Article

THE CASE

A 34-year-old man was referred to the sports medicine clinic for evaluation of lumbar radiculopathy. He had a 2-year history of chronic lower back pain that started while he was working on power line towers in Puerto Rico. The back pain was achy, burning, shooting, and stabbing in nature. He had been treated with anti-inflammatories by a company health care provider while in Puerto Rico, but he did not have any imaging done.

At that time, he had tingling and burning that radiated down his left leg to his ankle. The patient also had leg spasms—in his left leg more than his right—and needed a cane when walking. His symptoms did not worsen at any particular time of day or with activity. He had no history of eating exotic foods or sustaining any venomous bites/stings. Ultimately, the back pain and leg spasms forced him to leave his job and return home to Louisiana.

Upon presentation to the sports medicine clinic, he explained that things had worsened since his return home. The pain and burning in his left leg had increased and were now present in his right leg, as well (bilateral paresthesias). In addition, he said he was feeling anxious (and described symptoms of forgetfulness, confusion, and agitation), was sleeping less, and was experiencing worsening fatigue.

Work-ups over the course of the previous 2 years had shed little light on the cause of his symptoms. X-rays of his lumbar spine revealed moderate degenerative changes at L5-S1. A lab work-up was negative and included a complete blood count, testing for HIV and herpes, a hepatitis panel, an antinuclear antibody screen, a C-reactive protein test, and a comprehensive metabolic panel. Thyroid-stimulating hormone, creatine kinase, rapid plasma reagin, and human leukocyte antigen B27 tests were also normal.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed a cystic lesion in the right ilium near the sacroiliac joint. A more recent follow-up MRI and computed tomography scan of the pelvis found the cyst to be stable and well marginalized, with no cortical erosion. Attempts at physical therapy had been unsuccessful because of the pain and decreasing muscle strength in his lower extremities. The patient’s primary care provider was treating him with meloxicam 15 mg/d and duloxetine 60 mg/d, but that had not provided any relief.

Our physical examination revealed a patient who was in mild distress and had limited lumbar spine range of motion (secondary to pain in all planes) and significant paraspinal spasms on the right side in both the lumbar and thoracic regions. The patient had reduced vibratory sensation on his left side vs the right, with a 256-Hz tuning fork at the great toe, as well as reduced sensation to fine touch with a cotton swab and a positive Babinski sign bilaterally. Lower extremity reflexes were hyperreflexic on the left compared with the right. He had no pronator drift; Trendelenburg, straight leg raise, Hoover sign, and slump tests were all negative. His gait was antalgic with a cane, as he described bilateral paresthesias.

THE DIAGNOSIS

The differential diagnosis for low back pain is quite extensive and includes simple mechanical low back pain, lumbar radiculopathy, facet arthritis, spinal stenosis, spondylolysis/spondylolisthesis, and referred pain from the hip, knee, or upper back. It can also be caused by referred pain from visceral organs such as the liver, colon, or kidneys. Low back pain can also signal primary or metastatic disease. However, most of these potential diagnoses had been ruled out with imaging and lab tests.

Continue to: Two things caught our attention

Two things caught our attention. First: Mechanical low back pain and the associated discogenic radiculopathy would be unilateral, manifesting with asymmetric paresthesias and pain. Our patient had weakness in gait and pain and burning in both of his legs. Second: Our patient described decreased sleep and feeling anxious, with symptoms of forgetfulness, confusion, and agitation. These factors prompted us to look beyond the normal differential and consider a potential toxicity. A heavy metal screen was ordered, and the results were positive for arsenic toxicity.

DISCUSSION

Arsenic toxicity is a global health problem that affects millions of people.^1,2 Arsenic has been used for centuries in depilatories, cosmetics, poisons, and therapeutic agents. Today it is used as a treatment for leukemia and in several ayurvedic and homeopathic remedies.^3-7 It is a common earth element found in ground water and a waste product from mining and the manufacturing of glass, computer chips, wood preservatives, and various pesticides.^2,3,7,8

A great masquerader. Once in the body, arsenic can cause many serious ailments ranging from urinary tract, liver, and skin cancers to various peripheral and central nervous system disorders.² Arsenic can cause symmetrical peripheral neuropathy characterized by sensory nerves being more sensitive than motor nerves.^2,3,5,6 Clinically, it causes numbness and paresthesias of the distal extremities, with the lower extremities more severely affected.^3,6 Symptoms can develop within 2 hours to 2 years of exposure, with vomiting, diarrhea, or both preceding the onset of the neuropathy.^2,3,5,6 Arsenic is linked to forgetfulness, confusion, visual distortion, sleep disturbances, decreased concentration, disorientation, severe agitation, paranoid ideation, emotional lability, and decreases in locomotor activity.^3,5,6

Testing and treatment. Arsenic levels in the body are measured by blood and urine testing. Blood arsenic levels are typically detectable immediately after exposure and with continued exposure, but quickly normalize as the metal integrates into the nonvascular tissues. Urine arsenic levels can be detected for weeks. Normal levels for arsenic in both urine and blood are ≤ 12 µg/L.³ Anything greater than 12 µg/L is considered high; critically high values are those above 50 µg/L.^3,5 Our patient’s blood arsenic level was 13 µg/L.

Several of the patient’s symptoms prompted us to look beyond the normal differential and consider a potential toxicity.

Treatment involves removing the source of the arsenic. Chelation therapy should be pursued when urine arsenic levels are greater than 50 µg/L or when removing the source of the arsenic fails to reduce arsenic levels. Chelation therapy should be continued until urine arsenic levels are below 20 µg/L.^5,6

Continue to: After discussing potential sources of exposure

After discussing potential sources of exposure, our patient decided to move out of the house he shared with his ex-wife. He started to recover soon after moving out. Two weeks after his clinic visit, he no longer needed a cane to walk, and his blood arsenic level had dropped to 6 µg/L. Two months after his clinic visit, the patient’s blood arsenic level was undetectable. The patient’s peripheral neuropathy symptoms continued to improve.

