensive care unit for a dermatology reason. If the patient is in such a status, it would be pertinent for the primary team to conduct a timely workup that could include consultations until a diagnosis is made. We were not implying that every dermatology consultation in the intensive care unit is unwarranted, especially if it can lead to a primary dermatologic diagnosis. We do believe that a thorough history could elicit an allergy or other chronic skin condition that could save resources and spending within a hospital. Likewise, psoriasis comes in many different presentations, and although we do not believe a consultation for chronic psoriatic plaques is appropriate in the hospital, it is absolutely appropriate for a patient who is erythrodermic from any cause.

Our flowchart was intended to be the first step to providing education on when consultations are appropriate, and further refinement will be necessary.

Hershel Dobkin, MD; Timothy Blackwell, BS; Robin Ashinoff, MD

Drs. Dobkin and Ashinoff are from Hackensack University Medical Center, New Jersey. Mr. Blackwell is from the Rowan University School of Osteopathic Medicine, Stratford, New Jersey.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Correspondence: Hershel Dobkin, MD, Hackensack University Medical Center, 30 Prospect Ave, Hackensack, NJ 07601 ([email protected]).

To the Editor:

We read with interest the Cutis article by Dobkin et al¹ (Cutis. 2022;109:218-220) regarding guidelines for inpatient and emergency department dermatology consultations. We agree with the authors that dermatology training is lacking in other medical specialties, which makes it challenging for teams to assess the appropriateness of a dermatology consultation in the inpatient setting. Inpatient dermatology consultation can be utilized in a hospital system to aid in rapid and accurate diagnosis, avoid inappropriate therapies, and decrease length of stay² and readmission rates³ while providing education to the primary teams. This is precisely why in many instances the availability of inpatient dermatology consultation is so important because nondermatologists often are unable to determine whether a rash is life-threatening, benign, or something in between. From the perspective of dermatology hospitalists, there is room for improvement in the flowchart Dobkin et al¹ presented to guide inpatient dermatology consultation.

To have a productive relationship with our internal medicine, surgery, pediatrics, psychiatry, and other hospital-based colleagues, we must keep an open mind when a consultation is received. We feel that the flowchart proposed by Dobkin et al¹ presents too narrow a viewpoint on the utility of inpatient dermatology. It rests on assertions that other teams will be able to determine the appropriate dermatologic diagnosis without involving a dermatologist, which often is not the case.

We disagree with several recommendations in the flowchart, the first being the assertion that patients who are “hemodynamically unstable due to [a] nondermatologic problem (eg, intubated on pressors, febrile, and hypotensive)” are not appropriate for inpatient dermatology consultation.¹ Although dermatologists do not commonly encounter patients with critical illness in the outpatient clinic, dermatology consultation can be extremely helpful and even lifesaving in the inpatient setting. It is unrealistic to expect the primary teams to know whether cutaneous manifestations potentially could be related to the patient’s overall clinical picture. On the contrary, we would encourage the primary team in charge of a hemodynamically unstable patient to consult dermatology at the first sign of an unexplained rash. Take for example an acutely ill patient who develops retiform purpura. There are well-established dermatology guidelines for the workup of retiform purpura,⁴ including prompt biopsy and assessment of broad, potentially life-threatening differential diagnoses from calciphylaxis to angioinvasive fungal infection. In this scenario, the dermatology consultant may render the correct diagnosis and recommend immediate treatment that could be lifesaving.

Secondly, we do not agree with the recommendation that a patient in hospice care is not appropriate for inpatient dermatology consultation. Patients receiving hospice or palliative care have high rates of potentially symptomatic cutaneous diseases,⁵ including intertrigo and dermatitis—comprising stasis, seborrheic, and contact dermatitis.⁶ Although aggressive intervention for asymptomatic benign or malignant skin conditions may not be in line with their goals of care, an inpatient dermatology consultation can reduce symptoms and improve quality of life. This population also is one that is unlikely to be able to attend an outpatient dermatology clinic appointment and therefore are good candidates for inpatient consultation.

Lastly, we want to highlight the difference between a stable chronic dermatologic disease and an acute flare that may occur while a patient is hospitalized, regardless of whether it is the reason for admission. For example, a patient with psoriasis affecting limited body surface area who is hospitalized for a myocardial infarction is not appropriate for a dermatology consultation. However, if that same patient develops erythroderma while they are hospitalized for cardiac monitoring, it would certainly be appropriate for dermatology to be consulted. Additionally, there are times when a chronic skin disease is the reason for hospitalization; dermatology, although technically a consulting service, would be the primary decision-maker for the patient’s care in this situation. In these scenarios, it is important for the patient to be able to establish care for long-term outpatient management of their condition; however, it is prudent to involve dermatology while the patient is acutely hospitalized to guide their treatment plan until they are able to see a dermatologist after discharge.

In conclusion, we believe that hospital dermatology is a valuable tool that can be utilized in many different scenarios. Although there are certainly situations more appropriate for outpatient dermatology referral, we would caution against overly simplified algorithms that could discourage valuable inpatient dermatology consultations. It often is worth a conversation with your dermatology consultant (when available at an institution) to determine the best course of action for each patient. Additionally, we recognize the need for more formalized guidelines on when to pursue inpatient dermatology consultation. We are members of the Society of Dermatology Hospitalists and encourage readers to reference their website, which provides additional resources on inpatient dermatology (https://societydermatologyhospitalists.com/inpatient-dermatology-literature/).

 

 

Authors’ Response

We appreciate the letter in response to our commentary on the appropriateness of inpatient dermatology consultations. It is the continued refining and re-evaluation of concepts such as these that allow our field to grow and improve knowledge and patient care.

We sought to provide a nonpatronizing yet simple consultation flowchart that would help guide triage of patients in need or not in need of dermatologic evaluation by the inpatient teams. Understandably, the impressions of our flowchart have been variable based on different readers’ medical backgrounds and experiences. It is certainly possible that our flowchart lacked certain exceptions and oversimplified certain concepts, and we welcome further refining of this flowchart to better guide inpatient dermatology consultations.

We do, however, disagree that the primary team would not know whether a patient is intubated in the intensive care unit for a dermatology reason. If the patient is in such a status, it would be pertinent for the primary team to conduct a timely workup that could include consultations until a diagnosis is made. We were not implying that every dermatology consultation in the intensive care unit is unwarranted, especially if it can lead to a primary dermatologic diagnosis. We do believe that a thorough history could elicit an allergy or other chronic skin condition that could save resources and spending within a hospital. Likewise, psoriasis comes in many different presentations, and although we do not believe a consultation for chronic psoriatic plaques is appropriate in the hospital, it is absolutely appropriate for a patient who is erythrodermic from any cause.

Our flowchart was intended to be the first step to providing education on when consultations are appropriate, and further refinement will be necessary.

Hershel Dobkin, MD; Timothy Blackwell, BS; Robin Ashinoff, MD

Drs. Dobkin and Ashinoff are from Hackensack University Medical Center, New Jersey. Mr. Blackwell is from the Rowan University School of Osteopathic Medicine, Stratford, New Jersey.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Correspondence: Hershel Dobkin, MD, Hackensack University Medical Center, 30 Prospect Ave, Hackensack, NJ 07601 ([email protected]).

Psychiatric electroceutical interventions (PEIs) – including Food and Drug Administration–approved therapies like electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), as well as experimental interventions such as deep brain stimulation (DBS) and adaptive brain implants (ABI) – offer therapeutic promise for patients suffering with major depressive disorder (MDD). Yet there remain many open questions regarding their use, even in cases where their safety and effectiveness is well established.

Our research aims to better understand how different stakeholder groups view these interventions. We conducted a series of interviews with psychiatrists, patients with MDD, and members of the public to more fully comprehend these groups’ perceptions of barriers to using these therapies.¹ They raised concerns about limitations to access posed by the limited geographic availability of these treatments, their cost, and lack of insurance coverage. In addition, each stakeholder group cited lack of knowledge about PEIs as a perceived barrier to their wider implementation in depression care.

Michigan State University

Our participants recognized there are significant geographic limitations to accessing PEIs, as many of these treatments are available only in large, well-resourced cities. This is especially true for DBS and ABIs as they remain investigational, require neurosurgery, and currently are offered only during clinical research trials. However, even for established therapies like ECT and rTMS, access often remains limited to larger treatment centers. Further, training on the proper implementation and use of these modalities is limited in the United States. Current requirements from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education state only that psychiatry residents demonstrate knowledge of these therapies and their indications, falling short of requiring first-hand experience in referring or administering them.²

Michigan State University

Our participants also perceived the cost of these therapies as a significant barrier affecting a large proportion of patients who could potentially benefit from them. Another frequently mentioned barrier is the lack of insurance coverage for existing PEIs, particularly rTMS. Even when insurance covers treatment with an approved PEI (for example, ECT, rTMS), there may be a requirement to have tried and failed multiple antidepressant medications first. These insurance requirements may contribute to a lack of general clarity about when these treatments should be used. The psychiatrists we interviewed, for example, were almost evenly split between believing that ECT and/or rTMS should be offered earlier in the course of therapy and believing that they should be reserved only for patients with treatment-resistant depression.

Michigan State University

Further, some psychiatrists we interviewed stated that they wanted more information about the appropriate use of these treatments. This is unsurprising, as the available guidelines for the approved electroceutical treatments are outdated. Although the American Psychiatric Association Task Force is due to publish updated guidelines for ECT, it has been more than 20 years since the current guidelines were published.³ More recent guidelines, such as those issued in 2016 by the Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments cite studies that were even then several years old.⁴ For rTMS, newer guidelines are available, but they have not yet been revised to include recent developments such as the SAINT protocol.^5,6

While useful, clinical guidelines do not provide all of the information psychiatrists require for clinical decision-making. They are only as good as the evidence available and to the extent that they include all of the considerations important to psychiatrists and the specific patients they are treating.^7,8 We asked the psychiatrists in our interviews what practical information they would like to see included in treatment guidelines. They offered a range of suggestions: better guidance about which patients would be most likely to benefit, when to offer the treatments, and how to combine these therapies with other interventions.

Pennsylvania State University

For the experimental PEIs (DBS and ABIs), similar questions and concerns arise. In the current research context, psychiatrists may not be aware of which patients are good candidates for referral to clinical trials. If these therapies are approved, similar questions about patient selection and place in treatment (for example, first line, second line, etc.) remain.⁹

Finally, each of our participant groups believed that patients and the public lack adequate knowledge about electroceutical interventions, and they emphasized the importance of giving potential patients sufficient information to enable them to provide valid informed consent. This is important in the case of the approved electroceutical therapies (ECT and rTMS), in part because of the potential for decision-making to be influenced unduly by misinformation and controversy – especially given that the media’s depiction of these interventions might influence patients’ willingness to receive helpful therapies such as ECT.¹⁰

Our interviews were used to inform the development of a national survey of these four stakeholder groups, which will provide further information about perceived barriers to accessing PEIs.

Dr. Bluhm is associate professor of philosophy at Michigan State University, East Lansing. Dr. Achtyes is director of the division of psychiatry and behavioral medicine at Michigan State University, Grand Rapids. Dr. McCright is chair of the department of sociology at Michigan State University. Dr. Cabrera is Dorothy Foehr Huck and J. Lloyd Huck Chair in Neuroethics at the Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences, Penn State University, University Park.

References

1. Cabrera LY et al. Psychiatry Res. 2022 Jul;313:114612. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2022.114612.

2. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Psychiatry – Program Requirements and FAQs. https://www.acgme.org/specialties/psychiatry/program-requirements-and-faqs-and-applications/

3. American Psychiatric Association. The Practice of Electroconvulsive Therapy, Second Edition: Recommendations for Treatment, Training, and Privileging. 2001.

4. Miley RV et al. Can J Psychiatry. 2016 Sep;61(9):561-75. doi: 10.1177/0706743716660033.

5. Perera T et al. Brain Stimul. 2016 May-Jun;9(3):336-46. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2016.03.010.

6. Cole EJ et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2020 Aug 1;177(8):716-26. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2019.19070720.

7. Gabriel FC et al. PLoS One. 2020 Apr 21;15(4):e0231700. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231700.

8. Woolf SH et al. BMJ. 1999 Feb 20;318(7182):527-30. doi: 10.1136/bmj.318.7182.527.

9. Widge AS et al. Biol Psychiatry. 2016 Feb 15;79(4):e9-10. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2015.06.005.

10. Sienaert P. Brain Stimul. 2016 Nov-Dec;9(6):882-91. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2016.07.005.

Psychiatric electroceutical interventions (PEIs) – including Food and Drug Administration–approved therapies like electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), as well as experimental interventions such as deep brain stimulation (DBS) and adaptive brain implants (ABI) – offer therapeutic promise for patients suffering with major depressive disorder (MDD). Yet there remain many open questions regarding their use, even in cases where their safety and effectiveness is well established.

Our research aims to better understand how different stakeholder groups view these interventions. We conducted a series of interviews with psychiatrists, patients with MDD, and members of the public to more fully comprehend these groups’ perceptions of barriers to using these therapies.¹ They raised concerns about limitations to access posed by the limited geographic availability of these treatments, their cost, and lack of insurance coverage. In addition, each stakeholder group cited lack of knowledge about PEIs as a perceived barrier to their wider implementation in depression care.

Michigan State University

Our participants recognized there are significant geographic limitations to accessing PEIs, as many of these treatments are available only in large, well-resourced cities. This is especially true for DBS and ABIs as they remain investigational, require neurosurgery, and currently are offered only during clinical research trials. However, even for established therapies like ECT and rTMS, access often remains limited to larger treatment centers. Further, training on the proper implementation and use of these modalities is limited in the United States. Current requirements from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education state only that psychiatry residents demonstrate knowledge of these therapies and their indications, falling short of requiring first-hand experience in referring or administering them.²

Michigan State University

Our participants also perceived the cost of these therapies as a significant barrier affecting a large proportion of patients who could potentially benefit from them. Another frequently mentioned barrier is the lack of insurance coverage for existing PEIs, particularly rTMS. Even when insurance covers treatment with an approved PEI (for example, ECT, rTMS), there may be a requirement to have tried and failed multiple antidepressant medications first. These insurance requirements may contribute to a lack of general clarity about when these treatments should be used. The psychiatrists we interviewed, for example, were almost evenly split between believing that ECT and/or rTMS should be offered earlier in the course of therapy and believing that they should be reserved only for patients with treatment-resistant depression.

Michigan State University

Further, some psychiatrists we interviewed stated that they wanted more information about the appropriate use of these treatments. This is unsurprising, as the available guidelines for the approved electroceutical treatments are outdated. Although the American Psychiatric Association Task Force is due to publish updated guidelines for ECT, it has been more than 20 years since the current guidelines were published.³ More recent guidelines, such as those issued in 2016 by the Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments cite studies that were even then several years old.⁴ For rTMS, newer guidelines are available, but they have not yet been revised to include recent developments such as the SAINT protocol.^5,6

While useful, clinical guidelines do not provide all of the information psychiatrists require for clinical decision-making. They are only as good as the evidence available and to the extent that they include all of the considerations important to psychiatrists and the specific patients they are treating.^7,8 We asked the psychiatrists in our interviews what practical information they would like to see included in treatment guidelines. They offered a range of suggestions: better guidance about which patients would be most likely to benefit, when to offer the treatments, and how to combine these therapies with other interventions.

Pennsylvania State University

For the experimental PEIs (DBS and ABIs), similar questions and concerns arise. In the current research context, psychiatrists may not be aware of which patients are good candidates for referral to clinical trials. If these therapies are approved, similar questions about patient selection and place in treatment (for example, first line, second line, etc.) remain.⁹

Finally, each of our participant groups believed that patients and the public lack adequate knowledge about electroceutical interventions, and they emphasized the importance of giving potential patients sufficient information to enable them to provide valid informed consent. This is important in the case of the approved electroceutical therapies (ECT and rTMS), in part because of the potential for decision-making to be influenced unduly by misinformation and controversy – especially given that the media’s depiction of these interventions might influence patients’ willingness to receive helpful therapies such as ECT.¹⁰

Our interviews were used to inform the development of a national survey of these four stakeholder groups, which will provide further information about perceived barriers to accessing PEIs.

Dr. Bluhm is associate professor of philosophy at Michigan State University, East Lansing. Dr. Achtyes is director of the division of psychiatry and behavioral medicine at Michigan State University, Grand Rapids. Dr. McCright is chair of the department of sociology at Michigan State University. Dr. Cabrera is Dorothy Foehr Huck and J. Lloyd Huck Chair in Neuroethics at the Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences, Penn State University, University Park.

References

1. Cabrera LY et al. Psychiatry Res. 2022 Jul;313:114612. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2022.114612.

2. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Psychiatry – Program Requirements and FAQs. https://www.acgme.org/specialties/psychiatry/program-requirements-and-faqs-and-applications/

3. American Psychiatric Association. The Practice of Electroconvulsive Therapy, Second Edition: Recommendations for Treatment, Training, and Privileging. 2001.

4. Miley RV et al. Can J Psychiatry. 2016 Sep;61(9):561-75. doi: 10.1177/0706743716660033.

5. Perera T et al. Brain Stimul. 2016 May-Jun;9(3):336-46. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2016.03.010.

6. Cole EJ et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2020 Aug 1;177(8):716-26. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2019.19070720.

7. Gabriel FC et al. PLoS One. 2020 Apr 21;15(4):e0231700. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231700.

8. Woolf SH et al. BMJ. 1999 Feb 20;318(7182):527-30. doi: 10.1136/bmj.318.7182.527.

9. Widge AS et al. Biol Psychiatry. 2016 Feb 15;79(4):e9-10. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2015.06.005.

10. Sienaert P. Brain Stimul. 2016 Nov-Dec;9(6):882-91. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2016.07.005.

Psychiatric electroceutical interventions (PEIs) – including Food and Drug Administration–approved therapies like electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), as well as experimental interventions such as deep brain stimulation (DBS) and adaptive brain implants (ABI) – offer therapeutic promise for patients suffering with major depressive disorder (MDD). Yet there remain many open questions regarding their use, even in cases where their safety and effectiveness is well established.

Our research aims to better understand how different stakeholder groups view these interventions. We conducted a series of interviews with psychiatrists, patients with MDD, and members of the public to more fully comprehend these groups’ perceptions of barriers to using these therapies.¹ They raised concerns about limitations to access posed by the limited geographic availability of these treatments, their cost, and lack of insurance coverage. In addition, each stakeholder group cited lack of knowledge about PEIs as a perceived barrier to their wider implementation in depression care.