The source of this patient’s arsenic exposure was never confirmed. The exposure could have occurred in Puerto Rico or in Louisiana. Even though no one else in the Louisiana home became ill, the patient was instructed to contact the local health department and water department to have the water tested. However, when he returned to the clinic for follow-up, he had not followed through.

THE TAKEAWAY

When evaluating causes of peripheral neuropathy, consider the possibility of heavy metal toxicity, which can be easily overlooked by the busy clinician. In this case, the patient initially experienced asymmetric paresthesia that gradually increased to burning pain and weakness, with reduced motor control bilaterally. This was significant because mechanical low back pain and the associated discogenic radiculopathy would be unilateral, manifesting with asymmetric paresthesias and pain.

Our patient’s leg symptoms, the constellation of forgetfulness, confusion, and agitation, and his sleep issues prompted us to look outside our normal differential. Fortunately, once arsenic exposure ceases, patients will gradually improve because arsenic is rapidly cleared from the bloodstream.^3,6

CORRESPONDENCE
Charles W. Webb, DO, CAQSM, FAMSSM, FAAFP, Department of Family Medicine, 1501 Kings Highway, PO Box 33932, Shreveport, LA 71130-3932; [email protected]

THE CASE

A 34-year-old man was referred to the sports medicine clinic for evaluation of lumbar radiculopathy. He had a 2-year history of chronic lower back pain that started while he was working on power line towers in Puerto Rico. The back pain was achy, burning, shooting, and stabbing in nature. He had been treated with anti-inflammatories by a company health care provider while in Puerto Rico, but he did not have any imaging done.

At that time, he had tingling and burning that radiated down his left leg to his ankle. The patient also had leg spasms—in his left leg more than his right—and needed a cane when walking. His symptoms did not worsen at any particular time of day or with activity. He had no history of eating exotic foods or sustaining any venomous bites/stings. Ultimately, the back pain and leg spasms forced him to leave his job and return home to Louisiana.

Upon presentation to the sports medicine clinic, he explained that things had worsened since his return home. The pain and burning in his left leg had increased and were now present in his right leg, as well (bilateral paresthesias). In addition, he said he was feeling anxious (and described symptoms of forgetfulness, confusion, and agitation), was sleeping less, and was experiencing worsening fatigue.

Work-ups over the course of the previous 2 years had shed little light on the cause of his symptoms. X-rays of his lumbar spine revealed moderate degenerative changes at L5-S1. A lab work-up was negative and included a complete blood count, testing for HIV and herpes, a hepatitis panel, an antinuclear antibody screen, a C-reactive protein test, and a comprehensive metabolic panel. Thyroid-stimulating hormone, creatine kinase, rapid plasma reagin, and human leukocyte antigen B27 tests were also normal.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed a cystic lesion in the right ilium near the sacroiliac joint. A more recent follow-up MRI and computed tomography scan of the pelvis found the cyst to be stable and well marginalized, with no cortical erosion. Attempts at physical therapy had been unsuccessful because of the pain and decreasing muscle strength in his lower extremities. The patient’s primary care provider was treating him with meloxicam 15 mg/d and duloxetine 60 mg/d, but that had not provided any relief.

Our physical examination revealed a patient who was in mild distress and had limited lumbar spine range of motion (secondary to pain in all planes) and significant paraspinal spasms on the right side in both the lumbar and thoracic regions. The patient had reduced vibratory sensation on his left side vs the right, with a 256-Hz tuning fork at the great toe, as well as reduced sensation to fine touch with a cotton swab and a positive Babinski sign bilaterally. Lower extremity reflexes were hyperreflexic on the left compared with the right. He had no pronator drift; Trendelenburg, straight leg raise, Hoover sign, and slump tests were all negative. His gait was antalgic with a cane, as he described bilateral paresthesias.

THE DIAGNOSIS

The differential diagnosis for low back pain is quite extensive and includes simple mechanical low back pain, lumbar radiculopathy, facet arthritis, spinal stenosis, spondylolysis/spondylolisthesis, and referred pain from the hip, knee, or upper back. It can also be caused by referred pain from visceral organs such as the liver, colon, or kidneys. Low back pain can also signal primary or metastatic disease. However, most of these potential diagnoses had been ruled out with imaging and lab tests.

Continue to: Two things caught our attention

Two things caught our attention. First: Mechanical low back pain and the associated discogenic radiculopathy would be unilateral, manifesting with asymmetric paresthesias and pain. Our patient had weakness in gait and pain and burning in both of his legs. Second: Our patient described decreased sleep and feeling anxious, with symptoms of forgetfulness, confusion, and agitation. These factors prompted us to look beyond the normal differential and consider a potential toxicity. A heavy metal screen was ordered, and the results were positive for arsenic toxicity.

DISCUSSION

Arsenic toxicity is a global health problem that affects millions of people.^1,2 Arsenic has been used for centuries in depilatories, cosmetics, poisons, and therapeutic agents. Today it is used as a treatment for leukemia and in several ayurvedic and homeopathic remedies.^3-7 It is a common earth element found in ground water and a waste product from mining and the manufacturing of glass, computer chips, wood preservatives, and various pesticides.^2,3,7,8

A great masquerader. Once in the body, arsenic can cause many serious ailments ranging from urinary tract, liver, and skin cancers to various peripheral and central nervous system disorders.² Arsenic can cause symmetrical peripheral neuropathy characterized by sensory nerves being more sensitive than motor nerves.^2,3,5,6 Clinically, it causes numbness and paresthesias of the distal extremities, with the lower extremities more severely affected.^3,6 Symptoms can develop within 2 hours to 2 years of exposure, with vomiting, diarrhea, or both preceding the onset of the neuropathy.^2,3,5,6 Arsenic is linked to forgetfulness, confusion, visual distortion, sleep disturbances, decreased concentration, disorientation, severe agitation, paranoid ideation, emotional lability, and decreases in locomotor activity.^3,5,6

Testing and treatment. Arsenic levels in the body are measured by blood and urine testing. Blood arsenic levels are typically detectable immediately after exposure and with continued exposure, but quickly normalize as the metal integrates into the nonvascular tissues. Urine arsenic levels can be detected for weeks. Normal levels for arsenic in both urine and blood are ≤ 12 µg/L.³ Anything greater than 12 µg/L is considered high; critically high values are those above 50 µg/L.^3,5 Our patient’s blood arsenic level was 13 µg/L.

Several of the patient’s symptoms prompted us to look beyond the normal differential and consider a potential toxicity.

Treatment involves removing the source of the arsenic. Chelation therapy should be pursued when urine arsenic levels are greater than 50 µg/L or when removing the source of the arsenic fails to reduce arsenic levels. Chelation therapy should be continued until urine arsenic levels are below 20 µg/L.^5,6

Continue to: After discussing potential sources of exposure

After discussing potential sources of exposure, our patient decided to move out of the house he shared with his ex-wife. He started to recover soon after moving out. Two weeks after his clinic visit, he no longer needed a cane to walk, and his blood arsenic level had dropped to 6 µg/L. Two months after his clinic visit, the patient’s blood arsenic level was undetectable. The patient’s peripheral neuropathy symptoms continued to improve.

The source of this patient’s arsenic exposure was never confirmed. The exposure could have occurred in Puerto Rico or in Louisiana. Even though no one else in the Louisiana home became ill, the patient was instructed to contact the local health department and water department to have the water tested. However, when he returned to the clinic for follow-up, he had not followed through.

THE TAKEAWAY

When evaluating causes of peripheral neuropathy, consider the possibility of heavy metal toxicity, which can be easily overlooked by the busy clinician. In this case, the patient initially experienced asymmetric paresthesia that gradually increased to burning pain and weakness, with reduced motor control bilaterally. This was significant because mechanical low back pain and the associated discogenic radiculopathy would be unilateral, manifesting with asymmetric paresthesias and pain.

Our patient’s leg symptoms, the constellation of forgetfulness, confusion, and agitation, and his sleep issues prompted us to look outside our normal differential. Fortunately, once arsenic exposure ceases, patients will gradually improve because arsenic is rapidly cleared from the bloodstream.^3,6

CORRESPONDENCE
Charles W. Webb, DO, CAQSM, FAMSSM, FAAFP, Department of Family Medicine, 1501 Kings Highway, PO Box 33932, Shreveport, LA 71130-3932; [email protected]

THE CASE

A 34-year-old man was referred to the sports medicine clinic for evaluation of lumbar radiculopathy. He had a 2-year history of chronic lower back pain that started while he was working on power line towers in Puerto Rico. The back pain was achy, burning, shooting, and stabbing in nature. He had been treated with anti-inflammatories by a company health care provider while in Puerto Rico, but he did not have any imaging done.

At that time, he had tingling and burning that radiated down his left leg to his ankle. The patient also had leg spasms—in his left leg more than his right—and needed a cane when walking. His symptoms did not worsen at any particular time of day or with activity. He had no history of eating exotic foods or sustaining any venomous bites/stings. Ultimately, the back pain and leg spasms forced him to leave his job and return home to Louisiana.

Upon presentation to the sports medicine clinic, he explained that things had worsened since his return home. The pain and burning in his left leg had increased and were now present in his right leg, as well (bilateral paresthesias). In addition, he said he was feeling anxious (and described symptoms of forgetfulness, confusion, and agitation), was sleeping less, and was experiencing worsening fatigue.

Work-ups over the course of the previous 2 years had shed little light on the cause of his symptoms. X-rays of his lumbar spine revealed moderate degenerative changes at L5-S1. A lab work-up was negative and included a complete blood count, testing for HIV and herpes, a hepatitis panel, an antinuclear antibody screen, a C-reactive protein test, and a comprehensive metabolic panel. Thyroid-stimulating hormone, creatine kinase, rapid plasma reagin, and human leukocyte antigen B27 tests were also normal.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed a cystic lesion in the right ilium near the sacroiliac joint. A more recent follow-up MRI and computed tomography scan of the pelvis found the cyst to be stable and well marginalized, with no cortical erosion. Attempts at physical therapy had been unsuccessful because of the pain and decreasing muscle strength in his lower extremities. The patient’s primary care provider was treating him with meloxicam 15 mg/d and duloxetine 60 mg/d, but that had not provided any relief.

Our physical examination revealed a patient who was in mild distress and had limited lumbar spine range of motion (secondary to pain in all planes) and significant paraspinal spasms on the right side in both the lumbar and thoracic regions. The patient had reduced vibratory sensation on his left side vs the right, with a 256-Hz tuning fork at the great toe, as well as reduced sensation to fine touch with a cotton swab and a positive Babinski sign bilaterally. Lower extremity reflexes were hyperreflexic on the left compared with the right. He had no pronator drift; Trendelenburg, straight leg raise, Hoover sign, and slump tests were all negative. His gait was antalgic with a cane, as he described bilateral paresthesias.

THE DIAGNOSIS

The differential diagnosis for low back pain is quite extensive and includes simple mechanical low back pain, lumbar radiculopathy, facet arthritis, spinal stenosis, spondylolysis/spondylolisthesis, and referred pain from the hip, knee, or upper back. It can also be caused by referred pain from visceral organs such as the liver, colon, or kidneys. Low back pain can also signal primary or metastatic disease. However, most of these potential diagnoses had been ruled out with imaging and lab tests.