Michigan State University

Our participants recognized there are significant geographic limitations to accessing PEIs, as many of these treatments are available only in large, well-resourced cities. This is especially true for DBS and ABIs as they remain investigational, require neurosurgery, and currently are offered only during clinical research trials. However, even for established therapies like ECT and rTMS, access often remains limited to larger treatment centers. Further, training on the proper implementation and use of these modalities is limited in the United States. Current requirements from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education state only that psychiatry residents demonstrate knowledge of these therapies and their indications, falling short of requiring first-hand experience in referring or administering them.²

Michigan State University

Our participants also perceived the cost of these therapies as a significant barrier affecting a large proportion of patients who could potentially benefit from them. Another frequently mentioned barrier is the lack of insurance coverage for existing PEIs, particularly rTMS. Even when insurance covers treatment with an approved PEI (for example, ECT, rTMS), there may be a requirement to have tried and failed multiple antidepressant medications first. These insurance requirements may contribute to a lack of general clarity about when these treatments should be used. The psychiatrists we interviewed, for example, were almost evenly split between believing that ECT and/or rTMS should be offered earlier in the course of therapy and believing that they should be reserved only for patients with treatment-resistant depression.

Michigan State University

Further, some psychiatrists we interviewed stated that they wanted more information about the appropriate use of these treatments. This is unsurprising, as the available guidelines for the approved electroceutical treatments are outdated. Although the American Psychiatric Association Task Force is due to publish updated guidelines for ECT, it has been more than 20 years since the current guidelines were published.³ More recent guidelines, such as those issued in 2016 by the Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments cite studies that were even then several years old.⁴ For rTMS, newer guidelines are available, but they have not yet been revised to include recent developments such as the SAINT protocol.^5,6

While useful, clinical guidelines do not provide all of the information psychiatrists require for clinical decision-making. They are only as good as the evidence available and to the extent that they include all of the considerations important to psychiatrists and the specific patients they are treating.^7,8 We asked the psychiatrists in our interviews what practical information they would like to see included in treatment guidelines. They offered a range of suggestions: better guidance about which patients would be most likely to benefit, when to offer the treatments, and how to combine these therapies with other interventions.

Pennsylvania State University

For the experimental PEIs (DBS and ABIs), similar questions and concerns arise. In the current research context, psychiatrists may not be aware of which patients are good candidates for referral to clinical trials. If these therapies are approved, similar questions about patient selection and place in treatment (for example, first line, second line, etc.) remain.⁹

Finally, each of our participant groups believed that patients and the public lack adequate knowledge about electroceutical interventions, and they emphasized the importance of giving potential patients sufficient information to enable them to provide valid informed consent. This is important in the case of the approved electroceutical therapies (ECT and rTMS), in part because of the potential for decision-making to be influenced unduly by misinformation and controversy – especially given that the media’s depiction of these interventions might influence patients’ willingness to receive helpful therapies such as ECT.¹⁰

Our interviews were used to inform the development of a national survey of these four stakeholder groups, which will provide further information about perceived barriers to accessing PEIs.

Dr. Bluhm is associate professor of philosophy at Michigan State University, East Lansing. Dr. Achtyes is director of the division of psychiatry and behavioral medicine at Michigan State University, Grand Rapids. Dr. McCright is chair of the department of sociology at Michigan State University. Dr. Cabrera is Dorothy Foehr Huck and J. Lloyd Huck Chair in Neuroethics at the Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences, Penn State University, University Park.

References

1. Cabrera LY et al. Psychiatry Res. 2022 Jul;313:114612. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2022.114612.

2. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Psychiatry – Program Requirements and FAQs. https://www.acgme.org/specialties/psychiatry/program-requirements-and-faqs-and-applications/

3. American Psychiatric Association. The Practice of Electroconvulsive Therapy, Second Edition: Recommendations for Treatment, Training, and Privileging. 2001.

4. Miley RV et al. Can J Psychiatry. 2016 Sep;61(9):561-75. doi: 10.1177/0706743716660033.

5. Perera T et al. Brain Stimul. 2016 May-Jun;9(3):336-46. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2016.03.010.

6. Cole EJ et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2020 Aug 1;177(8):716-26. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2019.19070720.

7. Gabriel FC et al. PLoS One. 2020 Apr 21;15(4):e0231700. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231700.

8. Woolf SH et al. BMJ. 1999 Feb 20;318(7182):527-30. doi: 10.1136/bmj.318.7182.527.

9. Widge AS et al. Biol Psychiatry. 2016 Feb 15;79(4):e9-10. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2015.06.005.

10. Sienaert P. Brain Stimul. 2016 Nov-Dec;9(6):882-91. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2016.07.005.

The various Camellia species originated in Eastern Asia and are believed to have been introduced in northwestern Spain in the 18th century. Camellia japonica, a flowering evergreen tree with various medical and cosmetic applications, is found throughout Galicia, Spain, where it is cultivated as an ornamental plant, and is native to Japan, South Korea, and China.^1-4 The flowers and seeds of C. japonica have been used in traditional medicine and cosmetics in East Asia, with the oil of C. japonica used there to restore skin elasticity and to enhance skin health.^4-6 The identification of bioactive constituents in C. japonica is a relatively recent phenomenon and accounts for the emerging interest in its potential medical applications.^1,7

manuel m. v./flickr/Attribution CC BY 2.0

While the use of C. sinensis in traditional and modern medicine is much better researched, understood, and characterized, C. japonica is now being considered for various health benefits. This column will focus on the bioactivity and scientific support for dermatologic applications of C. japonica. It is worth noting that a dry oil known as tsubaki oil, derived from C. japonica and rich in oleic acid, polyphenols, as well as vitamins A, C, D, and E, is used for skin and hair care in moisturizers produced primarily in Japan.
 

Antioxidant activity

In 2005, Lee and colleagues determined that C. japonica leaf and flower extracts display antioxidant, antifungal, and antibacterial activities (with the latter showing greater gram-positive than gram-negative activity).⁸ Investigating the antioxidant characteristics of the ethanol extract of the C. japonica flower in 2011, Piao and colleagues reported that the botanical exerted scavenging activity against reactive oxygen species in human HaCaT keratinocytes and enhanced protein expression and function of the antioxidant enzymes superoxide dismutase, catalase, and glutathione peroxidase.⁹

Less than a decade later, Yoon and colleagues determined that C. japonica leaf extract contains high concentrations of vitamin E and rutin as well as other active constituents and that it exhibits antioxidant and antihyperuricemic activity in vitro and in vivo.⁴

Since then, Kim and colleagues have demonstrated, using cultured normal human dermal fibroblasts, that C. japonica flower extract effectively hindered urban air pollutants–induced reactive oxygen species synthesis. In ex vivo results, the investigators showed that the botanical agent suppressed matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-1 expression, fostered collagen production, and decreased levels of pollutants-induced malondialdehyde. The authors concluded that C. japonica flower extract shows promise as a protective agent against pollutant-induced cutaneous damage.¹⁰

Anti-inflammatory and wound-healing activity

In 2012, Kim and colleagues found that C. japonica oil imparts anti-inflammatory activity via down-regulation of iNOS and COX-2 gene expression by suppressing of NF-KB and AP-1 signaling.⁶

Jeon and colleagues determined, in a 2018 investigation of 3,695 native plant extracts, that extracts from C. japonica fruit and stems improved induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) generation in mouse and human skin and enhanced wound healing in an in vivo mouse wound model. They suggested that their findings may point toward more effective approaches to developing clinical-grade iPSCs and wound-healing therapies.¹¹

Cosmeceutical potential

Among the important bioactive ingredients present in C. japonica are phenolic compounds, terpenoids, and fatty acids, which are thought to account for the anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, antimicrobial, and anticancer activity associated with the plant.¹ The high concentration of polyphenolic substances, in particular, is thought to at least partly account for the inclusion of C. japonica leaf extracts in antiaging cosmetics and cosmeceuticals.¹² Specifically, some of the antioxidant substances found in C. japonica extracts include quercetin, quercetin-3-O-glucoside, quercitrin, and kaempferol.⁹

Wrinkle reduction and moisturization

In 2007, Jung and colleagues found that C. japonica oil activated collagen 1A2 promotion in human dermal fibroblast cells in a concentration-dependent fashion. The oil also suppressed MMP-1 functions and spurred the production of human type I procollagen. On human skin, C. japonica oil was tested on the upper back of 30 volunteers and failed to provoke any adverse reactions. The oil also diminished transepidermal water loss on the forearm. The researchers concluded that C. japonica oil merits consideration as an antiwrinkle ingredient in topical formulations.¹³

More recently, Choi and colleagues showed that ceramide nanoparticles developed through the use of natural oils derived from Korean traditional plants (including C. japonica, along with Panax ginseng, C. sinensis, Glycine max napjakong, and Glycine max seoritae) improve skin carrier functions and promote gene expressions needed for epidermal homeostasis. The expressions of the FLG, CASP14, and INV genes were notably enhanced by the tested formulation. The researchers observed from in vivo human studies that the application of the ceramide nanoparticles yielded more rapid recovery in impaired skin barriers than the control formulation. Amelioration of stratum corneum cohesion was also noted. The investigators concluded that this and other natural oil–derived ceramide nanoparticle formulations may represent the potential for developing better moisturizers for enhancing skin barrier function.¹⁴

Hair-growth promotion and skin-whitening activity

Early in 2021, Cho and colleagues demonstrated that C. japonica phytoplacenta extract spurred the up-regulation of the expression of hair growth–marker genes in human follicle dermal papilla cells in vitro. In clinical tests with 42 adult female volunteers, a solution with 0.5% C. japonica placenta extract raised moisture content of the scalp and reduced sebum levels, dead scalp keratin, and redness. The researchers concluded that C. japonica phytoplacenta extract displays promise as a scalp treatment and hair growth–promoting agent.²

Later that year, Ha and colleagues reported on their findings regarding the tyrosinase inhibitory activity of the essential oil of C. japonica seeds. They identified hexamethylcyclotrisiloxane (42.36%) and octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (23.28%) as the main constituents of the oil, which demonstrated comparable inhibitory activity to arbutin (positive control) against mushroom tyrosinase. Melanogenesis was also significantly suppressed by C. japonica seed essential oil in B16F10 melanoma cells. The investigators concluded that the essential oil of C. japonica seeds exhibits robust antityrosinase activity and, therefore, warrants consideration as a skin-whitening agent.¹⁵
 

Conclusion

C. japonica is not as popular or well researched as another Camellia species, C. sinensis (the primary tea plant consumed globally and highly touted and appreciated for its multitude of health benefits), but it has its own history of traditional uses for medical and cosmetic purposes and is a subject of increasing research interest along with popular applications. Its antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties are thought to be central in conferring the ability to protect the skin from aging. Its effects on the skin barrier help skin hydration. More research is necessary to elucidate the apparently widespread potential of this botanical agent that is already found in some over-the-counter products.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur in Miami. She founded the division of cosmetic dermatology at the University of Miami in 1997. The third edition of her bestselling textbook, “Cosmetic Dermatology,” was published in 2022. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Johnson & Johnson, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions, a SaaS company used to generate skin care routines in office and as an ecommerce solution. Write to her at [email protected].

References

1. Pereira AG et al. Food Chem X. 2022 Feb 17;13:100258.

2. Cho WK et al. FEBS Open Bio. 2021 Mar;11(3):633-51.

3. Chung MY et al. Evolution. 2003 Jan;57(1):62-73.

4. Yoon IS et al. Int J Mol Med. 2017 Jun;39(6):1613-20.

5. Lee HH et al. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2016;2016:9679867.

6. Kim S et al. BMB Rep. 2012 Mar;45(3):177-82.

7. Majumder S et al. Bull Nat Res Cen. 2020 Dec;44(1):1-4.

8. Lee SY et al. Korean Journal of Medicinal Crop Science. 2005;13(3):93-100.

9. Piao MJ et al. Int J Mol Sci. 2011;12(4):2618-30.

10. Kim M et al. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2019 Jan 28;19(1):30.

11. Jeon H et al. J Clin Med. 2018 Nov 20;7(11):449.

12. Mizutani T, Masaki H. Exp Dermatol. 2014 Oct;23 Suppl 1:23-6.

13. Jung E et al. J Ethnopharmacol. 2007 May 30;112(1):127-31.

14. Choi HK et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2022 Oct;21(10):4931-41.

15. Ha SY et al. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2021 Nov 16;2021:6328767.

The various Camellia species originated in Eastern Asia and are believed to have been introduced in northwestern Spain in the 18th century. Camellia japonica, a flowering evergreen tree with various medical and cosmetic applications, is found throughout Galicia, Spain, where it is cultivated as an ornamental plant, and is native to Japan, South Korea, and China.^1-4 The flowers and seeds of C. japonica have been used in traditional medicine and cosmetics in East Asia, with the oil of C. japonica used there to restore skin elasticity and to enhance skin health.^4-6 The identification of bioactive constituents in C. japonica is a relatively recent phenomenon and accounts for the emerging interest in its potential medical applications.^1,7

manuel m. v./flickr/Attribution CC BY 2.0

While the use of C. sinensis in traditional and modern medicine is much better researched, understood, and characterized, C. japonica is now being considered for various health benefits. This column will focus on the bioactivity and scientific support for dermatologic applications of C. japonica. It is worth noting that a dry oil known as tsubaki oil, derived from C. japonica and rich in oleic acid, polyphenols, as well as vitamins A, C, D, and E, is used for skin and hair care in moisturizers produced primarily in Japan.
 

Antioxidant activity

In 2005, Lee and colleagues determined that C. japonica leaf and flower extracts display antioxidant, antifungal, and antibacterial activities (with the latter showing greater gram-positive than gram-negative activity).⁸ Investigating the antioxidant characteristics of the ethanol extract of the C. japonica flower in 2011, Piao and colleagues reported that the botanical exerted scavenging activity against reactive oxygen species in human HaCaT keratinocytes and enhanced protein expression and function of the antioxidant enzymes superoxide dismutase, catalase, and glutathione peroxidase.⁹

Less than a decade later, Yoon and colleagues determined that C. japonica leaf extract contains high concentrations of vitamin E and rutin as well as other active constituents and that it exhibits antioxidant and antihyperuricemic activity in vitro and in vivo.⁴

Since then, Kim and colleagues have demonstrated, using cultured normal human dermal fibroblasts, that C. japonica flower extract effectively hindered urban air pollutants–induced reactive oxygen species synthesis. In ex vivo results, the investigators showed that the botanical agent suppressed matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-1 expression, fostered collagen production, and decreased levels of pollutants-induced malondialdehyde. The authors concluded that C. japonica flower extract shows promise as a protective agent against pollutant-induced cutaneous damage.¹⁰

Anti-inflammatory and wound-healing activity

In 2012, Kim and colleagues found that C. japonica oil imparts anti-inflammatory activity via down-regulation of iNOS and COX-2 gene expression by suppressing of NF-KB and AP-1 signaling.⁶

Jeon and colleagues determined, in a 2018 investigation of 3,695 native plant extracts, that extracts from C. japonica fruit and stems improved induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) generation in mouse and human skin and enhanced wound healing in an in vivo mouse wound model. They suggested that their findings may point toward more effective approaches to developing clinical-grade iPSCs and wound-healing therapies.¹¹

Cosmeceutical potential

Among the important bioactive ingredients present in C. japonica are phenolic compounds, terpenoids, and fatty acids, which are thought to account for the anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, antimicrobial, and anticancer activity associated with the plant.¹ The high concentration of polyphenolic substances, in particular, is thought to at least partly account for the inclusion of C. japonica leaf extracts in antiaging cosmetics and cosmeceuticals.¹² Specifically, some of the antioxidant substances found in C. japonica extracts include quercetin, quercetin-3-O-glucoside, quercitrin, and kaempferol.⁹

Wrinkle reduction and moisturization

In 2007, Jung and colleagues found that C. japonica oil activated collagen 1A2 promotion in human dermal fibroblast cells in a concentration-dependent fashion. The oil also suppressed MMP-1 functions and spurred the production of human type I procollagen. On human skin, C. japonica oil was tested on the upper back of 30 volunteers and failed to provoke any adverse reactions. The oil also diminished transepidermal water loss on the forearm. The researchers concluded that C. japonica oil merits consideration as an antiwrinkle ingredient in topical formulations.¹³

More recently, Choi and colleagues showed that ceramide nanoparticles developed through the use of natural oils derived from Korean traditional plants (including C. japonica, along with Panax ginseng, C. sinensis, Glycine max napjakong, and Glycine max seoritae) improve skin carrier functions and promote gene expressions needed for epidermal homeostasis. The expressions of the FLG, CASP14, and INV genes were notably enhanced by the tested formulation. The researchers observed from in vivo human studies that the application of the ceramide nanoparticles yielded more rapid recovery in impaired skin barriers than the control formulation. Amelioration of stratum corneum cohesion was also noted. The investigators concluded that this and other natural oil–derived ceramide nanoparticle formulations may represent the potential for developing better moisturizers for enhancing skin barrier function.¹⁴

Hair-growth promotion and skin-whitening activity

Early in 2021, Cho and colleagues demonstrated that C. japonica phytoplacenta extract spurred the up-regulation of the expression of hair growth–marker genes in human follicle dermal papilla cells in vitro. In clinical tests with 42 adult female volunteers, a solution with 0.5% C. japonica placenta extract raised moisture content of the scalp and reduced sebum levels, dead scalp keratin, and redness. The researchers concluded that C. japonica phytoplacenta extract displays promise as a scalp treatment and hair growth–promoting agent.²

Later that year, Ha and colleagues reported on their findings regarding the tyrosinase inhibitory activity of the essential oil of C. japonica seeds. They identified hexamethylcyclotrisiloxane (42.36%) and octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (23.28%) as the main constituents of the oil, which demonstrated comparable inhibitory activity to arbutin (positive control) against mushroom tyrosinase. Melanogenesis was also significantly suppressed by C. japonica seed essential oil in B16F10 melanoma cells. The investigators concluded that the essential oil of C. japonica seeds exhibits robust antityrosinase activity and, therefore, warrants consideration as a skin-whitening agent.¹⁵
 

Conclusion

C. japonica is not as popular or well researched as another Camellia species, C. sinensis (the primary tea plant consumed globally and highly touted and appreciated for its multitude of health benefits), but it has its own history of traditional uses for medical and cosmetic purposes and is a subject of increasing research interest along with popular applications. Its antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties are thought to be central in conferring the ability to protect the skin from aging. Its effects on the skin barrier help skin hydration. More research is necessary to elucidate the apparently widespread potential of this botanical agent that is already found in some over-the-counter products.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur in Miami. She founded the division of cosmetic dermatology at the University of Miami in 1997. The third edition of her bestselling textbook, “Cosmetic Dermatology,” was published in 2022. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Johnson & Johnson, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions, a SaaS company used to generate skin care routines in office and as an ecommerce solution. Write to her at [email protected].

References

1. Pereira AG et al. Food Chem X. 2022 Feb 17;13:100258.

2. Cho WK et al. FEBS Open Bio. 2021 Mar;11(3):633-51.

3. Chung MY et al. Evolution. 2003 Jan;57(1):62-73.

4. Yoon IS et al. Int J Mol Med. 2017 Jun;39(6):1613-20.

5. Lee HH et al. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2016;2016:9679867.

6. Kim S et al. BMB Rep. 2012 Mar;45(3):177-82.

7. Majumder S et al. Bull Nat Res Cen. 2020 Dec;44(1):1-4.

8. Lee SY et al. Korean Journal of Medicinal Crop Science. 2005;13(3):93-100.

9. Piao MJ et al. Int J Mol Sci. 2011;12(4):2618-30.

10. Kim M et al. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2019 Jan 28;19(1):30.

11. Jeon H et al. J Clin Med. 2018 Nov 20;7(11):449.

12. Mizutani T, Masaki H. Exp Dermatol. 2014 Oct;23 Suppl 1:23-6.

13. Jung E et al. J Ethnopharmacol. 2007 May 30;112(1):127-31.

14. Choi HK et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2022 Oct;21(10):4931-41.

15. Ha SY et al. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2021 Nov 16;2021:6328767.

The various Camellia species originated in Eastern Asia and are believed to have been introduced in northwestern Spain in the 18th century. Camellia japonica, a flowering evergreen tree with various medical and cosmetic applications, is found throughout Galicia, Spain, where it is cultivated as an ornamental plant, and is native to Japan, South Korea, and China.^1-4 The flowers and seeds of C. japonica have been used in traditional medicine and cosmetics in East Asia, with the oil of C. japonica used there to restore skin elasticity and to enhance skin health.^4-6 The identification of bioactive constituents in C. japonica is a relatively recent phenomenon and accounts for the emerging interest in its potential medical applications.^1,7

manuel m. v./flickr/Attribution CC BY 2.0

While the use of C. sinensis in traditional and modern medicine is much better researched, understood, and characterized, C. japonica is now being considered for various health benefits. This column will focus on the bioactivity and scientific support for dermatologic applications of C. japonica. It is worth noting that a dry oil known as tsubaki oil, derived from C. japonica and rich in oleic acid, polyphenols, as well as vitamins A, C, D, and E, is used for skin and hair care in moisturizers produced primarily in Japan.
 

Antioxidant activity

In 2005, Lee and colleagues determined that C. japonica leaf and flower extracts display antioxidant, antifungal, and antibacterial activities (with the latter showing greater gram-positive than gram-negative activity).⁸ Investigating the antioxidant characteristics of the ethanol extract of the C. japonica flower in 2011, Piao and colleagues reported that the botanical exerted scavenging activity against reactive oxygen species in human HaCaT keratinocytes and enhanced protein expression and function of the antioxidant enzymes superoxide dismutase, catalase, and glutathione peroxidase.⁹

Less than a decade later, Yoon and colleagues determined that C. japonica leaf extract contains high concentrations of vitamin E and rutin as well as other active constituents and that it exhibits antioxidant and antihyperuricemic activity in vitro and in vivo.⁴

Since then, Kim and colleagues have demonstrated, using cultured normal human dermal fibroblasts, that C. japonica flower extract effectively hindered urban air pollutants–induced reactive oxygen species synthesis. In ex vivo results, the investigators showed that the botanical agent suppressed matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-1 expression, fostered collagen production, and decreased levels of pollutants-induced malondialdehyde. The authors concluded that C. japonica flower extract shows promise as a protective agent against pollutant-induced cutaneous damage.¹⁰

Anti-inflammatory and wound-healing activity

In 2012, Kim and colleagues found that C. japonica oil imparts anti-inflammatory activity via down-regulation of iNOS and COX-2 gene expression by suppressing of NF-KB and AP-1 signaling.⁶

Jeon and colleagues determined, in a 2018 investigation of 3,695 native plant extracts, that extracts from C. japonica fruit and stems improved induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) generation in mouse and human skin and enhanced wound healing in an in vivo mouse wound model. They suggested that their findings may point toward more effective approaches to developing clinical-grade iPSCs and wound-healing therapies.¹¹

Cosmeceutical potential

Among the important bioactive ingredients present in C. japonica are phenolic compounds, terpenoids, and fatty acids, which are thought to account for the anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, antimicrobial, and anticancer activity associated with the plant.¹ The high concentration of polyphenolic substances, in particular, is thought to at least partly account for the inclusion of C. japonica leaf extracts in antiaging cosmetics and cosmeceuticals.¹² Specifically, some of the antioxidant substances found in C. japonica extracts include quercetin, quercetin-3-O-glucoside, quercitrin, and kaempferol.⁹

Wrinkle reduction and moisturization

In 2007, Jung and colleagues found that C. japonica oil activated collagen 1A2 promotion in human dermal fibroblast cells in a concentration-dependent fashion. The oil also suppressed MMP-1 functions and spurred the production of human type I procollagen. On human skin, C. japonica oil was tested on the upper back of 30 volunteers and failed to provoke any adverse reactions. The oil also diminished transepidermal water loss on the forearm. The researchers concluded that C. japonica oil merits consideration as an antiwrinkle ingredient in topical formulations.¹³

More recently, Choi and colleagues showed that ceramide nanoparticles developed through the use of natural oils derived from Korean traditional plants (including C. japonica, along with Panax ginseng, C. sinensis, Glycine max napjakong, and Glycine max seoritae) improve skin carrier functions and promote gene expressions needed for epidermal homeostasis. The expressions of the FLG, CASP14, and INV genes were notably enhanced by the tested formulation. The researchers observed from in vivo human studies that the application of the ceramide nanoparticles yielded more rapid recovery in impaired skin barriers than the control formulation. Amelioration of stratum corneum cohesion was also noted. The investigators concluded that this and other natural oil–derived ceramide nanoparticle formulations may represent the potential for developing better moisturizers for enhancing skin barrier function.¹⁴

Hair-growth promotion and skin-whitening activity

Early in 2021, Cho and colleagues demonstrated that C. japonica phytoplacenta extract spurred the up-regulation of the expression of hair growth–marker genes in human follicle dermal papilla cells in vitro. In clinical tests with 42 adult female volunteers, a solution with 0.5% C. japonica placenta extract raised moisture content of the scalp and reduced sebum levels, dead scalp keratin, and redness. The researchers concluded that C. japonica phytoplacenta extract displays promise as a scalp treatment and hair growth–promoting agent.²

Later that year, Ha and colleagues reported on their findings regarding the tyrosinase inhibitory activity of the essential oil of C. japonica seeds. They identified hexamethylcyclotrisiloxane (42.36%) and octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (23.28%) as the main constituents of the oil, which demonstrated comparable inhibitory activity to arbutin (positive control) against mushroom tyrosinase. Melanogenesis was also significantly suppressed by C. japonica seed essential oil in B16F10 melanoma cells. The investigators concluded that the essential oil of C. japonica seeds exhibits robust antityrosinase activity and, therefore, warrants consideration as a skin-whitening agent.¹⁵
 

Conclusion

C. japonica is not as popular or well researched as another Camellia species, C. sinensis (the primary tea plant consumed globally and highly touted and appreciated for its multitude of health benefits), but it has its own history of traditional uses for medical and cosmetic purposes and is a subject of increasing research interest along with popular applications. Its antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties are thought to be central in conferring the ability to protect the skin from aging. Its effects on the skin barrier help skin hydration. More research is necessary to elucidate the apparently widespread potential of this botanical agent that is already found in some over-the-counter products.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur in Miami. She founded the division of cosmetic dermatology at the University of Miami in 1997. The third edition of her bestselling textbook, “Cosmetic Dermatology,” was published in 2022. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Johnson & Johnson, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions, a SaaS company used to generate skin care routines in office and as an ecommerce solution. Write to her at [email protected].

References

1. Pereira AG et al. Food Chem X. 2022 Feb 17;13:100258.

2. Cho WK et al. FEBS Open Bio. 2021 Mar;11(3):633-51.

3. Chung MY et al. Evolution. 2003 Jan;57(1):62-73.

4. Yoon IS et al. Int J Mol Med. 2017 Jun;39(6):1613-20.

5. Lee HH et al. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2016;2016:9679867.

6. Kim S et al. BMB Rep. 2012 Mar;45(3):177-82.

7. Majumder S et al. Bull Nat Res Cen. 2020 Dec;44(1):1-4.

8. Lee SY et al. Korean Journal of Medicinal Crop Science. 2005;13(3):93-100.

9. Piao MJ et al. Int J Mol Sci. 2011;12(4):2618-30.

10. Kim M et al. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2019 Jan 28;19(1):30.

11. Jeon H et al. J Clin Med. 2018 Nov 20;7(11):449.

12. Mizutani T, Masaki H. Exp Dermatol. 2014 Oct;23 Suppl 1:23-6.

13. Jung E et al. J Ethnopharmacol. 2007 May 30;112(1):127-31.

14. Choi HK et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2022 Oct;21(10):4931-41.

15. Ha SY et al. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2021 Nov 16;2021:6328767.

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] was first identified in 1963, just about the time that my 16-year-old arteries were probably developing fatty streaks. It soon became clear that Lp(a) was associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but whether an elevated blood level was a biomarker or a causal factor proved difficult to determine. Studies of inheritance patterns confirmed that blood levels were primarily genetically determined and largely resistant to lifestyle and pharmacologic intervention. It seemed senseless to test for something that was deemed “unmodifiable,” so untreatable. That label stuck for decades.

Fortunately, a resurgent interest in molecular pathophysiology this past decade has clarified Lp(a)’s unique contribution to atherothrombotic disease and calcific aortic stenosis. While there remains much to be learned about this complex, highly atherogenic molecule and its role in cardiac disease, it seems shortsighted not to take the simple step of identifying who carries this risk. Why are we not testing everyone for an extremely common and potent risk factor for the most lethal disease on the planet?

Epidemiologic studies project a stunning number of people in the United States to be at increased risk for Lp(a)-mediated coronary and cerebrovascular events. Because the LPA gene which codes for the apo(a) component of the Lp(a) molecule is fully expressed at age 2, this is a truly lifelong risk factor for a projected 64 million individuals with blood levels (> 60 mg/dL) high enough to double their risk for ASCVD. Because risk increases linearly, this includes 16 million, like me, with levels > 116 mg/dL, who are at four times the risk for ASCVD as those with normal levels (< 30 mg/dL).

Because Lp(a) level remains relatively constant throughout life, a single blood test would help stratify the risk it confers on millions of people who, under current U.S. guidelines, would never be tested. Until Lp(a) is integrated into its algorithms, the commonly used ASCVD Risk Calculator will substantially underestimate risk in 20% of the population.

A potential barrier to universal testing is that the ideal method to measure Lp(a) has yet to be determined. Lp(a) comprises an apoB particle bonded to an apo(a) particle. Apo(a) is complex and has a number of isoforms that can result in large heterogeneity in apo(a) size between, as well as within, individuals. This contributes to controversy about the ideal assay and whether Lp(a) levels should be expressed as mass (mg/dL) or number of particles (nmols/L). This should not, however, deter universal testing.
 

One-time cost, lifetime benefit?

Absent universal testing, it’s impossible to estimate the economic toll that Lp(a) exacts, but it’s surely an extraordinary number, particularly because the highest-risk individuals are prone to recurrent, nonfatal vascular events. The substantial price tag for my personal decade of Lp(a)-induced vascular havoc included four percutaneous coronary interventions with rapid stent restenosis, an eventual bypass surgery, and an aborted left hemispheric stroke, requiring an urgent carotid endarterectomy.

As a frame of reference, U.S. expenditures related to ASCVD are estimated to be $351 billion annually. If everyone in the United States over the age of 18 were tested for Lp(a) at a cost of $100 per person, this would be a $21 billion expenditure. This nonrecurring expense would identify the 20% – or almost 42 million individuals – at high risk for ASCVD, a number of whom would have already had vascular events. This one-time cost would be a foundational step in securing year-after-year savings from enhanced ASCVD prevention and reduction in recurrent vascular events.

Such savings would be significantly enhanced if and when targeted, effective Lp(a) treatments become available, but it seems shortsighted to make this the linchpin for universal testing. It’s noteworthy that Canadian and European guidelines already endorse one-time testing for all.

The confirmation of Lp(a)’s causal role in ASCVD remains underappreciated by medical providers across all specialties. Much of the elegant Lp(a)-related science of the past decade has yet to translate to the clinical world. What better way to rectify this than by identifying those with high Lp(a)? Since the advent of the statin era, “good” and “bad” cholesterol values are common conversational fare, in part because virtually every adult has had not one, but many lipid panels. Universal Lp(a) testing would spotlight this pervasive and important risk factor that was referred to as the “horrible” cholesterol in a recent review.
 

U.S. guidelines need updating

To foster this, U.S. guidelines, which influence every aspect of care, including testing, prevention, treatment, reimbursement, and medical legal issues, need to be simplified. The discussion of Lp(a) testing in the 2018 U.S. guidelines on cholesterol management is already obsolete. The contingencies on when testing is “reasonable” or “may be reasonable” are dated and cumbersome. In contrast, a recommendation to test everyone once, perhaps in adolescence, would be a useful, forward-looking strategy.

To date, trials of an antisense oligonucleotide and a small interfering RNA molecule targeting hepatic LPA messenger RNA have confirmed that plasma Lp(a) levels can be significantly and safely lowered. If the ongoing Lp(a) HORIZON and OCEAN(a) phase 3 trials have positive outcomes in patients with known ASCVD, this would spawn a host of clinical trials to explore the possibilities of these therapies in primary prevention as well. These will require tens of thousands of enrollees, and universal testing would expand the pool of potential participants.

The majority of at-risk individuals identified through universal testing would be candidates for primary prevention. This large, currently unidentified cohort should have all coexisting risk factors assessed and managed; lowering elevated LDL cholesterol early and aggressively is paramount. Recent data from the United Kingdom suggest that attainment of specific LDL cholesterol levels may offset the risk for vascular events in those with high Lp(a) levels.

Of note, this was the advice given to the small fraction of high-risk individuals like me, who had their Lp(a) level tested long before its ominous implications were understood. This recommendation was informed mostly by common sense. For any number of reasons, the same might be said for universal testing.

Dr. Leahy, a retired cardiologist in San Diego, has an abiding professional and personal interest in Lp(a), which has been responsible for a number of cardiovascular events in his own life over the past 2 decades. He was a participant in the phase 2 clinical trial of the Lp(a)-lowering antisense oligonucleotide being studied in the Lp(a) HORIZON trial, funded by Novartis, and is currently undergoing apheresis treatment. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] was first identified in 1963, just about the time that my 16-year-old arteries were probably developing fatty streaks. It soon became clear that Lp(a) was associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but whether an elevated blood level was a biomarker or a causal factor proved difficult to determine. Studies of inheritance patterns confirmed that blood levels were primarily genetically determined and largely resistant to lifestyle and pharmacologic intervention. It seemed senseless to test for something that was deemed “unmodifiable,” so untreatable. That label stuck for decades.

Fortunately, a resurgent interest in molecular pathophysiology this past decade has clarified Lp(a)’s unique contribution to atherothrombotic disease and calcific aortic stenosis. While there remains much to be learned about this complex, highly atherogenic molecule and its role in cardiac disease, it seems shortsighted not to take the simple step of identifying who carries this risk. Why are we not testing everyone for an extremely common and potent risk factor for the most lethal disease on the planet?

Epidemiologic studies project a stunning number of people in the United States to be at increased risk for Lp(a)-mediated coronary and cerebrovascular events. Because the LPA gene which codes for the apo(a) component of the Lp(a) molecule is fully expressed at age 2, this is a truly lifelong risk factor for a projected 64 million individuals with blood levels (> 60 mg/dL) high enough to double their risk for ASCVD. Because risk increases linearly, this includes 16 million, like me, with levels > 116 mg/dL, who are at four times the risk for ASCVD as those with normal levels (< 30 mg/dL).

Because Lp(a) level remains relatively constant throughout life, a single blood test would help stratify the risk it confers on millions of people who, under current U.S. guidelines, would never be tested. Until Lp(a) is integrated into its algorithms, the commonly used ASCVD Risk Calculator will substantially underestimate risk in 20% of the population.

A potential barrier to universal testing is that the ideal method to measure Lp(a) has yet to be determined. Lp(a) comprises an apoB particle bonded to an apo(a) particle. Apo(a) is complex and has a number of isoforms that can result in large heterogeneity in apo(a) size between, as well as within, individuals. This contributes to controversy about the ideal assay and whether Lp(a) levels should be expressed as mass (mg/dL) or number of particles (nmols/L). This should not, however, deter universal testing.
 

One-time cost, lifetime benefit?

Absent universal testing, it’s impossible to estimate the economic toll that Lp(a) exacts, but it’s surely an extraordinary number, particularly because the highest-risk individuals are prone to recurrent, nonfatal vascular events. The substantial price tag for my personal decade of Lp(a)-induced vascular havoc included four percutaneous coronary interventions with rapid stent restenosis, an eventual bypass surgery, and an aborted left hemispheric stroke, requiring an urgent carotid endarterectomy.

As a frame of reference, U.S. expenditures related to ASCVD are estimated to be $351 billion annually. If everyone in the United States over the age of 18 were tested for Lp(a) at a cost of $100 per person, this would be a $21 billion expenditure. This nonrecurring expense would identify the 20% – or almost 42 million individuals – at high risk for ASCVD, a number of whom would have already had vascular events. This one-time cost would be a foundational step in securing year-after-year savings from enhanced ASCVD prevention and reduction in recurrent vascular events.

Such savings would be significantly enhanced if and when targeted, effective Lp(a) treatments become available, but it seems shortsighted to make this the linchpin for universal testing. It’s noteworthy that Canadian and European guidelines already endorse one-time testing for all.

The confirmation of Lp(a)’s causal role in ASCVD remains underappreciated by medical providers across all specialties. Much of the elegant Lp(a)-related science of the past decade has yet to translate to the clinical world. What better way to rectify this than by identifying those with high Lp(a)? Since the advent of the statin era, “good” and “bad” cholesterol values are common conversational fare, in part because virtually every adult has had not one, but many lipid panels. Universal Lp(a) testing would spotlight this pervasive and important risk factor that was referred to as the “horrible” cholesterol in a recent review.
 

U.S. guidelines need updating

To foster this, U.S. guidelines, which influence every aspect of care, including testing, prevention, treatment, reimbursement, and medical legal issues, need to be simplified. The discussion of Lp(a) testing in the 2018 U.S. guidelines on cholesterol management is already obsolete. The contingencies on when testing is “reasonable” or “may be reasonable” are dated and cumbersome. In contrast, a recommendation to test everyone once, perhaps in adolescence, would be a useful, forward-looking strategy.

To date, trials of an antisense oligonucleotide and a small interfering RNA molecule targeting hepatic LPA messenger RNA have confirmed that plasma Lp(a) levels can be significantly and safely lowered. If the ongoing Lp(a) HORIZON and OCEAN(a) phase 3 trials have positive outcomes in patients with known ASCVD, this would spawn a host of clinical trials to explore the possibilities of these therapies in primary prevention as well. These will require tens of thousands of enrollees, and universal testing would expand the pool of potential participants.