Continue to: Two things caught our attention

Two things caught our attention. First: Mechanical low back pain and the associated discogenic radiculopathy would be unilateral, manifesting with asymmetric paresthesias and pain. Our patient had weakness in gait and pain and burning in both of his legs. Second: Our patient described decreased sleep and feeling anxious, with symptoms of forgetfulness, confusion, and agitation. These factors prompted us to look beyond the normal differential and consider a potential toxicity. A heavy metal screen was ordered, and the results were positive for arsenic toxicity.

DISCUSSION

Arsenic toxicity is a global health problem that affects millions of people.^1,2 Arsenic has been used for centuries in depilatories, cosmetics, poisons, and therapeutic agents. Today it is used as a treatment for leukemia and in several ayurvedic and homeopathic remedies.^3-7 It is a common earth element found in ground water and a waste product from mining and the manufacturing of glass, computer chips, wood preservatives, and various pesticides.^2,3,7,8

A great masquerader. Once in the body, arsenic can cause many serious ailments ranging from urinary tract, liver, and skin cancers to various peripheral and central nervous system disorders.² Arsenic can cause symmetrical peripheral neuropathy characterized by sensory nerves being more sensitive than motor nerves.^2,3,5,6 Clinically, it causes numbness and paresthesias of the distal extremities, with the lower extremities more severely affected.^3,6 Symptoms can develop within 2 hours to 2 years of exposure, with vomiting, diarrhea, or both preceding the onset of the neuropathy.^2,3,5,6 Arsenic is linked to forgetfulness, confusion, visual distortion, sleep disturbances, decreased concentration, disorientation, severe agitation, paranoid ideation, emotional lability, and decreases in locomotor activity.^3,5,6

Testing and treatment. Arsenic levels in the body are measured by blood and urine testing. Blood arsenic levels are typically detectable immediately after exposure and with continued exposure, but quickly normalize as the metal integrates into the nonvascular tissues. Urine arsenic levels can be detected for weeks. Normal levels for arsenic in both urine and blood are ≤ 12 µg/L.³ Anything greater than 12 µg/L is considered high; critically high values are those above 50 µg/L.^3,5 Our patient’s blood arsenic level was 13 µg/L.

Several of the patient’s symptoms prompted us to look beyond the normal differential and consider a potential toxicity.

Treatment involves removing the source of the arsenic. Chelation therapy should be pursued when urine arsenic levels are greater than 50 µg/L or when removing the source of the arsenic fails to reduce arsenic levels. Chelation therapy should be continued until urine arsenic levels are below 20 µg/L.^5,6

Continue to: After discussing potential sources of exposure

After discussing potential sources of exposure, our patient decided to move out of the house he shared with his ex-wife. He started to recover soon after moving out. Two weeks after his clinic visit, he no longer needed a cane to walk, and his blood arsenic level had dropped to 6 µg/L. Two months after his clinic visit, the patient’s blood arsenic level was undetectable. The patient’s peripheral neuropathy symptoms continued to improve.

The source of this patient’s arsenic exposure was never confirmed. The exposure could have occurred in Puerto Rico or in Louisiana. Even though no one else in the Louisiana home became ill, the patient was instructed to contact the local health department and water department to have the water tested. However, when he returned to the clinic for follow-up, he had not followed through.

THE TAKEAWAY

When evaluating causes of peripheral neuropathy, consider the possibility of heavy metal toxicity, which can be easily overlooked by the busy clinician. In this case, the patient initially experienced asymmetric paresthesia that gradually increased to burning pain and weakness, with reduced motor control bilaterally. This was significant because mechanical low back pain and the associated discogenic radiculopathy would be unilateral, manifesting with asymmetric paresthesias and pain.

Our patient’s leg symptoms, the constellation of forgetfulness, confusion, and agitation, and his sleep issues prompted us to look outside our normal differential. Fortunately, once arsenic exposure ceases, patients will gradually improve because arsenic is rapidly cleared from the bloodstream.^3,6

CORRESPONDENCE
Charles W. Webb, DO, CAQSM, FAMSSM, FAAFP, Department of Family Medicine, 1501 Kings Highway, PO Box 33932, Shreveport, LA 71130-3932; [email protected]

A 12-YEAR-OLD BOY presented to the hospital with a 2-day history of fever, cough, and painful blisters on swollen lips. On examination, he had multiple tense blisters with clear fluid on the buccal mucosa and inner lips (FIGURE 1A), as well as multiple discrete ulcers on his posterior pharynx. The patient had no other skin, eye, or urogenital involvement, but he was dehydrated. Respiratory examination was unremarkable. A complete blood count and metabolic panel were normal, as was a ­C-reactive protein (CRP) test (0.8 mg/L).

The preliminary diagnosis was primary herpetic gingivostomatitis, and treatment was initiated with intravenous (IV) acyclovir (10 mg/kg every 8 hours), IV fluids, and topical lidocaine gel and topical steroids for analgesia. However, the patient’s fever persisted over the next 4 days, with his temperature fluctuating between 101.3 °F and 104 °F, and he had a worsening productive cough. The blisters ruptured on Day 6 of illness, leaving hemorrhagic crusting on his lips (FIGURE 1B). Herpes simplex virus types 1 and 2 and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing were negative.

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

Further follow-up on Day 6 of illness revealed bibasilar crepitations along with an elevated CRP level of 40.5 mg/L and a positive mycoplasma antibody serology (titer > 1:1280; ­normal, < 1:80). The patient was given a diagnosis of pneumonia (due to infection with Mycoplasma pneumoniae) and M ­pneumoniae–induced rash and mucositis (MIRM).