The majority of at-risk individuals identified through universal testing would be candidates for primary prevention. This large, currently unidentified cohort should have all coexisting risk factors assessed and managed; lowering elevated LDL cholesterol early and aggressively is paramount. Recent data from the United Kingdom suggest that attainment of specific LDL cholesterol levels may offset the risk for vascular events in those with high Lp(a) levels.

Of note, this was the advice given to the small fraction of high-risk individuals like me, who had their Lp(a) level tested long before its ominous implications were understood. This recommendation was informed mostly by common sense. For any number of reasons, the same might be said for universal testing.

Dr. Leahy, a retired cardiologist in San Diego, has an abiding professional and personal interest in Lp(a), which has been responsible for a number of cardiovascular events in his own life over the past 2 decades. He was a participant in the phase 2 clinical trial of the Lp(a)-lowering antisense oligonucleotide being studied in the Lp(a) HORIZON trial, funded by Novartis, and is currently undergoing apheresis treatment. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] was first identified in 1963, just about the time that my 16-year-old arteries were probably developing fatty streaks. It soon became clear that Lp(a) was associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but whether an elevated blood level was a biomarker or a causal factor proved difficult to determine. Studies of inheritance patterns confirmed that blood levels were primarily genetically determined and largely resistant to lifestyle and pharmacologic intervention. It seemed senseless to test for something that was deemed “unmodifiable,” so untreatable. That label stuck for decades.

Fortunately, a resurgent interest in molecular pathophysiology this past decade has clarified Lp(a)’s unique contribution to atherothrombotic disease and calcific aortic stenosis. While there remains much to be learned about this complex, highly atherogenic molecule and its role in cardiac disease, it seems shortsighted not to take the simple step of identifying who carries this risk. Why are we not testing everyone for an extremely common and potent risk factor for the most lethal disease on the planet?

Epidemiologic studies project a stunning number of people in the United States to be at increased risk for Lp(a)-mediated coronary and cerebrovascular events. Because the LPA gene which codes for the apo(a) component of the Lp(a) molecule is fully expressed at age 2, this is a truly lifelong risk factor for a projected 64 million individuals with blood levels (> 60 mg/dL) high enough to double their risk for ASCVD. Because risk increases linearly, this includes 16 million, like me, with levels > 116 mg/dL, who are at four times the risk for ASCVD as those with normal levels (< 30 mg/dL).

Because Lp(a) level remains relatively constant throughout life, a single blood test would help stratify the risk it confers on millions of people who, under current U.S. guidelines, would never be tested. Until Lp(a) is integrated into its algorithms, the commonly used ASCVD Risk Calculator will substantially underestimate risk in 20% of the population.

A potential barrier to universal testing is that the ideal method to measure Lp(a) has yet to be determined. Lp(a) comprises an apoB particle bonded to an apo(a) particle. Apo(a) is complex and has a number of isoforms that can result in large heterogeneity in apo(a) size between, as well as within, individuals. This contributes to controversy about the ideal assay and whether Lp(a) levels should be expressed as mass (mg/dL) or number of particles (nmols/L). This should not, however, deter universal testing.
 

One-time cost, lifetime benefit?

Absent universal testing, it’s impossible to estimate the economic toll that Lp(a) exacts, but it’s surely an extraordinary number, particularly because the highest-risk individuals are prone to recurrent, nonfatal vascular events. The substantial price tag for my personal decade of Lp(a)-induced vascular havoc included four percutaneous coronary interventions with rapid stent restenosis, an eventual bypass surgery, and an aborted left hemispheric stroke, requiring an urgent carotid endarterectomy.

As a frame of reference, U.S. expenditures related to ASCVD are estimated to be $351 billion annually. If everyone in the United States over the age of 18 were tested for Lp(a) at a cost of $100 per person, this would be a $21 billion expenditure. This nonrecurring expense would identify the 20% – or almost 42 million individuals – at high risk for ASCVD, a number of whom would have already had vascular events. This one-time cost would be a foundational step in securing year-after-year savings from enhanced ASCVD prevention and reduction in recurrent vascular events.

Such savings would be significantly enhanced if and when targeted, effective Lp(a) treatments become available, but it seems shortsighted to make this the linchpin for universal testing. It’s noteworthy that Canadian and European guidelines already endorse one-time testing for all.

The confirmation of Lp(a)’s causal role in ASCVD remains underappreciated by medical providers across all specialties. Much of the elegant Lp(a)-related science of the past decade has yet to translate to the clinical world. What better way to rectify this than by identifying those with high Lp(a)? Since the advent of the statin era, “good” and “bad” cholesterol values are common conversational fare, in part because virtually every adult has had not one, but many lipid panels. Universal Lp(a) testing would spotlight this pervasive and important risk factor that was referred to as the “horrible” cholesterol in a recent review.
 

U.S. guidelines need updating

To foster this, U.S. guidelines, which influence every aspect of care, including testing, prevention, treatment, reimbursement, and medical legal issues, need to be simplified. The discussion of Lp(a) testing in the 2018 U.S. guidelines on cholesterol management is already obsolete. The contingencies on when testing is “reasonable” or “may be reasonable” are dated and cumbersome. In contrast, a recommendation to test everyone once, perhaps in adolescence, would be a useful, forward-looking strategy.

To date, trials of an antisense oligonucleotide and a small interfering RNA molecule targeting hepatic LPA messenger RNA have confirmed that plasma Lp(a) levels can be significantly and safely lowered. If the ongoing Lp(a) HORIZON and OCEAN(a) phase 3 trials have positive outcomes in patients with known ASCVD, this would spawn a host of clinical trials to explore the possibilities of these therapies in primary prevention as well. These will require tens of thousands of enrollees, and universal testing would expand the pool of potential participants.

The majority of at-risk individuals identified through universal testing would be candidates for primary prevention. This large, currently unidentified cohort should have all coexisting risk factors assessed and managed; lowering elevated LDL cholesterol early and aggressively is paramount. Recent data from the United Kingdom suggest that attainment of specific LDL cholesterol levels may offset the risk for vascular events in those with high Lp(a) levels.

Of note, this was the advice given to the small fraction of high-risk individuals like me, who had their Lp(a) level tested long before its ominous implications were understood. This recommendation was informed mostly by common sense. For any number of reasons, the same might be said for universal testing.

Dr. Leahy, a retired cardiologist in San Diego, has an abiding professional and personal interest in Lp(a), which has been responsible for a number of cardiovascular events in his own life over the past 2 decades. He was a participant in the phase 2 clinical trial of the Lp(a)-lowering antisense oligonucleotide being studied in the Lp(a) HORIZON trial, funded by Novartis, and is currently undergoing apheresis treatment. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Most doctors in primary care would agree that lymphedema is a difficult and frustrating disorder to treat. Despite treatments, patients still continue to suffer with symptoms such as pain and leg heaviness, and get only mild improvement. Patients receiving treatments rarely become symptom free.

According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), primary or congenital lymphedema is a rare disorder occurring in 1 out of 100,00 Americans. On the other hand, secondary or acquired lymphedema is seen in 1 out of every 1,000 and is a complication of many cancers. For example, 1 out of every 5 women who survive breast cancer will develop lymphedema.

Given the statistics, primary care doctors will likely be responsible for treating patients with this disorder. It is important to note that the American Venous Forum consensus statement concluded that the diagnosis can be made based on clinical exam alone.

Given this fact, practitioners should be able to distinguish lymphedema from other similar diseases. As primary care doctors, we are likely to be the first ones to evaluate and diagnose this disease and need to be proficient on physical findings. We should also know the risk factors. No tests need to be performed, and this is a positive in this time of rising health care costs.

Another important conclusion of the consensus statement is that patients with chronic venous insufficiency should be treated the same as patients with lymphedema, especially given the fact that it can be a secondary cause of lymphedema. However, those disagreeing with this in the panel that developed the consensus statement endorsed doing a venous ultrasound to establish the cause.

Chronic venous insufficiency and lymphedema are often confused for each other, and the fact that they should be treated the same further establishes the fact that no further testing is needed. It can be argued that if we order a test when we suspect lymphedema, it serves only to drive up the cost and delays the initiation of treatment.

One area in which the panel of experts who developed the consensus statement showed some variability was in their recommendations for the treatment of lymphedema. Regular use of compression stockings to reduce lymphedema progression and manual lymphatic drainage were favored by most of the panel members, while Velcro devices and surgery were not.

While it is worthwhile to note this conclusion, determining how to treat a patient in clinical practice is often much more difficult. For one thing, some of these treatments are hard to get covered by insurance companies. Also, there is no objective data, unlike blood pressure or diabetic readings, to show the efficacy of a therapy for lymphedema. Instead, a diagnosis of lymphedema is based on a patient’s subjective symptoms. Many patients experience no substantial improvement from treatment, and even modest improvements can be considered a failure to them.

Another obstacle to treatment is that many patients find the treatment modalities uncomfortable or unsustainable. Some find the compression devices painful, for example. But often, they are given ones that have not been custom fitted to them, especially in the days of COVID when these are most often shipped to the patients’ homes. Also, manual drainage can be very time-consuming. To be effective, some patients need to do it more than once a day and it can take 30-60 minutes. Patients have jobs to go to and just don’t have the downtime to be able to do it effectively.

While this consensus statement does a good job analyzing current diagnosis and treatment of lymphedema, further research is needed to find new treatments and better education of clinicians needs to be done.

Lymphedema is an often-overlooked diagnosis despite having obvious clinical findings. There is currently no cure for lymphedema and the treatments that we do have available are not going to eliminate symptoms.

Patients are often frustrated by the lack of clinical improvement and there is little left to offer them. If we truly want to make an impact in our lymphedema patients, we need a better treatment. For now, we can offer them what is proven by the best evidence to reduce symptoms and support them in their suffering. Sometimes a listening ear and kind heart can make an even larger impact than just offering a treatment that doesn’t cure their disease.

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at [email protected].

Most doctors in primary care would agree that lymphedema is a difficult and frustrating disorder to treat. Despite treatments, patients still continue to suffer with symptoms such as pain and leg heaviness, and get only mild improvement. Patients receiving treatments rarely become symptom free.

According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), primary or congenital lymphedema is a rare disorder occurring in 1 out of 100,00 Americans. On the other hand, secondary or acquired lymphedema is seen in 1 out of every 1,000 and is a complication of many cancers. For example, 1 out of every 5 women who survive breast cancer will develop lymphedema.

Given the statistics, primary care doctors will likely be responsible for treating patients with this disorder. It is important to note that the American Venous Forum consensus statement concluded that the diagnosis can be made based on clinical exam alone.

Given this fact, practitioners should be able to distinguish lymphedema from other similar diseases. As primary care doctors, we are likely to be the first ones to evaluate and diagnose this disease and need to be proficient on physical findings. We should also know the risk factors. No tests need to be performed, and this is a positive in this time of rising health care costs.

Another important conclusion of the consensus statement is that patients with chronic venous insufficiency should be treated the same as patients with lymphedema, especially given the fact that it can be a secondary cause of lymphedema. However, those disagreeing with this in the panel that developed the consensus statement endorsed doing a venous ultrasound to establish the cause.

Chronic venous insufficiency and lymphedema are often confused for each other, and the fact that they should be treated the same further establishes the fact that no further testing is needed. It can be argued that if we order a test when we suspect lymphedema, it serves only to drive up the cost and delays the initiation of treatment.

One area in which the panel of experts who developed the consensus statement showed some variability was in their recommendations for the treatment of lymphedema. Regular use of compression stockings to reduce lymphedema progression and manual lymphatic drainage were favored by most of the panel members, while Velcro devices and surgery were not.

While it is worthwhile to note this conclusion, determining how to treat a patient in clinical practice is often much more difficult. For one thing, some of these treatments are hard to get covered by insurance companies. Also, there is no objective data, unlike blood pressure or diabetic readings, to show the efficacy of a therapy for lymphedema. Instead, a diagnosis of lymphedema is based on a patient’s subjective symptoms. Many patients experience no substantial improvement from treatment, and even modest improvements can be considered a failure to them.

Another obstacle to treatment is that many patients find the treatment modalities uncomfortable or unsustainable. Some find the compression devices painful, for example. But often, they are given ones that have not been custom fitted to them, especially in the days of COVID when these are most often shipped to the patients’ homes. Also, manual drainage can be very time-consuming. To be effective, some patients need to do it more than once a day and it can take 30-60 minutes. Patients have jobs to go to and just don’t have the downtime to be able to do it effectively.

While this consensus statement does a good job analyzing current diagnosis and treatment of lymphedema, further research is needed to find new treatments and better education of clinicians needs to be done.

Lymphedema is an often-overlooked diagnosis despite having obvious clinical findings. There is currently no cure for lymphedema and the treatments that we do have available are not going to eliminate symptoms.

Patients are often frustrated by the lack of clinical improvement and there is little left to offer them. If we truly want to make an impact in our lymphedema patients, we need a better treatment. For now, we can offer them what is proven by the best evidence to reduce symptoms and support them in their suffering. Sometimes a listening ear and kind heart can make an even larger impact than just offering a treatment that doesn’t cure their disease.

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at [email protected].

Most doctors in primary care would agree that lymphedema is a difficult and frustrating disorder to treat. Despite treatments, patients still continue to suffer with symptoms such as pain and leg heaviness, and get only mild improvement. Patients receiving treatments rarely become symptom free.

According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), primary or congenital lymphedema is a rare disorder occurring in 1 out of 100,00 Americans. On the other hand, secondary or acquired lymphedema is seen in 1 out of every 1,000 and is a complication of many cancers. For example, 1 out of every 5 women who survive breast cancer will develop lymphedema.

Given the statistics, primary care doctors will likely be responsible for treating patients with this disorder. It is important to note that the American Venous Forum consensus statement concluded that the diagnosis can be made based on clinical exam alone.

Given this fact, practitioners should be able to distinguish lymphedema from other similar diseases. As primary care doctors, we are likely to be the first ones to evaluate and diagnose this disease and need to be proficient on physical findings. We should also know the risk factors. No tests need to be performed, and this is a positive in this time of rising health care costs.

Another important conclusion of the consensus statement is that patients with chronic venous insufficiency should be treated the same as patients with lymphedema, especially given the fact that it can be a secondary cause of lymphedema. However, those disagreeing with this in the panel that developed the consensus statement endorsed doing a venous ultrasound to establish the cause.

Chronic venous insufficiency and lymphedema are often confused for each other, and the fact that they should be treated the same further establishes the fact that no further testing is needed. It can be argued that if we order a test when we suspect lymphedema, it serves only to drive up the cost and delays the initiation of treatment.

One area in which the panel of experts who developed the consensus statement showed some variability was in their recommendations for the treatment of lymphedema. Regular use of compression stockings to reduce lymphedema progression and manual lymphatic drainage were favored by most of the panel members, while Velcro devices and surgery were not.

While it is worthwhile to note this conclusion, determining how to treat a patient in clinical practice is often much more difficult. For one thing, some of these treatments are hard to get covered by insurance companies. Also, there is no objective data, unlike blood pressure or diabetic readings, to show the efficacy of a therapy for lymphedema. Instead, a diagnosis of lymphedema is based on a patient’s subjective symptoms. Many patients experience no substantial improvement from treatment, and even modest improvements can be considered a failure to them.

Another obstacle to treatment is that many patients find the treatment modalities uncomfortable or unsustainable. Some find the compression devices painful, for example. But often, they are given ones that have not been custom fitted to them, especially in the days of COVID when these are most often shipped to the patients’ homes. Also, manual drainage can be very time-consuming. To be effective, some patients need to do it more than once a day and it can take 30-60 minutes. Patients have jobs to go to and just don’t have the downtime to be able to do it effectively.

While this consensus statement does a good job analyzing current diagnosis and treatment of lymphedema, further research is needed to find new treatments and better education of clinicians needs to be done.

Lymphedema is an often-overlooked diagnosis despite having obvious clinical findings. There is currently no cure for lymphedema and the treatments that we do have available are not going to eliminate symptoms.

Patients are often frustrated by the lack of clinical improvement and there is little left to offer them. If we truly want to make an impact in our lymphedema patients, we need a better treatment. For now, we can offer them what is proven by the best evidence to reduce symptoms and support them in their suffering. Sometimes a listening ear and kind heart can make an even larger impact than just offering a treatment that doesn’t cure their disease.

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at [email protected].

Innovations in biomedical technology – from modern endoscopic devices and techniques to harnessing the microbiome to prevent and treat disease – have fundamentally changed the way in which we practice medicine and significantly improved the lives of our patients. In our February issue, we are pleased to highlight the launch of AGA’s GI Opportunity Fund, a new investment vehicle that provides AGA members and others a direct pathway to support development of promising, early-stage innovations by funding carefully vetted, cutting-edge start-up companies. We hope you will enjoy learning more about this exciting new initiative, which recently made its first major investment.

In our February Member Spotlight column, we feature Dr. Simon Mathews and his work to bring greater visibility to digital health technologies and their use in gastroenterology and beyond. I want to thank GIHN Associate Editor Dr. Janice Jou for agreeing to spearhead this new column as its section editor – again, we invite you to nominate your colleagues, mentees, and others to be featured in future Member Spotlight columns.

We also highlight several recent papers published in AGA’s flagship journals, including a study assessing clinical outcomes and adverse events in patients receiving oral vs. colonic fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) for recurrent C. difficile infection, and another evaluating the cost-effectiveness of earlier colorectal cancer screening in patients with obesity. On the policy front, we summarize GI-relevant portions of the $1.7 trillion FY 2023 Omnibus Appropriations bill, signed into law on Dec. 30, 2022, by President Biden, and assess its impact on Medicare payments, continuation of support for telehealth/virtual care, and NIH-funding. We hope you enjoy reading these and other articles presented in our February issue.
 

Don’t forget to register for DDW 2023, May 6-9, 2023, in Chicago – general registration is now open!

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc
Editor-in-Chief

Innovations in biomedical technology – from modern endoscopic devices and techniques to harnessing the microbiome to prevent and treat disease – have fundamentally changed the way in which we practice medicine and significantly improved the lives of our patients. In our February issue, we are pleased to highlight the launch of AGA’s GI Opportunity Fund, a new investment vehicle that provides AGA members and others a direct pathway to support development of promising, early-stage innovations by funding carefully vetted, cutting-edge start-up companies. We hope you will enjoy learning more about this exciting new initiative, which recently made its first major investment.

In our February Member Spotlight column, we feature Dr. Simon Mathews and his work to bring greater visibility to digital health technologies and their use in gastroenterology and beyond. I want to thank GIHN Associate Editor Dr. Janice Jou for agreeing to spearhead this new column as its section editor – again, we invite you to nominate your colleagues, mentees, and others to be featured in future Member Spotlight columns.

We also highlight several recent papers published in AGA’s flagship journals, including a study assessing clinical outcomes and adverse events in patients receiving oral vs. colonic fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) for recurrent C. difficile infection, and another evaluating the cost-effectiveness of earlier colorectal cancer screening in patients with obesity. On the policy front, we summarize GI-relevant portions of the $1.7 trillion FY 2023 Omnibus Appropriations bill, signed into law on Dec. 30, 2022, by President Biden, and assess its impact on Medicare payments, continuation of support for telehealth/virtual care, and NIH-funding. We hope you enjoy reading these and other articles presented in our February issue.
 

Don’t forget to register for DDW 2023, May 6-9, 2023, in Chicago – general registration is now open!

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc
Editor-in-Chief

Innovations in biomedical technology – from modern endoscopic devices and techniques to harnessing the microbiome to prevent and treat disease – have fundamentally changed the way in which we practice medicine and significantly improved the lives of our patients. In our February issue, we are pleased to highlight the launch of AGA’s GI Opportunity Fund, a new investment vehicle that provides AGA members and others a direct pathway to support development of promising, early-stage innovations by funding carefully vetted, cutting-edge start-up companies. We hope you will enjoy learning more about this exciting new initiative, which recently made its first major investment.

In our February Member Spotlight column, we feature Dr. Simon Mathews and his work to bring greater visibility to digital health technologies and their use in gastroenterology and beyond. I want to thank GIHN Associate Editor Dr. Janice Jou for agreeing to spearhead this new column as its section editor – again, we invite you to nominate your colleagues, mentees, and others to be featured in future Member Spotlight columns.

We also highlight several recent papers published in AGA’s flagship journals, including a study assessing clinical outcomes and adverse events in patients receiving oral vs. colonic fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) for recurrent C. difficile infection, and another evaluating the cost-effectiveness of earlier colorectal cancer screening in patients with obesity. On the policy front, we summarize GI-relevant portions of the $1.7 trillion FY 2023 Omnibus Appropriations bill, signed into law on Dec. 30, 2022, by President Biden, and assess its impact on Medicare payments, continuation of support for telehealth/virtual care, and NIH-funding. We hope you enjoy reading these and other articles presented in our February issue.
 

Don’t forget to register for DDW 2023, May 6-9, 2023, in Chicago – general registration is now open!

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc
Editor-in-Chief

It’s a common scenario. A patient, Agnes, with symptoms of an upper respiratory infection (URI), but what’s the cause? Is it COVID-19, flu, or even RSV? I recently described just such a patient, an obese woman with type 2 diabetes, presenting with fever, cough, myalgia, and fatigue. I asked readers whether they agreed with my management of this patient.

Thank you for your comments as we continue to react to high rates of URIs. Your comments highlight the importance of local resources and practice habits when managing patients with URI.

It was clear that readers value testing to distinguish between infections. However, access to testing is highly variable around the world and is likely to be routinely used only in high-income countries. The Kaiser Family Foundation performed a cost analysis of testing for SARS-CoV-2 in 2020 and found, not surprisingly, wide variability in the cost of testing. Medicare covers tests at rates of $36-$143 per test; a study of list prices for SARS-CoV-2 tests at 93 hospitals found a median cost of $148 per test. And this does not include collection or facility fees. About 20% of tests cost more than $300.

These costs are prohibitive for many health systems. However, more devices have been introduced since that analysis, and competition and evolving technology should drive down prices. Generally, multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for multiple pathogens is less expensive than ordering two or three separate molecular tests and is more convenient for patients and practices alike.

Other reader comments focused on the challenges of getting accurate data on viral epidemiology, and there is certainly a time lag between infection trends and public health reports. This is exacerbated by underreporting of symptoms and more testing at home using antigen tests.

But please do not give up on epidemiology! If a test such as PCR is 90% sensitive for identifying infection, the yield in terms of the number of individuals infected with a particular virus should be high, and that is true when infection is in broad circulation. If 20% of a population of 1,000 has an infection and the test sensitivity is 90%, the yield of testing is 180 true cases versus 20 false positives.

However, if just 2% of the population of 1,000 has the infection in this same scenario, then only 18 true cases are identified. The effect on public health is certainly less, and a lower prevalence rate means that confounding variables, such as how long an individual might shed viral particles and the method of sample collection, have an outsized effect on results. This reduces the validity of diagnostic tests.

Even trends on a national level can provide some insight regarding whom to test. Traditionally, our practice has been to not routinely test patients for influenza or RSV from late spring to early fall unless there was a compelling reason, such as recent travel to an area where these infections were more prevalent. The loss of temporality for these infections since 2020 has altered this approach and made us pay more attention to reports from public health organizations.

I also appreciate the discussion of how to treat Agnes’s symptoms as she waits to improve, and anyone who suffers with or treats a viral URI knows that there are few interventions effective for such symptoms as cough and congestion. A systematic review of 29 randomized controlled trials of over-the-counter medications for cough yielded mixed and largely negative results.

Antihistamines alone do not seem to work, and guaifenesin was successful in only one of three trials. Combinations of different drug classes appeared to be slightly more effective.

My personal favorite for the management of acute cough is something that kids generally love: honey. In a review of 14 studies, 9 of which were limited to pediatric patients, honey was associated with significant reductions in cough frequency, cough severity, and total symptom score. However, there was a moderate risk of bias in the included research, and evidence of honey’s benefit in placebo-controlled trials was limited. Honey used in this research came in a variety of forms, so the best dosage is uncertain.

Clearly, advancements are needed. Better symptom management in viral URI will almost certainly improve productivity across the population and will probably reduce the inappropriate use of antibiotics as well. I have said for years that the scientists who can solve the Gordian knot of pediatric mucus deserve three Nobel prizes. I look forward to that golden day.

Dr. Vega is a clinical professor of family medicine at the University of California, Irvine. He reported a conflict of interest with McNeil Pharmaceuticals.

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

It’s a common scenario. A patient, Agnes, with symptoms of an upper respiratory infection (URI), but what’s the cause? Is it COVID-19, flu, or even RSV? I recently described just such a patient, an obese woman with type 2 diabetes, presenting with fever, cough, myalgia, and fatigue. I asked readers whether they agreed with my management of this patient.

Thank you for your comments as we continue to react to high rates of URIs. Your comments highlight the importance of local resources and practice habits when managing patients with URI.

It was clear that readers value testing to distinguish between infections. However, access to testing is highly variable around the world and is likely to be routinely used only in high-income countries. The Kaiser Family Foundation performed a cost analysis of testing for SARS-CoV-2 in 2020 and found, not surprisingly, wide variability in the cost of testing. Medicare covers tests at rates of $36-$143 per test; a study of list prices for SARS-CoV-2 tests at 93 hospitals found a median cost of $148 per test. And this does not include collection or facility fees. About 20% of tests cost more than $300.

These costs are prohibitive for many health systems. However, more devices have been introduced since that analysis, and competition and evolving technology should drive down prices. Generally, multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for multiple pathogens is less expensive than ordering two or three separate molecular tests and is more convenient for patients and practices alike.

Other reader comments focused on the challenges of getting accurate data on viral epidemiology, and there is certainly a time lag between infection trends and public health reports. This is exacerbated by underreporting of symptoms and more testing at home using antigen tests.

But please do not give up on epidemiology! If a test such as PCR is 90% sensitive for identifying infection, the yield in terms of the number of individuals infected with a particular virus should be high, and that is true when infection is in broad circulation. If 20% of a population of 1,000 has an infection and the test sensitivity is 90%, the yield of testing is 180 true cases versus 20 false positives.

However, if just 2% of the population of 1,000 has the infection in this same scenario, then only 18 true cases are identified. The effect on public health is certainly less, and a lower prevalence rate means that confounding variables, such as how long an individual might shed viral particles and the method of sample collection, have an outsized effect on results. This reduces the validity of diagnostic tests.

Even trends on a national level can provide some insight regarding whom to test. Traditionally, our practice has been to not routinely test patients for influenza or RSV from late spring to early fall unless there was a compelling reason, such as recent travel to an area where these infections were more prevalent. The loss of temporality for these infections since 2020 has altered this approach and made us pay more attention to reports from public health organizations.

I also appreciate the discussion of how to treat Agnes’s symptoms as she waits to improve, and anyone who suffers with or treats a viral URI knows that there are few interventions effective for such symptoms as cough and congestion. A systematic review of 29 randomized controlled trials of over-the-counter medications for cough yielded mixed and largely negative results.

Antihistamines alone do not seem to work, and guaifenesin was successful in only one of three trials. Combinations of different drug classes appeared to be slightly more effective.

My personal favorite for the management of acute cough is something that kids generally love: honey. In a review of 14 studies, 9 of which were limited to pediatric patients, honey was associated with significant reductions in cough frequency, cough severity, and total symptom score. However, there was a moderate risk of bias in the included research, and evidence of honey’s benefit in placebo-controlled trials was limited. Honey used in this research came in a variety of forms, so the best dosage is uncertain.

Clearly, advancements are needed. Better symptom management in viral URI will almost certainly improve productivity across the population and will probably reduce the inappropriate use of antibiotics as well. I have said for years that the scientists who can solve the Gordian knot of pediatric mucus deserve three Nobel prizes. I look forward to that golden day.

Dr. Vega is a clinical professor of family medicine at the University of California, Irvine. He reported a conflict of interest with McNeil Pharmaceuticals.

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

It’s a common scenario. A patient, Agnes, with symptoms of an upper respiratory infection (URI), but what’s the cause? Is it COVID-19, flu, or even RSV? I recently described just such a patient, an obese woman with type 2 diabetes, presenting with fever, cough, myalgia, and fatigue. I asked readers whether they agreed with my management of this patient.

Thank you for your comments as we continue to react to high rates of URIs. Your comments highlight the importance of local resources and practice habits when managing patients with URI.

It was clear that readers value testing to distinguish between infections. However, access to testing is highly variable around the world and is likely to be routinely used only in high-income countries. The Kaiser Family Foundation performed a cost analysis of testing for SARS-CoV-2 in 2020 and found, not surprisingly, wide variability in the cost of testing. Medicare covers tests at rates of $36-$143 per test; a study of list prices for SARS-CoV-2 tests at 93 hospitals found a median cost of $148 per test. And this does not include collection or facility fees. About 20% of tests cost more than $300.

These costs are prohibitive for many health systems. However, more devices have been introduced since that analysis, and competition and evolving technology should drive down prices. Generally, multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for multiple pathogens is less expensive than ordering two or three separate molecular tests and is more convenient for patients and practices alike.

Other reader comments focused on the challenges of getting accurate data on viral epidemiology, and there is certainly a time lag between infection trends and public health reports. This is exacerbated by underreporting of symptoms and more testing at home using antigen tests.

But please do not give up on epidemiology! If a test such as PCR is 90% sensitive for identifying infection, the yield in terms of the number of individuals infected with a particular virus should be high, and that is true when infection is in broad circulation. If 20% of a population of 1,000 has an infection and the test sensitivity is 90%, the yield of testing is 180 true cases versus 20 false positives.

However, if just 2% of the population of 1,000 has the infection in this same scenario, then only 18 true cases are identified. The effect on public health is certainly less, and a lower prevalence rate means that confounding variables, such as how long an individual might shed viral particles and the method of sample collection, have an outsized effect on results. This reduces the validity of diagnostic tests.

Even trends on a national level can provide some insight regarding whom to test. Traditionally, our practice has been to not routinely test patients for influenza or RSV from late spring to early fall unless there was a compelling reason, such as recent travel to an area where these infections were more prevalent. The loss of temporality for these infections since 2020 has altered this approach and made us pay more attention to reports from public health organizations.

I also appreciate the discussion of how to treat Agnes’s symptoms as she waits to improve, and anyone who suffers with or treats a viral URI knows that there are few interventions effective for such symptoms as cough and congestion. A systematic review of 29 randomized controlled trials of over-the-counter medications for cough yielded mixed and largely negative results.

Antihistamines alone do not seem to work, and guaifenesin was successful in only one of three trials. Combinations of different drug classes appeared to be slightly more effective.

My personal favorite for the management of acute cough is something that kids generally love: honey. In a review of 14 studies, 9 of which were limited to pediatric patients, honey was associated with significant reductions in cough frequency, cough severity, and total symptom score. However, there was a moderate risk of bias in the included research, and evidence of honey’s benefit in placebo-controlled trials was limited. Honey used in this research came in a variety of forms, so the best dosage is uncertain.

Clearly, advancements are needed. Better symptom management in viral URI will almost certainly improve productivity across the population and will probably reduce the inappropriate use of antibiotics as well. I have said for years that the scientists who can solve the Gordian knot of pediatric mucus deserve three Nobel prizes. I look forward to that golden day.

Dr. Vega is a clinical professor of family medicine at the University of California, Irvine. He reported a conflict of interest with McNeil Pharmaceuticals.

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

New treatments for psoriasis constitute an embarrassment of riches compared to any other area of dermatology. Despite the many advances over the last 25 years, additional topical and systemic treatments have recently become available. Gosh, it’s great!

In May 2022, once-daily tapinarof cream 1% was approved for the topical treatment of plaque psoriasis in adults.¹ Tapinarof was identified as a metabolite made by bacteria symbiotic to a nematode, allowing the nematode to infect insects.² Tapinarof’s anti-inflammatory effect extends to mammals. The drug works by activating the aryl hydrocarbon receptor, downregulating proinflammatory cytokines such as IL-17, and normalizing the expression of skin barrier proteins such as filaggrin.² In two 12-week, phase 3, randomized trials with 510 and 515 patients, respectively, 35% to 40% of tapinarof-treated psoriasis patients were clear or almost clear compared with only 6% of patients in the placebo group. The drug appears safe; common adverse events (AEs) included folliculitis, nasopharyngitis, contact dermatitis, headache, upper respiratory tract infection, and pruritus.³

A second new topical treatment for plaque psoriasis was approved in July 2022—once-daily roflumilast 0.3% cream—for patients 12 years and older.⁴ Similar to apremilast, roflumilast is a phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor that blocks the degradation of cAMP and reduces the downstream production of inflammatory molecules implicated in psoriasis.⁵ In two 8-week, phase 3 clinical trials (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers NCT04211363 and NCT04211389)(N=881), approximately 40% of roflumilast-treated patients were clear or almost clear vs approximately 6% in the placebo group. Topical roflumilast was well-tolerated; the most common AEs included diarrhea, headache, insomnia, nausea, application-site pain, upper respiratory tract infection, and urinary tract infection.⁶

We have so many patients—and many more people with psoriasis who are not yet patients—with limited psoriasis who would be amenable to topical treatment but who are not responding to current treatments. There is considerable enthusiasm for the new topicals, but it is still questionable how much they will help our patients. The main reason the current topicals fail is poor adherence to the treatment. If we give these new treatments to patients who used existing topicals and failed, thereby inadvertently selecting patients with poor adherence to topicals, it will be surprising if the new treatments live up to expectations. Perhaps tapinarof and roflumilast will revolutionize the management of localized psoriasis; perhaps their impact will be similar to topical crisaborole— exciting in trials and less practical in real life. It may be that apremilast, which is now approved for psoriasis of any severity, will make a bigger difference for patients who can access it for limited psoriasis.

Deucravacitinib is a once-daily oral selective tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor that blocks IL-23 and type I interferon signaling. It was approved for adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in September 2021.⁷ We know patients want oral treatment; they ask for apremilast even though injections may be much more potent. In a 16-week, phase 3 clinical trial comparing daily deucravacitinib (n=332), apremilast (n=168), and placebo (n=166), rates of clear or almost clear were approximately 55% in the deucravacitinib group, 32% in the apremilast group, and 7% with placebo. The most common AEs included nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, diarrhea, and nausea.⁸ Although deucravacitinib is much more effective than apremilast, deucravacitinib will require monitoring and may have some risk for viral reactivation of herpes simplex and zoster (and hopefully not much else). Whether physicians view it as a replacement for apremilast, which requires no laboratory monitoring, remains to be seen.

Bimekizumab, a humanized monoclonal IgG1 antibody expected to receive US Food and Drug Administration approval in the coming months, inhibits both IL-17A and IL-17F and may become our most effective treatment of psoriasis. Although we are probably not hungering for a more effective psoriasis treatment (given our current embarrassment of riches), bimekizumab’s remarkably high efficacy for psoriatic arthritis may be a quantum leap forward, especially if no new safety signals are identified; bimekizumab treatment is associated with a higher risk of oral candidiasis than other currently available IL-17 antagonists.⁹ Biosimilars may reduce the cost of psoriasis management to the health system, but it seems unlikely that biosimilars will allow us to help patients who we cannot already help with the existing extensive psoriasis treatment armamentarium.

New treatments for psoriasis constitute an embarrassment of riches compared to any other area of dermatology. Despite the many advances over the last 25 years, additional topical and systemic treatments have recently become available. Gosh, it’s great!

In May 2022, once-daily tapinarof cream 1% was approved for the topical treatment of plaque psoriasis in adults.¹ Tapinarof was identified as a metabolite made by bacteria symbiotic to a nematode, allowing the nematode to infect insects.² Tapinarof’s anti-inflammatory effect extends to mammals. The drug works by activating the aryl hydrocarbon receptor, downregulating proinflammatory cytokines such as IL-17, and normalizing the expression of skin barrier proteins such as filaggrin.² In two 12-week, phase 3, randomized trials with 510 and 515 patients, respectively, 35% to 40% of tapinarof-treated psoriasis patients were clear or almost clear compared with only 6% of patients in the placebo group. The drug appears safe; common adverse events (AEs) included folliculitis, nasopharyngitis, contact dermatitis, headache, upper respiratory tract infection, and pruritus.³

A second new topical treatment for plaque psoriasis was approved in July 2022—once-daily roflumilast 0.3% cream—for patients 12 years and older.⁴ Similar to apremilast, roflumilast is a phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor that blocks the degradation of cAMP and reduces the downstream production of inflammatory molecules implicated in psoriasis.⁵ In two 8-week, phase 3 clinical trials (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers NCT04211363 and NCT04211389)(N=881), approximately 40% of roflumilast-treated patients were clear or almost clear vs approximately 6% in the placebo group. Topical roflumilast was well-tolerated; the most common AEs included diarrhea, headache, insomnia, nausea, application-site pain, upper respiratory tract infection, and urinary tract infection.⁶

We have so many patients—and many more people with psoriasis who are not yet patients—with limited psoriasis who would be amenable to topical treatment but who are not responding to current treatments. There is considerable enthusiasm for the new topicals, but it is still questionable how much they will help our patients. The main reason the current topicals fail is poor adherence to the treatment. If we give these new treatments to patients who used existing topicals and failed, thereby inadvertently selecting patients with poor adherence to topicals, it will be surprising if the new treatments live up to expectations. Perhaps tapinarof and roflumilast will revolutionize the management of localized psoriasis; perhaps their impact will be similar to topical crisaborole— exciting in trials and less practical in real life. It may be that apremilast, which is now approved for psoriasis of any severity, will make a bigger difference for patients who can access it for limited psoriasis.