MIRM was first proposed as a distinct clinical entity in 2015 to distinguish it from Stevens-Johnson syndrome and erythema multiforme.¹ MIRM is seen more commonly in children and young adults, with a male preponderance.¹

Within 3 days of initiating treatment with IV ceftriaxone, azithromycin, and methylprednisolone, our patient experienced marked improvement of his symptoms.

A small longitudinal study found that approximately 22.7% of children who have M pneumoniae infections present with mucocutaneous lesions, and of those cases, 6.8% are MIRM.²Chlamydia pneumoniae is another potential causal organism of mucositis resembling MIRM.³

Pathogenesis. The commonly accepted mechanism of MIRM is an immune response triggered by a distant infection. This leads to tissue damage via polyclonal B cell proliferation and subsequent immune complex deposition, complement activation, and cytokine overproduction. Molecular mimicry between M pneumoniae P1-adhesion molecules and keratinocyte antigens may also contribute to this pathway.

3 criteria to make the diagnosis

Canavan et al¹ have proposed the following criteria for the diagnosis of MIRM:

• Clinical symptoms, such as fever and cough, and laboratory findings of M pneumoniae infection (elevated M pneumoniae immunoglobulin M antibodies, positive cultures or PCR for M pneumoniae from oropharyngeal samples or bullae, and/or serial cold agglutinins) AND
• a rash to the mucosa that usually affects ≥ 2 sites (although rare cases may have fewer than 2 mucosal sites involved) AND
• skin detachment of less than 10% of the body surface area.

Continue to: The 3 variants of MIRM include...

The 3 variants of MIRM include:

• Classic MIRM has evidence of all 3 diagnostic criteria plus a nonmucosal rash, such as vesiculobullous lesions (77%), scattered target lesions (48%), papules (14%), macules (12%), and morbilliform eruptions (9%).⁴
• MIRM sine rash includes all 3 criteria but there is no significant cutaneous, nonmucosal rash. There may be “few fleeting morbilliform lesions or a few vesicles.”⁴
• Severe MIRM includes the first 2 criteria listed, but the cutaneous rash is extensive, with widespread nonmucosal blisters or flat atypical target lesions.⁴

Our patient had definitive clinical symptoms, laboratory evidence, and severe oral mucositis without significant cutaneous rash, thereby fulfilling the criteria for a diagnosis of MIRM sine rash variant.

These skin conditions were considered in the differential

The differential diagnosis for sudden onset of severe oral mucosal blisters in children includes herpes gingivostomatitis; hand, foot, and mouth disease; erythema multiforme; and Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis (SJS/TEN). The presence of pulmonary symptoms and oropharyngeal mucositis, together with the laboratory markers currently proposed as MIRM diagnostic criteria, are important in helping differentiate MIRM from other items in the differential diagnosis.

Herpes gingivostomatitis would involve numerous ulcerations of the oral mucosa and tongue, as well as gum hypertrophy.

Hand, foot, and mouth disease is characterized by vesicular exanthems of the hands, legs, and buttocks.

Continue to: Erythema multiforme

Erythema multiforme appears as cutaneous target lesions on the limbs that spread in a centripetal manner following herpes simplex virus infection.

SJS/TEN manifests with severe mucositis and is commonly triggered by medications (eg, sulphonamides, beta-lactams, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and antiepileptics).

With antibiotics, the prognosis is good

There are no established guidelines for the treatment of MIRM. Antibiotics and supportive care are universally accepted. Immunosuppressive therapy (eg, systemic steroids) is frequently used in patients with MIRM who have extensive mucosal involvement, in an attempt to decrease inflammation and pain; however, evidence for such an approach is lacking. The hyperimmune reactions of the host to M pneumoniae infection include cytokine overproduction and T-cell activation, which promote both pulmonary and extrapulmonary manifestations. This forms the basis of immunosuppressive therapy, such as systemic corticosteroids, IV immunoglobulin, and cyclosporin A, particularly when MIRM is associated with pneumonia caused by infection with M pneumoniae.^1,5,6

The overall prognosis of MIRM is good. Recurrence has been reported in up to 8% of cases, the treatment of which remains the same. Mucocutaneous and ocular sequelae (oral or genital synechiae, corneal ulcerations, dry eyes, loss of eye lashes) have been reported in less than 9% of patients.¹ Other rare reported complications following the occurrence of MIRM include persistent cutaneous lesions, B cell lymphopenia, and restrictive lung disease or chronic obliterative bronchitis.

Our patient was started on IV ­ceftriaxone (50 mg/kg/d), azithromycin (10 mg/kg/d on the first day, then 5 mg/kg/d on the sub­sequent 5 days), and methylprednisolone (3 mg/kg/d) on Day 6 of illness. Within 3 days, there was marked improvement of mucositis and respiratory symptoms with resolution of fever. He was discharged on Day 10. At his outpatient follow-up 2 weeks later, the patient had made a complete recovery.

A 12-YEAR-OLD BOY presented to the hospital with a 2-day history of fever, cough, and painful blisters on swollen lips. On examination, he had multiple tense blisters with clear fluid on the buccal mucosa and inner lips (FIGURE 1A), as well as multiple discrete ulcers on his posterior pharynx. The patient had no other skin, eye, or urogenital involvement, but he was dehydrated. Respiratory examination was unremarkable. A complete blood count and metabolic panel were normal, as was a ­C-reactive protein (CRP) test (0.8 mg/L).

The preliminary diagnosis was primary herpetic gingivostomatitis, and treatment was initiated with intravenous (IV) acyclovir (10 mg/kg every 8 hours), IV fluids, and topical lidocaine gel and topical steroids for analgesia. However, the patient’s fever persisted over the next 4 days, with his temperature fluctuating between 101.3 °F and 104 °F, and he had a worsening productive cough. The blisters ruptured on Day 6 of illness, leaving hemorrhagic crusting on his lips (FIGURE 1B). Herpes simplex virus types 1 and 2 and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing were negative.