Deucravacitinib is a once-daily oral selective tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor that blocks IL-23 and type I interferon signaling. It was approved for adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in September 2021.⁷ We know patients want oral treatment; they ask for apremilast even though injections may be much more potent. In a 16-week, phase 3 clinical trial comparing daily deucravacitinib (n=332), apremilast (n=168), and placebo (n=166), rates of clear or almost clear were approximately 55% in the deucravacitinib group, 32% in the apremilast group, and 7% with placebo. The most common AEs included nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, diarrhea, and nausea.⁸ Although deucravacitinib is much more effective than apremilast, deucravacitinib will require monitoring and may have some risk for viral reactivation of herpes simplex and zoster (and hopefully not much else). Whether physicians view it as a replacement for apremilast, which requires no laboratory monitoring, remains to be seen.

Bimekizumab, a humanized monoclonal IgG1 antibody expected to receive US Food and Drug Administration approval in the coming months, inhibits both IL-17A and IL-17F and may become our most effective treatment of psoriasis. Although we are probably not hungering for a more effective psoriasis treatment (given our current embarrassment of riches), bimekizumab’s remarkably high efficacy for psoriatic arthritis may be a quantum leap forward, especially if no new safety signals are identified; bimekizumab treatment is associated with a higher risk of oral candidiasis than other currently available IL-17 antagonists.⁹ Biosimilars may reduce the cost of psoriasis management to the health system, but it seems unlikely that biosimilars will allow us to help patients who we cannot already help with the existing extensive psoriasis treatment armamentarium.

New treatments for psoriasis constitute an embarrassment of riches compared to any other area of dermatology. Despite the many advances over the last 25 years, additional topical and systemic treatments have recently become available. Gosh, it’s great!

In May 2022, once-daily tapinarof cream 1% was approved for the topical treatment of plaque psoriasis in adults.¹ Tapinarof was identified as a metabolite made by bacteria symbiotic to a nematode, allowing the nematode to infect insects.² Tapinarof’s anti-inflammatory effect extends to mammals. The drug works by activating the aryl hydrocarbon receptor, downregulating proinflammatory cytokines such as IL-17, and normalizing the expression of skin barrier proteins such as filaggrin.² In two 12-week, phase 3, randomized trials with 510 and 515 patients, respectively, 35% to 40% of tapinarof-treated psoriasis patients were clear or almost clear compared with only 6% of patients in the placebo group. The drug appears safe; common adverse events (AEs) included folliculitis, nasopharyngitis, contact dermatitis, headache, upper respiratory tract infection, and pruritus.³

A second new topical treatment for plaque psoriasis was approved in July 2022—once-daily roflumilast 0.3% cream—for patients 12 years and older.⁴ Similar to apremilast, roflumilast is a phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor that blocks the degradation of cAMP and reduces the downstream production of inflammatory molecules implicated in psoriasis.⁵ In two 8-week, phase 3 clinical trials (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers NCT04211363 and NCT04211389)(N=881), approximately 40% of roflumilast-treated patients were clear or almost clear vs approximately 6% in the placebo group. Topical roflumilast was well-tolerated; the most common AEs included diarrhea, headache, insomnia, nausea, application-site pain, upper respiratory tract infection, and urinary tract infection.⁶

We have so many patients—and many more people with psoriasis who are not yet patients—with limited psoriasis who would be amenable to topical treatment but who are not responding to current treatments. There is considerable enthusiasm for the new topicals, but it is still questionable how much they will help our patients. The main reason the current topicals fail is poor adherence to the treatment. If we give these new treatments to patients who used existing topicals and failed, thereby inadvertently selecting patients with poor adherence to topicals, it will be surprising if the new treatments live up to expectations. Perhaps tapinarof and roflumilast will revolutionize the management of localized psoriasis; perhaps their impact will be similar to topical crisaborole— exciting in trials and less practical in real life. It may be that apremilast, which is now approved for psoriasis of any severity, will make a bigger difference for patients who can access it for limited psoriasis.

Deucravacitinib is a once-daily oral selective tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor that blocks IL-23 and type I interferon signaling. It was approved for adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in September 2021.⁷ We know patients want oral treatment; they ask for apremilast even though injections may be much more potent. In a 16-week, phase 3 clinical trial comparing daily deucravacitinib (n=332), apremilast (n=168), and placebo (n=166), rates of clear or almost clear were approximately 55% in the deucravacitinib group, 32% in the apremilast group, and 7% with placebo. The most common AEs included nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, diarrhea, and nausea.⁸ Although deucravacitinib is much more effective than apremilast, deucravacitinib will require monitoring and may have some risk for viral reactivation of herpes simplex and zoster (and hopefully not much else). Whether physicians view it as a replacement for apremilast, which requires no laboratory monitoring, remains to be seen.

Bimekizumab, a humanized monoclonal IgG1 antibody expected to receive US Food and Drug Administration approval in the coming months, inhibits both IL-17A and IL-17F and may become our most effective treatment of psoriasis. Although we are probably not hungering for a more effective psoriasis treatment (given our current embarrassment of riches), bimekizumab’s remarkably high efficacy for psoriatic arthritis may be a quantum leap forward, especially if no new safety signals are identified; bimekizumab treatment is associated with a higher risk of oral candidiasis than other currently available IL-17 antagonists.⁹ Biosimilars may reduce the cost of psoriasis management to the health system, but it seems unlikely that biosimilars will allow us to help patients who we cannot already help with the existing extensive psoriasis treatment armamentarium.

Apparently, offering children effective treatments for a chronic disease that markedly increases their risk for other chronic diseases, regularly erodes their quality of life, and is the No. 1 target of school-based bullying is wrong.

At least that’s my take watching the coverage of the recent American Academy of Pediatrics new pediatric obesity treatment guidelines that, gasp, suggest that children whose severity of obesity warrants medication or surgeries be offered medication or surgery. Because it’s wiser to not try to treat the obesity that›s contributing to a child’s type 2 diabetes, hypertension, fatty liver disease, or reduced quality of life?

The reaction isn’t surprising. Some of those who are up in arms about it have clinical or research careers dependent on championing their own favorite dietary strategies as if they are more effective and reproducible than decades of uniformly disappointing studies proving that they’re not. Others are upset because, for reasons that at times may be personal and at times may be conflicted, they believe that obesity should not be treated and/or that sustained weight loss is impossible. But overarchingly, probably the bulk of the hoopla stems from obesity being seen as a moral failing. Because the notion that those who suffer with obesity are themselves to blame has been the prevailing societal view for decades, if not centuries.

Working with families of children with obesity severe enough for them to seek help, it’s clear that if desire were sufficient to will it away, we wouldn’t need treatment guidelines let alone medications or surgery. Near uniformly, parents describe their children being bullied consequent to and being deeply self-conscious of their weight.

And what would those who think children shouldn’t be offered reproducibly effective treatment for obesity have them do about it? Many seem to think it would be preferable for kids to be placed on formal diets and, of course, that they should go out and play more. And though I’m all for encouraging the improvement of a child’s dietary quality and activity level, anyone suggesting those as panaceas for childhood obesity haven’t a clue. Not to mention the fact that, in most cases, improving overall dietary quality, something worthwhile at any weight, isn’t the dietary goal being recommended. Instead, the prescription seems to be restrictive dieting coupled with overexercising, which, unlike appropriately and thoughtfully informed and utilized medication, may increase a child’s risk of maladaptive thinking around food and fitness as well as disordered eating, not to mention challenge their self-esteem if their lifestyle results are underwhelming.

This brings us to one of the most bizarre takes on this whole business – that medications will be pushed and used when not necessary. No doubt that at times, that may occur, but the issue is that of a clinician’s overzealous prescribing and not of the treatment options or indications. Consider childhood asthma. There is no worry or uproar that children with mild asthma that isn’t having an impact on their quality of life or markedly risking their health will be placed on multiple inhaled steroids and treatments. Why? Because clinicians have been taught how to dispassionately evaluate treatment needs for asthma, monitor disease course, and not simply prescribe everything in our armamentarium.

Shocking, I know, but as is the case with every other medical condition, I think doctors are capable of learning and following an algorithm covering the indications and options for the treatment of childhood obesity.

How that looks also mirrors what’s seen with any other chronic noncommunicable disease with varied severity and impact. Doctors will evaluate each child with obesity to see whether it’s having a detrimental effect on their health or quality of life. They will monitor their patients’ obesity to see if it’s worsening and will, when necessary, undertake investigations to rule out its potential contribution to common comorbidities like type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and fatty liver disease. And, when appropriate, they will provide information on available treatment options – from lifestyle to medication to surgery and the risks, benefits, and realistic expectations associated with each – and then, without judgment, support their patients’ treatment choices because blame-free informed discussion and supportive prescription of care is, in fact, the distillation of our jobs.

If people are looking to be outraged rather than focusing their outrage on what we now need to do about childhood obesity, they should instead look to what got us here: our obesogenic environment. We and our children are swimming against a torrential current of cheap ultraprocessed calories being pushed upon us by a broken societal food culture that values convenience and simultaneously embraces the notion that knowledge is a match versus the thousands of genes and dozens of hormones that increasingly sophisticated food industry marketers and scientists prey upon. When dealing with torrential currents, we need to do more than just recommend swimming lessons.

Like asthma, which may be exacerbated by pollution in our environment both outdoors and indoors, childhood obesity is a modern-day environmentally influenced disease with varied penetrance that does not always require active treatment. Like asthma, childhood obesity is not a disease that children choose to have; it’s not a disease that can be willed away; and it’s not a disease that responds uniformly, dramatically, or enduringly to diet and exercise. Finally, literally and figuratively, like asthma, for childhood obesity, we thankfully now have a number of effective treatment options that we can offer, and it’s only our societal weight bias that leads to thinking that’s anything but great.

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

Apparently, offering children effective treatments for a chronic disease that markedly increases their risk for other chronic diseases, regularly erodes their quality of life, and is the No. 1 target of school-based bullying is wrong.

At least that’s my take watching the coverage of the recent American Academy of Pediatrics new pediatric obesity treatment guidelines that, gasp, suggest that children whose severity of obesity warrants medication or surgeries be offered medication or surgery. Because it’s wiser to not try to treat the obesity that›s contributing to a child’s type 2 diabetes, hypertension, fatty liver disease, or reduced quality of life?

The reaction isn’t surprising. Some of those who are up in arms about it have clinical or research careers dependent on championing their own favorite dietary strategies as if they are more effective and reproducible than decades of uniformly disappointing studies proving that they’re not. Others are upset because, for reasons that at times may be personal and at times may be conflicted, they believe that obesity should not be treated and/or that sustained weight loss is impossible. But overarchingly, probably the bulk of the hoopla stems from obesity being seen as a moral failing. Because the notion that those who suffer with obesity are themselves to blame has been the prevailing societal view for decades, if not centuries.

Working with families of children with obesity severe enough for them to seek help, it’s clear that if desire were sufficient to will it away, we wouldn’t need treatment guidelines let alone medications or surgery. Near uniformly, parents describe their children being bullied consequent to and being deeply self-conscious of their weight.

And what would those who think children shouldn’t be offered reproducibly effective treatment for obesity have them do about it? Many seem to think it would be preferable for kids to be placed on formal diets and, of course, that they should go out and play more. And though I’m all for encouraging the improvement of a child’s dietary quality and activity level, anyone suggesting those as panaceas for childhood obesity haven’t a clue. Not to mention the fact that, in most cases, improving overall dietary quality, something worthwhile at any weight, isn’t the dietary goal being recommended. Instead, the prescription seems to be restrictive dieting coupled with overexercising, which, unlike appropriately and thoughtfully informed and utilized medication, may increase a child’s risk of maladaptive thinking around food and fitness as well as disordered eating, not to mention challenge their self-esteem if their lifestyle results are underwhelming.

This brings us to one of the most bizarre takes on this whole business – that medications will be pushed and used when not necessary. No doubt that at times, that may occur, but the issue is that of a clinician’s overzealous prescribing and not of the treatment options or indications. Consider childhood asthma. There is no worry or uproar that children with mild asthma that isn’t having an impact on their quality of life or markedly risking their health will be placed on multiple inhaled steroids and treatments. Why? Because clinicians have been taught how to dispassionately evaluate treatment needs for asthma, monitor disease course, and not simply prescribe everything in our armamentarium.

Shocking, I know, but as is the case with every other medical condition, I think doctors are capable of learning and following an algorithm covering the indications and options for the treatment of childhood obesity.

How that looks also mirrors what’s seen with any other chronic noncommunicable disease with varied severity and impact. Doctors will evaluate each child with obesity to see whether it’s having a detrimental effect on their health or quality of life. They will monitor their patients’ obesity to see if it’s worsening and will, when necessary, undertake investigations to rule out its potential contribution to common comorbidities like type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and fatty liver disease. And, when appropriate, they will provide information on available treatment options – from lifestyle to medication to surgery and the risks, benefits, and realistic expectations associated with each – and then, without judgment, support their patients’ treatment choices because blame-free informed discussion and supportive prescription of care is, in fact, the distillation of our jobs.

If people are looking to be outraged rather than focusing their outrage on what we now need to do about childhood obesity, they should instead look to what got us here: our obesogenic environment. We and our children are swimming against a torrential current of cheap ultraprocessed calories being pushed upon us by a broken societal food culture that values convenience and simultaneously embraces the notion that knowledge is a match versus the thousands of genes and dozens of hormones that increasingly sophisticated food industry marketers and scientists prey upon. When dealing with torrential currents, we need to do more than just recommend swimming lessons.

Like asthma, which may be exacerbated by pollution in our environment both outdoors and indoors, childhood obesity is a modern-day environmentally influenced disease with varied penetrance that does not always require active treatment. Like asthma, childhood obesity is not a disease that children choose to have; it’s not a disease that can be willed away; and it’s not a disease that responds uniformly, dramatically, or enduringly to diet and exercise. Finally, literally and figuratively, like asthma, for childhood obesity, we thankfully now have a number of effective treatment options that we can offer, and it’s only our societal weight bias that leads to thinking that’s anything but great.

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

Apparently, offering children effective treatments for a chronic disease that markedly increases their risk for other chronic diseases, regularly erodes their quality of life, and is the No. 1 target of school-based bullying is wrong.

At least that’s my take watching the coverage of the recent American Academy of Pediatrics new pediatric obesity treatment guidelines that, gasp, suggest that children whose severity of obesity warrants medication or surgeries be offered medication or surgery. Because it’s wiser to not try to treat the obesity that›s contributing to a child’s type 2 diabetes, hypertension, fatty liver disease, or reduced quality of life?

The reaction isn’t surprising. Some of those who are up in arms about it have clinical or research careers dependent on championing their own favorite dietary strategies as if they are more effective and reproducible than decades of uniformly disappointing studies proving that they’re not. Others are upset because, for reasons that at times may be personal and at times may be conflicted, they believe that obesity should not be treated and/or that sustained weight loss is impossible. But overarchingly, probably the bulk of the hoopla stems from obesity being seen as a moral failing. Because the notion that those who suffer with obesity are themselves to blame has been the prevailing societal view for decades, if not centuries.

Working with families of children with obesity severe enough for them to seek help, it’s clear that if desire were sufficient to will it away, we wouldn’t need treatment guidelines let alone medications or surgery. Near uniformly, parents describe their children being bullied consequent to and being deeply self-conscious of their weight.

And what would those who think children shouldn’t be offered reproducibly effective treatment for obesity have them do about it? Many seem to think it would be preferable for kids to be placed on formal diets and, of course, that they should go out and play more. And though I’m all for encouraging the improvement of a child’s dietary quality and activity level, anyone suggesting those as panaceas for childhood obesity haven’t a clue. Not to mention the fact that, in most cases, improving overall dietary quality, something worthwhile at any weight, isn’t the dietary goal being recommended. Instead, the prescription seems to be restrictive dieting coupled with overexercising, which, unlike appropriately and thoughtfully informed and utilized medication, may increase a child’s risk of maladaptive thinking around food and fitness as well as disordered eating, not to mention challenge their self-esteem if their lifestyle results are underwhelming.

This brings us to one of the most bizarre takes on this whole business – that medications will be pushed and used when not necessary. No doubt that at times, that may occur, but the issue is that of a clinician’s overzealous prescribing and not of the treatment options or indications. Consider childhood asthma. There is no worry or uproar that children with mild asthma that isn’t having an impact on their quality of life or markedly risking their health will be placed on multiple inhaled steroids and treatments. Why? Because clinicians have been taught how to dispassionately evaluate treatment needs for asthma, monitor disease course, and not simply prescribe everything in our armamentarium.

Shocking, I know, but as is the case with every other medical condition, I think doctors are capable of learning and following an algorithm covering the indications and options for the treatment of childhood obesity.

How that looks also mirrors what’s seen with any other chronic noncommunicable disease with varied severity and impact. Doctors will evaluate each child with obesity to see whether it’s having a detrimental effect on their health or quality of life. They will monitor their patients’ obesity to see if it’s worsening and will, when necessary, undertake investigations to rule out its potential contribution to common comorbidities like type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and fatty liver disease. And, when appropriate, they will provide information on available treatment options – from lifestyle to medication to surgery and the risks, benefits, and realistic expectations associated with each – and then, without judgment, support their patients’ treatment choices because blame-free informed discussion and supportive prescription of care is, in fact, the distillation of our jobs.

If people are looking to be outraged rather than focusing their outrage on what we now need to do about childhood obesity, they should instead look to what got us here: our obesogenic environment. We and our children are swimming against a torrential current of cheap ultraprocessed calories being pushed upon us by a broken societal food culture that values convenience and simultaneously embraces the notion that knowledge is a match versus the thousands of genes and dozens of hormones that increasingly sophisticated food industry marketers and scientists prey upon. When dealing with torrential currents, we need to do more than just recommend swimming lessons.

Like asthma, which may be exacerbated by pollution in our environment both outdoors and indoors, childhood obesity is a modern-day environmentally influenced disease with varied penetrance that does not always require active treatment. Like asthma, childhood obesity is not a disease that children choose to have; it’s not a disease that can be willed away; and it’s not a disease that responds uniformly, dramatically, or enduringly to diet and exercise. Finally, literally and figuratively, like asthma, for childhood obesity, we thankfully now have a number of effective treatment options that we can offer, and it’s only our societal weight bias that leads to thinking that’s anything but great.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Today, we have Dr. Paul Pepe, an emergency physician and highly recognized expert in EMS, critical care, and resuscitation, along with Ryan Quinn, EMS chief for Edina Fire Department in Edina, Minn., joining us to discuss a significant advance in resuscitation for patients with nonshockable rhythms in cardiac arrest with a remarkable increase in neurologically intact survival. Welcome, gentlemen.