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

Further follow-up on Day 6 of illness revealed bibasilar crepitations along with an elevated CRP level of 40.5 mg/L and a positive mycoplasma antibody serology (titer > 1:1280; ­normal, < 1:80). The patient was given a diagnosis of pneumonia (due to infection with Mycoplasma pneumoniae) and M ­pneumoniae–induced rash and mucositis (MIRM).

MIRM was first proposed as a distinct clinical entity in 2015 to distinguish it from Stevens-Johnson syndrome and erythema multiforme.¹ MIRM is seen more commonly in children and young adults, with a male preponderance.¹

Within 3 days of initiating treatment with IV ceftriaxone, azithromycin, and methylprednisolone, our patient experienced marked improvement of his symptoms.

A small longitudinal study found that approximately 22.7% of children who have M pneumoniae infections present with mucocutaneous lesions, and of those cases, 6.8% are MIRM.²Chlamydia pneumoniae is another potential causal organism of mucositis resembling MIRM.³

Pathogenesis. The commonly accepted mechanism of MIRM is an immune response triggered by a distant infection. This leads to tissue damage via polyclonal B cell proliferation and subsequent immune complex deposition, complement activation, and cytokine overproduction. Molecular mimicry between M pneumoniae P1-adhesion molecules and keratinocyte antigens may also contribute to this pathway.

3 criteria to make the diagnosis

Canavan et al¹ have proposed the following criteria for the diagnosis of MIRM:

• Clinical symptoms, such as fever and cough, and laboratory findings of M pneumoniae infection (elevated M pneumoniae immunoglobulin M antibodies, positive cultures or PCR for M pneumoniae from oropharyngeal samples or bullae, and/or serial cold agglutinins) AND
• a rash to the mucosa that usually affects ≥ 2 sites (although rare cases may have fewer than 2 mucosal sites involved) AND
• skin detachment of less than 10% of the body surface area.

Continue to: The 3 variants of MIRM include...

The 3 variants of MIRM include:

• Classic MIRM has evidence of all 3 diagnostic criteria plus a nonmucosal rash, such as vesiculobullous lesions (77%), scattered target lesions (48%), papules (14%), macules (12%), and morbilliform eruptions (9%).⁴
• MIRM sine rash includes all 3 criteria but there is no significant cutaneous, nonmucosal rash. There may be “few fleeting morbilliform lesions or a few vesicles.”⁴
• Severe MIRM includes the first 2 criteria listed, but the cutaneous rash is extensive, with widespread nonmucosal blisters or flat atypical target lesions.⁴

Our patient had definitive clinical symptoms, laboratory evidence, and severe oral mucositis without significant cutaneous rash, thereby fulfilling the criteria for a diagnosis of MIRM sine rash variant.

These skin conditions were considered in the differential

The differential diagnosis for sudden onset of severe oral mucosal blisters in children includes herpes gingivostomatitis; hand, foot, and mouth disease; erythema multiforme; and Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis (SJS/TEN). The presence of pulmonary symptoms and oropharyngeal mucositis, together with the laboratory markers currently proposed as MIRM diagnostic criteria, are important in helping differentiate MIRM from other items in the differential diagnosis.

Herpes gingivostomatitis would involve numerous ulcerations of the oral mucosa and tongue, as well as gum hypertrophy.

Hand, foot, and mouth disease is characterized by vesicular exanthems of the hands, legs, and buttocks.

Continue to: Erythema multiforme

Erythema multiforme appears as cutaneous target lesions on the limbs that spread in a centripetal manner following herpes simplex virus infection.

SJS/TEN manifests with severe mucositis and is commonly triggered by medications (eg, sulphonamides, beta-lactams, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and antiepileptics).

With antibiotics, the prognosis is good

There are no established guidelines for the treatment of MIRM. Antibiotics and supportive care are universally accepted. Immunosuppressive therapy (eg, systemic steroids) is frequently used in patients with MIRM who have extensive mucosal involvement, in an attempt to decrease inflammation and pain; however, evidence for such an approach is lacking. The hyperimmune reactions of the host to M pneumoniae infection include cytokine overproduction and T-cell activation, which promote both pulmonary and extrapulmonary manifestations. This forms the basis of immunosuppressive therapy, such as systemic corticosteroids, IV immunoglobulin, and cyclosporin A, particularly when MIRM is associated with pneumonia caused by infection with M pneumoniae.^1,5,6

The overall prognosis of MIRM is good. Recurrence has been reported in up to 8% of cases, the treatment of which remains the same. Mucocutaneous and ocular sequelae (oral or genital synechiae, corneal ulcerations, dry eyes, loss of eye lashes) have been reported in less than 9% of patients.¹ Other rare reported complications following the occurrence of MIRM include persistent cutaneous lesions, B cell lymphopenia, and restrictive lung disease or chronic obliterative bronchitis.

Our patient was started on IV ­ceftriaxone (50 mg/kg/d), azithromycin (10 mg/kg/d on the first day, then 5 mg/kg/d on the sub­sequent 5 days), and methylprednisolone (3 mg/kg/d) on Day 6 of illness. Within 3 days, there was marked improvement of mucositis and respiratory symptoms with resolution of fever. He was discharged on Day 10. At his outpatient follow-up 2 weeks later, the patient had made a complete recovery.

A 12-YEAR-OLD BOY presented to the hospital with a 2-day history of fever, cough, and painful blisters on swollen lips. On examination, he had multiple tense blisters with clear fluid on the buccal mucosa and inner lips (FIGURE 1A), as well as multiple discrete ulcers on his posterior pharynx. The patient had no other skin, eye, or urogenital involvement, but he was dehydrated. Respiratory examination was unremarkable. A complete blood count and metabolic panel were normal, as was a ­C-reactive protein (CRP) test (0.8 mg/L).

The preliminary diagnosis was primary herpetic gingivostomatitis, and treatment was initiated with intravenous (IV) acyclovir (10 mg/kg every 8 hours), IV fluids, and topical lidocaine gel and topical steroids for analgesia. However, the patient’s fever persisted over the next 4 days, with his temperature fluctuating between 101.3 °F and 104 °F, and he had a worsening productive cough. The blisters ruptured on Day 6 of illness, leaving hemorrhagic crusting on his lips (FIGURE 1B). Herpes simplex virus types 1 and 2 and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing were negative.

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

Further follow-up on Day 6 of illness revealed bibasilar crepitations along with an elevated CRP level of 40.5 mg/L and a positive mycoplasma antibody serology (titer > 1:1280; ­normal, < 1:80). The patient was given a diagnosis of pneumonia (due to infection with Mycoplasma pneumoniae) and M ­pneumoniae–induced rash and mucositis (MIRM).

MIRM was first proposed as a distinct clinical entity in 2015 to distinguish it from Stevens-Johnson syndrome and erythema multiforme.¹ MIRM is seen more commonly in children and young adults, with a male preponderance.¹

Within 3 days of initiating treatment with IV ceftriaxone, azithromycin, and methylprednisolone, our patient experienced marked improvement of his symptoms.

A small longitudinal study found that approximately 22.7% of children who have M pneumoniae infections present with mucocutaneous lesions, and of those cases, 6.8% are MIRM.²Chlamydia pneumoniae is another potential causal organism of mucositis resembling MIRM.³

Pathogenesis. The commonly accepted mechanism of MIRM is an immune response triggered by a distant infection. This leads to tissue damage via polyclonal B cell proliferation and subsequent immune complex deposition, complement activation, and cytokine overproduction. Molecular mimicry between M pneumoniae P1-adhesion molecules and keratinocyte antigens may also contribute to this pathway.

3 criteria to make the diagnosis

Canavan et al¹ have proposed the following criteria for the diagnosis of MIRM:

• Clinical symptoms, such as fever and cough, and laboratory findings of M pneumoniae infection (elevated M pneumoniae immunoglobulin M antibodies, positive cultures or PCR for M pneumoniae from oropharyngeal samples or bullae, and/or serial cold agglutinins) AND
• a rash to the mucosa that usually affects ≥ 2 sites (although rare cases may have fewer than 2 mucosal sites involved) AND
• skin detachment of less than 10% of the body surface area.

Continue to: The 3 variants of MIRM include...

The 3 variants of MIRM include:

• Classic MIRM has evidence of all 3 diagnostic criteria plus a nonmucosal rash, such as vesiculobullous lesions (77%), scattered target lesions (48%), papules (14%), macules (12%), and morbilliform eruptions (9%).⁴
• MIRM sine rash includes all 3 criteria but there is no significant cutaneous, nonmucosal rash. There may be “few fleeting morbilliform lesions or a few vesicles.”⁴
• Severe MIRM includes the first 2 criteria listed, but the cutaneous rash is extensive, with widespread nonmucosal blisters or flat atypical target lesions.⁴

Our patient had definitive clinical symptoms, laboratory evidence, and severe oral mucositis without significant cutaneous rash, thereby fulfilling the criteria for a diagnosis of MIRM sine rash variant.

These skin conditions were considered in the differential

The differential diagnosis for sudden onset of severe oral mucosal blisters in children includes herpes gingivostomatitis; hand, foot, and mouth disease; erythema multiforme; and Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis (SJS/TEN). The presence of pulmonary symptoms and oropharyngeal mucositis, together with the laboratory markers currently proposed as MIRM diagnostic criteria, are important in helping differentiate MIRM from other items in the differential diagnosis.

Herpes gingivostomatitis would involve numerous ulcerations of the oral mucosa and tongue, as well as gum hypertrophy.

Hand, foot, and mouth disease is characterized by vesicular exanthems of the hands, legs, and buttocks.

Continue to: Erythema multiforme

Erythema multiforme appears as cutaneous target lesions on the limbs that spread in a centripetal manner following herpes simplex virus infection.

SJS/TEN manifests with severe mucositis and is commonly triggered by medications (eg, sulphonamides, beta-lactams, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and antiepileptics).

With antibiotics, the prognosis is good

There are no established guidelines for the treatment of MIRM. Antibiotics and supportive care are universally accepted. Immunosuppressive therapy (eg, systemic steroids) is frequently used in patients with MIRM who have extensive mucosal involvement, in an attempt to decrease inflammation and pain; however, evidence for such an approach is lacking. The hyperimmune reactions of the host to M pneumoniae infection include cytokine overproduction and T-cell activation, which promote both pulmonary and extrapulmonary manifestations. This forms the basis of immunosuppressive therapy, such as systemic corticosteroids, IV immunoglobulin, and cyclosporin A, particularly when MIRM is associated with pneumonia caused by infection with M pneumoniae.^1,5,6

The overall prognosis of MIRM is good. Recurrence has been reported in up to 8% of cases, the treatment of which remains the same. Mucocutaneous and ocular sequelae (oral or genital synechiae, corneal ulcerations, dry eyes, loss of eye lashes) have been reported in less than 9% of patients.¹ Other rare reported complications following the occurrence of MIRM include persistent cutaneous lesions, B cell lymphopenia, and restrictive lung disease or chronic obliterative bronchitis.