Dr. Pepe, I’d like to start off by thanking you for taking time to join us to discuss this novel concept of head-up or what you now refer to as a neuroprotective cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) bundle. Can you define what this entails and why it is referred to as a neuroprotective CPR bundle?

Paul E. Pepe, MD, MPH: CPR has been life saving for 60 years the way we’ve performed it, but probably only in a very small percentage of cases. That’s one of the problems. We have almost a thousand people a day who have sudden cardiac arrest out in the community alone and more in the hospital.

We know that early defibrillation and early CPR can contribute, but it’s still a small percentage of those. About 75%-85% of the cases that we go out to see will have nonshockable rhythms and flatlines. Some cases are what we call “pulseless electrical activity,” meaning that it looks like there is some kind of organized complex, but there is no pulse associated with it.

That’s why it’s a problem, because they don’t come back. Part of the reason why we see poor outcomes is not only that these cases tend to be people who, say, were in ventricular fibrillation and then just went on over time and were not witnessed or resuscitated or had a long response time. They basically either go into flatline or autoconvert into these bizarre rhythms.

The other issue is the way we perform CPR. CPR has been lifesaving, but it only generates about 20% and maybe 15% in some cases of normal blood flow, and particularly, cerebral perfusion pressure. We’ve looked at this nicely in the laboratory.

For example, during chest compressions, we’re hoping during the recoil phase to pull blood down and back into the right heart. The problem is that you’re not only setting a pressure rate up here to the arterial side but also, you’re setting back pressure wave on the venous side. Obviously, the arterial side always wins out, but it’s just not as efficient as it could be, at 20% or 30%.

What does this entail? It entails several independent mechanisms in terms of how they work, but they all do the same thing, which is they help to pull blood out of the brain and back into the right heart by basically manipulating intrathoracic pressure and creating more of a vacuum to get blood back there.

It’s so important that people do quality CPR. You have to have a good release and that helps us suck a little bit of blood and sucks the air in. As soon as the air rushes in, it neutralizes the pressure and there’s no more vacuum and nothing else is happening until the next squeeze.

What we have found is that we can cap the airway just for a second with a little pop-up valve. It acts like when you’re sucking a milkshake through a straw and it creates more of a vacuum in the chest. Just a little pop-up valve that pulls a little bit more blood out of the brain and the rest of the body and into the right heart.

We’ve shown in a human study that, for example, the systolic blood pressure almost doubles. It really goes from 40 mm Hg during standard CPR up to 80 mm Hg, and that would be sustained for 14-15 minutes. That was a nice little study that was done in Milwaukee a few years ago.

The other thing that happens is, if you add on something else, it’s like a toilet plunger. I think many people have seen it; it’s called “active compression-decompression.” It not only compresses, but it decompresses. Where it becomes even more effective is that if you had broken bones or stiff bones as you get older or whatever it may be, as you do the CPR, you’re still getting the push down and then you’re getting the pull out. It helps on several levels. More importantly, when you put the two together, they’re very synergistic.

We, have already done the clinical trial that is the proof of concept, and that was published in The Lancet about 10 years ago. In that study, we found that the combination of those two dramatically improved survival rates by 50%, with 1-year survival neurologically intact. That got us on the right track.

The interesting thing is that someone said, “Can we lift the head up a little bit?” We did a large amount of work in the laboratory over 10 years, fine tuning it. When do you first lift the head? How soon is too soon? It’s probably bad if you just go right to it.

We had to get the pump primed a little bit with these other things to get the flow going better, not only pulling blood out of the brain but now, you have a better flow this way. You have to prime at first for a couple of minutes, and we worked out the timing: Is it 3 or 4 minutes? It seems the timing is right at about 2 minutes, then you gradually elevate the head over about 2 minutes. We’re finding that seems to be the optimal way to do it. About 2 minutes of priming with those other two devices, the adjuncts, and then gradually elevate the head over 2 minutes.

When we do that in the laboratory, we’re getting normalized cerebral perfusion pressures. You’re normalizing the flow back again with that. We’re seeing profound differences in outcome as a result, even in these cases of the nonshockables.
 

Dr. Glatter: What you’re doing basically is resulting in an increase in cardiac output, essentially. That really is important, especially in these nonshockable rhythms, correct?

Dr. Pepe: Absolutely. As you’re doing this compression and you’re getting these intracranial pulse waves that are going up because they’re colliding up there. It could be even damaging in itself, but we’re seeing these intracranial raises. The intracranial pressure starts going up more and more over time. Also, peripherally in most people, you’re not getting good flow out there; then, your vasculature starts to relax. The arterials are starting to not get oxygen, so they don’t go out.

With this technique where we’re returning the pressure, we’re getting to 40% of normal now with the active compression-decompression CPR plus an impedance threshold device (ACD+ITD CPR) approach. Now, you add this, and you’re almost normalizing. In humans, even in these asystole patients, we’re seeing end-title CO₂s which are generally in the 15-20 range with standard CPR are now up with ACD+ITD CPR in the 30%-40% range, where we’re getting through 30 or 40 end-tidal CO₂s. Now, we’re seeing even the end-tidal CO₂s moving up into the 40s and 50s. We know there’s a surrogate marker telling us that we are generating much better flows not only to the rest of the body, but most importantly, to the brain.
 

Dr. Glatter: Ryan, could you tell us about the approach in terms of on scene, what you’re doing and how you use the device itself? Maybe you could talk about the backpack that you developed with your fire department?

Ryan P. Quinn, BS, EMS: Our approach has always been to get to the patient quickly, like everybody’s approach on a cardiac arrest when you’re responding. We are an advanced life-support paramedic ambulance service through the fire department – we’re all cross-trained firefighter paramedics. Our first vehicle from the fire department is typically the ambulance. It’s smaller and a little quicker than the fire engine. Two paramedics are going to jump out with two backpacks. One has the automated compressive device (we use the Lucas), and the other one is the sequential patient lifting device, the EleGARD.

Our two paramedics are quick to the patient’s side, and once they make contact with the patient to verify pulseless cardiac arrest, they will unpack. One person will go right to compressions if there’s nobody on compressions already. Sometimes we have a first responder police officer with an automated external defibrillator (AED). We go right to the patient’s side, concentrate on compressions, and within 90 seconds to 2 minutes, we have our bags unpacked, we’ve got the devices turned on, patient lifted up, slid under the device, and we have a supraglottic airway that is placed within 15 seconds already premade with the ITD on top. We have a sealed airway that we can continue to compress with Dr. Pepe’s original discussion of building on what’s previously been shown to work.

Dr. Pepe: Let me make a comment about this. This is so important, what Ryan is saying, because it’s something we found during the study. It’s really a true pit-crew approach. You’re not only getting these materials, which you think you need a medical Sherpa for, but you don’t. They set it up and then when they open it up, it’s all laid out just exactly as you need it. It’s not just how fast you get there; it’s how fast you get this done.

When we look at all cases combined against high-performance systems that had some of the highest survival rates around, when we compare it to those, we found that overall, even if you looked at the ones that had over 20-minute responses, the odds ratios were still three to four times higher. It was impressive.

If you looked at it under 15 minutes, which is really reasonable for most systems that get there by the way, the average time that people start CPR in any system in these studies has been about 8 minutes if you actually start this thing, which takes about 2 minutes more for this new bundle of care with this triad, it’s almost 12-14 times higher in terms of the odds ratio. I’ve never seen anything like that where the higher end is over 100 in terms of your confidence intervals.

Ryan’s system did really well and is one of those with even higher levels of outcomes, mostly because they got it on quickly. It’s like the AED for nonshockables but better because you have a wider range of efficacy where it will work.
 

Dr. Glatter: When the elapsed time was less than 11 minutes, that seemed to be an inflection point in the study, is that correct? You saw that 11-fold higher incidence in terms of neurologically intact survival, is that correct?

Dr. Pepe: We picked that number because that was the median time to get it on board. Half the people were getting it within that time period. The fact that you have a larger window, we’re talking about 13- almost 14-fold improvements in outcome if it was under 15 minutes. It doesn’t matter about the 11 or the 12. It’s the faster you get it on board, the better off you are.

Dr. Glatter: What’s the next step in the process of doing trials and having implementation on a larger scale based on your Annals of Emergency Medicine study? Where do you go from here?

Dr. Pepe: I’ve come to find out there are many confounding variables. What was the quality of CPR? How did people ventilate? Did they give the breath and hold it? Did they give a large enough breath so that blood can go across the transpulmonary system? There are many confounding variables. That’s why I think, in the future, it’s going to be more of looking at things like propensity score matching because we know all the variables that change outcomes. I think that’s going to be a way for me.

The other thing is that we were looking at only 380 cases here. When this doubles up in numbers, as we accrue more cases around the country of people who are implementing this, these numbers I just quoted are going to go up much higher. Unwitnessed asystole is considered futile, and you just don’t get them back. To be able to get these folks back now, even if it’s a small percentage, and the fact that we know that we’re producing this better flow, is pretty striking.

I’m really impressed, and the main thing is to make sure people are educated about it. Number two is that they understand that it has to be done right. It cannot be done wrong or you’re not going to see the differences. Getting it done right is not only following the procedures, the sequence, and how you do it, but it also has to do with getting there quickly, including assigning the right people to put it on and having well-trained people who know what they’re doing.
 

Dr. Glatter: In general, the lay public obviously should not attempt this in the field lifting someone’s head up in the sense of trying to do chest compressions. I think that message is important that you just said. It’s not ready for prime time yet in any way. It has to be done right.

Dr. Pepe: Bystanders have to learn CPR – they will buy us time and we’ll have better outcomes when they do that. That’s number one. Number two is that as more and more systems adopt this, you’re going to see more people coming back. If you think about what we’re doing now, if we only get back 5% of these nonshockable vs. less than 1%, it’s 5% of 800 people a day because a thousand people a day die. Several dozens of lives can be saved on a daily basis, coming back neurologically intact. That’s the key thing.

Dr. Glatter: Ryan, can you comment about your experience in the field? Is there anything in terms of your current approach that you think would be ideal to change at this point?

Mr. Quinn: We’ve established that this is the approach that we want to take and we’re just fine tuning it to be more efficient. Using the choreography of which person is going to do which role, we have clearly defined roles and clearly defined command of the scene so we’re not missing anything. Training is extremely important.

Dr. Glatter: Paul, I want to ask you about your anecdotal experience of people waking up quickly and talking after elevating their heads and going through this process. Having people talk about it and waking up is really fascinating. Maybe you can comment further on this.

Dr. Pepe: That’s a great point that you bring up because a 40- to 50-year-old guy who got saved with this approach, when he came around, he said he was hearing what people were saying. When he came out of it, he found out he had been getting CPR for about 25 minutes because he had persistent recurring ventricular fibrillation. He said, “How could I have survived that that long?”

When we told him about the new approach, he added, “Well, that’s like neuroprotective.” He’s right, because in the laboratory, we showed it was neuroprotective and we’re also getting better flows back there. It goes along with everything else, and so we’ve adopted the name because it is.

These are really high-powered systems we are comparing against, and we have the same level of return of spontaneous circulation. The major difference was when you started talking about the neurointact survival. We don’t have enough numbers yet, but next go around, we’re going to look at cerebral performance category (CPC) – CPC1 vs. the CPC2 – which were both considered intact, but CPC1 is actually better. We’re seeing many more of those, anecdotally.

I also wanted to mention that people do bring this up and say, “Well, let’s do a trial.” As far as we’re concerned, the trial’s been done in terms of The Lancet study 10 years ago that showed that the active compression-decompression had tremendously better outcomes. We show in the laboratories that you augment that a little bit. These are all [Food and Drug Administration] approved. You can go out and buy it tomorrow and get it done. I have no conflicts of interest, by the way, with any of this.

To have this device that’s going to have the potential of saving so many more lives is really an exciting breakthrough. More importantly, we’re understanding more now about the physiology of CPR and why it works. It could work much better with the approaches that we’ve been developing over the last 20 years or so.

Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. I want to thank both of you gentlemen. It’s been really an incredible experience to learn more about an advance in resuscitation that could truly be lifesaving. Thank you again for taking time to join us.

Dr. Glatter is an attending physician in the department of emergency medicine, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York. Dr. Pepe is professor, department of management, policy, and community health, University of Texas Health Sciences Center, Houston. Mr. Quinn is EMS Chief, Edina (Minn.) Fire Department. No conflicts of interest were reported.

A version of this article first appeared Jan. 26 on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Today, we have Dr. Paul Pepe, an emergency physician and highly recognized expert in EMS, critical care, and resuscitation, along with Ryan Quinn, EMS chief for Edina Fire Department in Edina, Minn., joining us to discuss a significant advance in resuscitation for patients with nonshockable rhythms in cardiac arrest with a remarkable increase in neurologically intact survival. Welcome, gentlemen.

Dr. Pepe, I’d like to start off by thanking you for taking time to join us to discuss this novel concept of head-up or what you now refer to as a neuroprotective cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) bundle. Can you define what this entails and why it is referred to as a neuroprotective CPR bundle?

Paul E. Pepe, MD, MPH: CPR has been life saving for 60 years the way we’ve performed it, but probably only in a very small percentage of cases. That’s one of the problems. We have almost a thousand people a day who have sudden cardiac arrest out in the community alone and more in the hospital.

We know that early defibrillation and early CPR can contribute, but it’s still a small percentage of those. About 75%-85% of the cases that we go out to see will have nonshockable rhythms and flatlines. Some cases are what we call “pulseless electrical activity,” meaning that it looks like there is some kind of organized complex, but there is no pulse associated with it.

That’s why it’s a problem, because they don’t come back. Part of the reason why we see poor outcomes is not only that these cases tend to be people who, say, were in ventricular fibrillation and then just went on over time and were not witnessed or resuscitated or had a long response time. They basically either go into flatline or autoconvert into these bizarre rhythms.

The other issue is the way we perform CPR. CPR has been lifesaving, but it only generates about 20% and maybe 15% in some cases of normal blood flow, and particularly, cerebral perfusion pressure. We’ve looked at this nicely in the laboratory.

For example, during chest compressions, we’re hoping during the recoil phase to pull blood down and back into the right heart. The problem is that you’re not only setting a pressure rate up here to the arterial side but also, you’re setting back pressure wave on the venous side. Obviously, the arterial side always wins out, but it’s just not as efficient as it could be, at 20% or 30%.

What does this entail? It entails several independent mechanisms in terms of how they work, but they all do the same thing, which is they help to pull blood out of the brain and back into the right heart by basically manipulating intrathoracic pressure and creating more of a vacuum to get blood back there.

It’s so important that people do quality CPR. You have to have a good release and that helps us suck a little bit of blood and sucks the air in. As soon as the air rushes in, it neutralizes the pressure and there’s no more vacuum and nothing else is happening until the next squeeze.

What we have found is that we can cap the airway just for a second with a little pop-up valve. It acts like when you’re sucking a milkshake through a straw and it creates more of a vacuum in the chest. Just a little pop-up valve that pulls a little bit more blood out of the brain and the rest of the body and into the right heart.

We’ve shown in a human study that, for example, the systolic blood pressure almost doubles. It really goes from 40 mm Hg during standard CPR up to 80 mm Hg, and that would be sustained for 14-15 minutes. That was a nice little study that was done in Milwaukee a few years ago.

The other thing that happens is, if you add on something else, it’s like a toilet plunger. I think many people have seen it; it’s called “active compression-decompression.” It not only compresses, but it decompresses. Where it becomes even more effective is that if you had broken bones or stiff bones as you get older or whatever it may be, as you do the CPR, you’re still getting the push down and then you’re getting the pull out. It helps on several levels. More importantly, when you put the two together, they’re very synergistic.

We, have already done the clinical trial that is the proof of concept, and that was published in The Lancet about 10 years ago. In that study, we found that the combination of those two dramatically improved survival rates by 50%, with 1-year survival neurologically intact. That got us on the right track.

The interesting thing is that someone said, “Can we lift the head up a little bit?” We did a large amount of work in the laboratory over 10 years, fine tuning it. When do you first lift the head? How soon is too soon? It’s probably bad if you just go right to it.

We had to get the pump primed a little bit with these other things to get the flow going better, not only pulling blood out of the brain but now, you have a better flow this way. You have to prime at first for a couple of minutes, and we worked out the timing: Is it 3 or 4 minutes? It seems the timing is right at about 2 minutes, then you gradually elevate the head over about 2 minutes. We’re finding that seems to be the optimal way to do it. About 2 minutes of priming with those other two devices, the adjuncts, and then gradually elevate the head over 2 minutes.

When we do that in the laboratory, we’re getting normalized cerebral perfusion pressures. You’re normalizing the flow back again with that. We’re seeing profound differences in outcome as a result, even in these cases of the nonshockables.
 

Dr. Glatter: What you’re doing basically is resulting in an increase in cardiac output, essentially. That really is important, especially in these nonshockable rhythms, correct?

Dr. Pepe: Absolutely. As you’re doing this compression and you’re getting these intracranial pulse waves that are going up because they’re colliding up there. It could be even damaging in itself, but we’re seeing these intracranial raises. The intracranial pressure starts going up more and more over time. Also, peripherally in most people, you’re not getting good flow out there; then, your vasculature starts to relax. The arterials are starting to not get oxygen, so they don’t go out.

With this technique where we’re returning the pressure, we’re getting to 40% of normal now with the active compression-decompression CPR plus an impedance threshold device (ACD+ITD CPR) approach. Now, you add this, and you’re almost normalizing. In humans, even in these asystole patients, we’re seeing end-title CO₂s which are generally in the 15-20 range with standard CPR are now up with ACD+ITD CPR in the 30%-40% range, where we’re getting through 30 or 40 end-tidal CO₂s. Now, we’re seeing even the end-tidal CO₂s moving up into the 40s and 50s. We know there’s a surrogate marker telling us that we are generating much better flows not only to the rest of the body, but most importantly, to the brain.
 

Dr. Glatter: Ryan, could you tell us about the approach in terms of on scene, what you’re doing and how you use the device itself? Maybe you could talk about the backpack that you developed with your fire department?

Ryan P. Quinn, BS, EMS: Our approach has always been to get to the patient quickly, like everybody’s approach on a cardiac arrest when you’re responding. We are an advanced life-support paramedic ambulance service through the fire department – we’re all cross-trained firefighter paramedics. Our first vehicle from the fire department is typically the ambulance. It’s smaller and a little quicker than the fire engine. Two paramedics are going to jump out with two backpacks. One has the automated compressive device (we use the Lucas), and the other one is the sequential patient lifting device, the EleGARD.

Our two paramedics are quick to the patient’s side, and once they make contact with the patient to verify pulseless cardiac arrest, they will unpack. One person will go right to compressions if there’s nobody on compressions already. Sometimes we have a first responder police officer with an automated external defibrillator (AED). We go right to the patient’s side, concentrate on compressions, and within 90 seconds to 2 minutes, we have our bags unpacked, we’ve got the devices turned on, patient lifted up, slid under the device, and we have a supraglottic airway that is placed within 15 seconds already premade with the ITD on top. We have a sealed airway that we can continue to compress with Dr. Pepe’s original discussion of building on what’s previously been shown to work.

Dr. Pepe: Let me make a comment about this. This is so important, what Ryan is saying, because it’s something we found during the study. It’s really a true pit-crew approach. You’re not only getting these materials, which you think you need a medical Sherpa for, but you don’t. They set it up and then when they open it up, it’s all laid out just exactly as you need it. It’s not just how fast you get there; it’s how fast you get this done.

When we look at all cases combined against high-performance systems that had some of the highest survival rates around, when we compare it to those, we found that overall, even if you looked at the ones that had over 20-minute responses, the odds ratios were still three to four times higher. It was impressive.

If you looked at it under 15 minutes, which is really reasonable for most systems that get there by the way, the average time that people start CPR in any system in these studies has been about 8 minutes if you actually start this thing, which takes about 2 minutes more for this new bundle of care with this triad, it’s almost 12-14 times higher in terms of the odds ratio. I’ve never seen anything like that where the higher end is over 100 in terms of your confidence intervals.

Ryan’s system did really well and is one of those with even higher levels of outcomes, mostly because they got it on quickly. It’s like the AED for nonshockables but better because you have a wider range of efficacy where it will work.
 

Dr. Glatter: When the elapsed time was less than 11 minutes, that seemed to be an inflection point in the study, is that correct? You saw that 11-fold higher incidence in terms of neurologically intact survival, is that correct?

Dr. Pepe: We picked that number because that was the median time to get it on board. Half the people were getting it within that time period. The fact that you have a larger window, we’re talking about 13- almost 14-fold improvements in outcome if it was under 15 minutes. It doesn’t matter about the 11 or the 12. It’s the faster you get it on board, the better off you are.

Dr. Glatter: What’s the next step in the process of doing trials and having implementation on a larger scale based on your Annals of Emergency Medicine study? Where do you go from here?

Dr. Pepe: I’ve come to find out there are many confounding variables. What was the quality of CPR? How did people ventilate? Did they give the breath and hold it? Did they give a large enough breath so that blood can go across the transpulmonary system? There are many confounding variables. That’s why I think, in the future, it’s going to be more of looking at things like propensity score matching because we know all the variables that change outcomes. I think that’s going to be a way for me.

The other thing is that we were looking at only 380 cases here. When this doubles up in numbers, as we accrue more cases around the country of people who are implementing this, these numbers I just quoted are going to go up much higher. Unwitnessed asystole is considered futile, and you just don’t get them back. To be able to get these folks back now, even if it’s a small percentage, and the fact that we know that we’re producing this better flow, is pretty striking.

I’m really impressed, and the main thing is to make sure people are educated about it. Number two is that they understand that it has to be done right. It cannot be done wrong or you’re not going to see the differences. Getting it done right is not only following the procedures, the sequence, and how you do it, but it also has to do with getting there quickly, including assigning the right people to put it on and having well-trained people who know what they’re doing.
 

Dr. Glatter: In general, the lay public obviously should not attempt this in the field lifting someone’s head up in the sense of trying to do chest compressions. I think that message is important that you just said. It’s not ready for prime time yet in any way. It has to be done right.

Dr. Pepe: Bystanders have to learn CPR – they will buy us time and we’ll have better outcomes when they do that. That’s number one. Number two is that as more and more systems adopt this, you’re going to see more people coming back. If you think about what we’re doing now, if we only get back 5% of these nonshockable vs. less than 1%, it’s 5% of 800 people a day because a thousand people a day die. Several dozens of lives can be saved on a daily basis, coming back neurologically intact. That’s the key thing.

Dr. Glatter: Ryan, can you comment about your experience in the field? Is there anything in terms of your current approach that you think would be ideal to change at this point?

Mr. Quinn: We’ve established that this is the approach that we want to take and we’re just fine tuning it to be more efficient. Using the choreography of which person is going to do which role, we have clearly defined roles and clearly defined command of the scene so we’re not missing anything. Training is extremely important.

Dr. Glatter: Paul, I want to ask you about your anecdotal experience of people waking up quickly and talking after elevating their heads and going through this process. Having people talk about it and waking up is really fascinating. Maybe you can comment further on this.

Dr. Pepe: That’s a great point that you bring up because a 40- to 50-year-old guy who got saved with this approach, when he came around, he said he was hearing what people were saying. When he came out of it, he found out he had been getting CPR for about 25 minutes because he had persistent recurring ventricular fibrillation. He said, “How could I have survived that that long?”

When we told him about the new approach, he added, “Well, that’s like neuroprotective.” He’s right, because in the laboratory, we showed it was neuroprotective and we’re also getting better flows back there. It goes along with everything else, and so we’ve adopted the name because it is.

These are really high-powered systems we are comparing against, and we have the same level of return of spontaneous circulation. The major difference was when you started talking about the neurointact survival. We don’t have enough numbers yet, but next go around, we’re going to look at cerebral performance category (CPC) – CPC1 vs. the CPC2 – which were both considered intact, but CPC1 is actually better. We’re seeing many more of those, anecdotally.

I also wanted to mention that people do bring this up and say, “Well, let’s do a trial.” As far as we’re concerned, the trial’s been done in terms of The Lancet study 10 years ago that showed that the active compression-decompression had tremendously better outcomes. We show in the laboratories that you augment that a little bit. These are all [Food and Drug Administration] approved. You can go out and buy it tomorrow and get it done. I have no conflicts of interest, by the way, with any of this.

To have this device that’s going to have the potential of saving so many more lives is really an exciting breakthrough. More importantly, we’re understanding more now about the physiology of CPR and why it works. It could work much better with the approaches that we’ve been developing over the last 20 years or so.

Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. I want to thank both of you gentlemen. It’s been really an incredible experience to learn more about an advance in resuscitation that could truly be lifesaving. Thank you again for taking time to join us.

Dr. Glatter is an attending physician in the department of emergency medicine, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York. Dr. Pepe is professor, department of management, policy, and community health, University of Texas Health Sciences Center, Houston. Mr. Quinn is EMS Chief, Edina (Minn.) Fire Department. No conflicts of interest were reported.

A version of this article first appeared Jan. 26 on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Today, we have Dr. Paul Pepe, an emergency physician and highly recognized expert in EMS, critical care, and resuscitation, along with Ryan Quinn, EMS chief for Edina Fire Department in Edina, Minn., joining us to discuss a significant advance in resuscitation for patients with nonshockable rhythms in cardiac arrest with a remarkable increase in neurologically intact survival. Welcome, gentlemen.

Dr. Pepe, I’d like to start off by thanking you for taking time to join us to discuss this novel concept of head-up or what you now refer to as a neuroprotective cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) bundle. Can you define what this entails and why it is referred to as a neuroprotective CPR bundle?

Paul E. Pepe, MD, MPH: CPR has been life saving for 60 years the way we’ve performed it, but probably only in a very small percentage of cases. That’s one of the problems. We have almost a thousand people a day who have sudden cardiac arrest out in the community alone and more in the hospital.

We know that early defibrillation and early CPR can contribute, but it’s still a small percentage of those. About 75%-85% of the cases that we go out to see will have nonshockable rhythms and flatlines. Some cases are what we call “pulseless electrical activity,” meaning that it looks like there is some kind of organized complex, but there is no pulse associated with it.

That’s why it’s a problem, because they don’t come back. Part of the reason why we see poor outcomes is not only that these cases tend to be people who, say, were in ventricular fibrillation and then just went on over time and were not witnessed or resuscitated or had a long response time. They basically either go into flatline or autoconvert into these bizarre rhythms.

The other issue is the way we perform CPR. CPR has been lifesaving, but it only generates about 20% and maybe 15% in some cases of normal blood flow, and particularly, cerebral perfusion pressure. We’ve looked at this nicely in the laboratory.

For example, during chest compressions, we’re hoping during the recoil phase to pull blood down and back into the right heart. The problem is that you’re not only setting a pressure rate up here to the arterial side but also, you’re setting back pressure wave on the venous side. Obviously, the arterial side always wins out, but it’s just not as efficient as it could be, at 20% or 30%.

What does this entail? It entails several independent mechanisms in terms of how they work, but they all do the same thing, which is they help to pull blood out of the brain and back into the right heart by basically manipulating intrathoracic pressure and creating more of a vacuum to get blood back there.

It’s so important that people do quality CPR. You have to have a good release and that helps us suck a little bit of blood and sucks the air in. As soon as the air rushes in, it neutralizes the pressure and there’s no more vacuum and nothing else is happening until the next squeeze.

What we have found is that we can cap the airway just for a second with a little pop-up valve. It acts like when you’re sucking a milkshake through a straw and it creates more of a vacuum in the chest. Just a little pop-up valve that pulls a little bit more blood out of the brain and the rest of the body and into the right heart.

We’ve shown in a human study that, for example, the systolic blood pressure almost doubles. It really goes from 40 mm Hg during standard CPR up to 80 mm Hg, and that would be sustained for 14-15 minutes. That was a nice little study that was done in Milwaukee a few years ago.

The other thing that happens is, if you add on something else, it’s like a toilet plunger. I think many people have seen it; it’s called “active compression-decompression.” It not only compresses, but it decompresses. Where it becomes even more effective is that if you had broken bones or stiff bones as you get older or whatever it may be, as you do the CPR, you’re still getting the push down and then you’re getting the pull out. It helps on several levels. More importantly, when you put the two together, they’re very synergistic.

We, have already done the clinical trial that is the proof of concept, and that was published in The Lancet about 10 years ago. In that study, we found that the combination of those two dramatically improved survival rates by 50%, with 1-year survival neurologically intact. That got us on the right track.

The interesting thing is that someone said, “Can we lift the head up a little bit?” We did a large amount of work in the laboratory over 10 years, fine tuning it. When do you first lift the head? How soon is too soon? It’s probably bad if you just go right to it.

We had to get the pump primed a little bit with these other things to get the flow going better, not only pulling blood out of the brain but now, you have a better flow this way. You have to prime at first for a couple of minutes, and we worked out the timing: Is it 3 or 4 minutes? It seems the timing is right at about 2 minutes, then you gradually elevate the head over about 2 minutes. We’re finding that seems to be the optimal way to do it. About 2 minutes of priming with those other two devices, the adjuncts, and then gradually elevate the head over 2 minutes.

When we do that in the laboratory, we’re getting normalized cerebral perfusion pressures. You’re normalizing the flow back again with that. We’re seeing profound differences in outcome as a result, even in these cases of the nonshockables.
 

Dr. Glatter: What you’re doing basically is resulting in an increase in cardiac output, essentially. That really is important, especially in these nonshockable rhythms, correct?

Dr. Pepe: Absolutely. As you’re doing this compression and you’re getting these intracranial pulse waves that are going up because they’re colliding up there. It could be even damaging in itself, but we’re seeing these intracranial raises. The intracranial pressure starts going up more and more over time. Also, peripherally in most people, you’re not getting good flow out there; then, your vasculature starts to relax. The arterials are starting to not get oxygen, so they don’t go out.

With this technique where we’re returning the pressure, we’re getting to 40% of normal now with the active compression-decompression CPR plus an impedance threshold device (ACD+ITD CPR) approach. Now, you add this, and you’re almost normalizing. In humans, even in these asystole patients, we’re seeing end-title CO₂s which are generally in the 15-20 range with standard CPR are now up with ACD+ITD CPR in the 30%-40% range, where we’re getting through 30 or 40 end-tidal CO₂s. Now, we’re seeing even the end-tidal CO₂s moving up into the 40s and 50s. We know there’s a surrogate marker telling us that we are generating much better flows not only to the rest of the body, but most importantly, to the brain.
 

Dr. Glatter: Ryan, could you tell us about the approach in terms of on scene, what you’re doing and how you use the device itself? Maybe you could talk about the backpack that you developed with your fire department?

Ryan P. Quinn, BS, EMS: Our approach has always been to get to the patient quickly, like everybody’s approach on a cardiac arrest when you’re responding. We are an advanced life-support paramedic ambulance service through the fire department – we’re all cross-trained firefighter paramedics. Our first vehicle from the fire department is typically the ambulance. It’s smaller and a little quicker than the fire engine. Two paramedics are going to jump out with two backpacks. One has the automated compressive device (we use the Lucas), and the other one is the sequential patient lifting device, the EleGARD.

Our two paramedics are quick to the patient’s side, and once they make contact with the patient to verify pulseless cardiac arrest, they will unpack. One person will go right to compressions if there’s nobody on compressions already. Sometimes we have a first responder police officer with an automated external defibrillator (AED). We go right to the patient’s side, concentrate on compressions, and within 90 seconds to 2 minutes, we have our bags unpacked, we’ve got the devices turned on, patient lifted up, slid under the device, and we have a supraglottic airway that is placed within 15 seconds already premade with the ITD on top. We have a sealed airway that we can continue to compress with Dr. Pepe’s original discussion of building on what’s previously been shown to work.

Dr. Pepe: Let me make a comment about this. This is so important, what Ryan is saying, because it’s something we found during the study. It’s really a true pit-crew approach. You’re not only getting these materials, which you think you need a medical Sherpa for, but you don’t. They set it up and then when they open it up, it’s all laid out just exactly as you need it. It’s not just how fast you get there; it’s how fast you get this done.

When we look at all cases combined against high-performance systems that had some of the highest survival rates around, when we compare it to those, we found that overall, even if you looked at the ones that had over 20-minute responses, the odds ratios were still three to four times higher. It was impressive.

If you looked at it under 15 minutes, which is really reasonable for most systems that get there by the way, the average time that people start CPR in any system in these studies has been about 8 minutes if you actually start this thing, which takes about 2 minutes more for this new bundle of care with this triad, it’s almost 12-14 times higher in terms of the odds ratio. I’ve never seen anything like that where the higher end is over 100 in terms of your confidence intervals.

Ryan’s system did really well and is one of those with even higher levels of outcomes, mostly because they got it on quickly. It’s like the AED for nonshockables but better because you have a wider range of efficacy where it will work.
 

Dr. Glatter: When the elapsed time was less than 11 minutes, that seemed to be an inflection point in the study, is that correct? You saw that 11-fold higher incidence in terms of neurologically intact survival, is that correct?

Dr. Pepe: We picked that number because that was the median time to get it on board. Half the people were getting it within that time period. The fact that you have a larger window, we’re talking about 13- almost 14-fold improvements in outcome if it was under 15 minutes. It doesn’t matter about the 11 or the 12. It’s the faster you get it on board, the better off you are.

Dr. Glatter: What’s the next step in the process of doing trials and having implementation on a larger scale based on your Annals of Emergency Medicine study? Where do you go from here?

Dr. Pepe: I’ve come to find out there are many confounding variables. What was the quality of CPR? How did people ventilate? Did they give the breath and hold it? Did they give a large enough breath so that blood can go across the transpulmonary system? There are many confounding variables. That’s why I think, in the future, it’s going to be more of looking at things like propensity score matching because we know all the variables that change outcomes. I think that’s going to be a way for me.

The other thing is that we were looking at only 380 cases here. When this doubles up in numbers, as we accrue more cases around the country of people who are implementing this, these numbers I just quoted are going to go up much higher. Unwitnessed asystole is considered futile, and you just don’t get them back. To be able to get these folks back now, even if it’s a small percentage, and the fact that we know that we’re producing this better flow, is pretty striking.

I’m really impressed, and the main thing is to make sure people are educated about it. Number two is that they understand that it has to be done right. It cannot be done wrong or you’re not going to see the differences. Getting it done right is not only following the procedures, the sequence, and how you do it, but it also has to do with getting there quickly, including assigning the right people to put it on and having well-trained people who know what they’re doing.
 

Dr. Glatter: In general, the lay public obviously should not attempt this in the field lifting someone’s head up in the sense of trying to do chest compressions. I think that message is important that you just said. It’s not ready for prime time yet in any way. It has to be done right.

Dr. Pepe: Bystanders have to learn CPR – they will buy us time and we’ll have better outcomes when they do that. That’s number one. Number two is that as more and more systems adopt this, you’re going to see more people coming back. If you think about what we’re doing now, if we only get back 5% of these nonshockable vs. less than 1%, it’s 5% of 800 people a day because a thousand people a day die. Several dozens of lives can be saved on a daily basis, coming back neurologically intact. That’s the key thing.

Dr. Glatter: Ryan, can you comment about your experience in the field? Is there anything in terms of your current approach that you think would be ideal to change at this point?

Mr. Quinn: We’ve established that this is the approach that we want to take and we’re just fine tuning it to be more efficient. Using the choreography of which person is going to do which role, we have clearly defined roles and clearly defined command of the scene so we’re not missing anything. Training is extremely important.

Dr. Glatter: Paul, I want to ask you about your anecdotal experience of people waking up quickly and talking after elevating their heads and going through this process. Having people talk about it and waking up is really fascinating. Maybe you can comment further on this.

Dr. Pepe: That’s a great point that you bring up because a 40- to 50-year-old guy who got saved with this approach, when he came around, he said he was hearing what people were saying. When he came out of it, he found out he had been getting CPR for about 25 minutes because he had persistent recurring ventricular fibrillation. He said, “How could I have survived that that long?”

When we told him about the new approach, he added, “Well, that’s like neuroprotective.” He’s right, because in the laboratory, we showed it was neuroprotective and we’re also getting better flows back there. It goes along with everything else, and so we’ve adopted the name because it is.

These are really high-powered systems we are comparing against, and we have the same level of return of spontaneous circulation. The major difference was when you started talking about the neurointact survival. We don’t have enough numbers yet, but next go around, we’re going to look at cerebral performance category (CPC) – CPC1 vs. the CPC2 – which were both considered intact, but CPC1 is actually better. We’re seeing many more of those, anecdotally.

I also wanted to mention that people do bring this up and say, “Well, let’s do a trial.” As far as we’re concerned, the trial’s been done in terms of The Lancet study 10 years ago that showed that the active compression-decompression had tremendously better outcomes. We show in the laboratories that you augment that a little bit. These are all [Food and Drug Administration] approved. You can go out and buy it tomorrow and get it done. I have no conflicts of interest, by the way, with any of this.

To have this device that’s going to have the potential of saving so many more lives is really an exciting breakthrough. More importantly, we’re understanding more now about the physiology of CPR and why it works. It could work much better with the approaches that we’ve been developing over the last 20 years or so.

Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. I want to thank both of you gentlemen. It’s been really an incredible experience to learn more about an advance in resuscitation that could truly be lifesaving. Thank you again for taking time to join us.

Dr. Glatter is an attending physician in the department of emergency medicine, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York. Dr. Pepe is professor, department of management, policy, and community health, University of Texas Health Sciences Center, Houston. Mr. Quinn is EMS Chief, Edina (Minn.) Fire Department. No conflicts of interest were reported.

A version of this article first appeared Jan. 26 on Medscape.com.