Our patient was started on IV ­ceftriaxone (50 mg/kg/d), azithromycin (10 mg/kg/d on the first day, then 5 mg/kg/d on the sub­sequent 5 days), and methylprednisolone (3 mg/kg/d) on Day 6 of illness. Within 3 days, there was marked improvement of mucositis and respiratory symptoms with resolution of fever. He was discharged on Day 10. At his outpatient follow-up 2 weeks later, the patient had made a complete recovery.

I work with medical students nearly every day that I see patients. I recently mentioned to a student that I have a limited working knowledge of the brand names of diabetes medications released in the past 10 years. Just like the M3s, I need the full generic name to know whether a medication is a GLP-1 inhibitor or a ­DPP-4 inhibitor, because I know that “flozins” are SGLT-2 inhibitors and ­“glutides” are GLP-1 agonists. The combined efforts of an ambulatory care pharmacist and some flashcards have helped me to better understand how they work and which ones to prescribe when. Meanwhile, the residents are capably counseling on the adverse effects of the latest diabetes agent, while I am googling its generic name.

The premise of science is continuous discovery. In the first 10 months of 2022, the US Food & Drug Administration approved more than 2 dozen new medications, almost 100 new generics, and new indications for dozens more.^1,2 The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued 13 new or reaffirmed recommendations in the first 10 months of 2022, and it is just one of dozens of bodies that issue guidelines relevant to primary care.³ PubMed indexes more than a million new articles each year. Learning new information and changing practice are crucial to being an effective clinician.

In this edition of JFP, Covey and Cagle⁴ write about updates to the USPSTF’s lung cancer screening guidelines. The authors reference changing evidence that led to the revised recommendations. When the original guideline was released in 2013, it drew on the best available evidence at the time.⁵ The National Lung Screening Trial, which looked at CT scanning compared with chest x-rays as screening tests for lung cancer, was groundbreaking in its methods and results.⁶ However, it was not without its flaws. It enrolled < 5% Black patients, and so the recommendations for age cutoffs and pack-year cutoffs were made based on the majority White population from the trial.

Not adopting the new lung cancer screening recommendations would exclude patients most at risk of lung cancer and allow disparities to grow.

Black patients experience a higher mortality from lung cancer and are diagnosed at an earlier age and a lower cumulative pack-year exposure than White patients.⁷ Other studies have explored the social and political factors that lead to these disparities, which range from access to care to racial segregation of neighborhoods and tobacco marketing practices.⁷ When the USPSTF performed its periodic update of the guideline, it had access to additional research. The updates reflect the new information.

Every physician has a responsibility to find a way to adapt to important new information in medicine. Not using ­SGLT-2 inhibitors in the management of diabetes would be substandard care, and my patients would suffer for it. Not adopting the new lung cancer screening recommendations would exclude patients most at risk of lung cancer and allow disparities in lung cancer morbidity and mortality to grow.^7,8Understanding the evidence behind the recommendations also reminds me that the guidelines will change again. These recommendations are no more static than the first guidelines were. I’ll be ready when the next update comes, and I’ll have the medical students and residents to keep me sharp.

I work with medical students nearly every day that I see patients. I recently mentioned to a student that I have a limited working knowledge of the brand names of diabetes medications released in the past 10 years. Just like the M3s, I need the full generic name to know whether a medication is a GLP-1 inhibitor or a ­DPP-4 inhibitor, because I know that “flozins” are SGLT-2 inhibitors and ­“glutides” are GLP-1 agonists. The combined efforts of an ambulatory care pharmacist and some flashcards have helped me to better understand how they work and which ones to prescribe when. Meanwhile, the residents are capably counseling on the adverse effects of the latest diabetes agent, while I am googling its generic name.

The premise of science is continuous discovery. In the first 10 months of 2022, the US Food & Drug Administration approved more than 2 dozen new medications, almost 100 new generics, and new indications for dozens more.^1,2 The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued 13 new or reaffirmed recommendations in the first 10 months of 2022, and it is just one of dozens of bodies that issue guidelines relevant to primary care.³ PubMed indexes more than a million new articles each year. Learning new information and changing practice are crucial to being an effective clinician.

In this edition of JFP, Covey and Cagle⁴ write about updates to the USPSTF’s lung cancer screening guidelines. The authors reference changing evidence that led to the revised recommendations. When the original guideline was released in 2013, it drew on the best available evidence at the time.⁵ The National Lung Screening Trial, which looked at CT scanning compared with chest x-rays as screening tests for lung cancer, was groundbreaking in its methods and results.⁶ However, it was not without its flaws. It enrolled < 5% Black patients, and so the recommendations for age cutoffs and pack-year cutoffs were made based on the majority White population from the trial.

Not adopting the new lung cancer screening recommendations would exclude patients most at risk of lung cancer and allow disparities to grow.

Black patients experience a higher mortality from lung cancer and are diagnosed at an earlier age and a lower cumulative pack-year exposure than White patients.⁷ Other studies have explored the social and political factors that lead to these disparities, which range from access to care to racial segregation of neighborhoods and tobacco marketing practices.⁷ When the USPSTF performed its periodic update of the guideline, it had access to additional research. The updates reflect the new information.

Every physician has a responsibility to find a way to adapt to important new information in medicine. Not using ­SGLT-2 inhibitors in the management of diabetes would be substandard care, and my patients would suffer for it. Not adopting the new lung cancer screening recommendations would exclude patients most at risk of lung cancer and allow disparities in lung cancer morbidity and mortality to grow.^7,8Understanding the evidence behind the recommendations also reminds me that the guidelines will change again. These recommendations are no more static than the first guidelines were. I’ll be ready when the next update comes, and I’ll have the medical students and residents to keep me sharp.

I work with medical students nearly every day that I see patients. I recently mentioned to a student that I have a limited working knowledge of the brand names of diabetes medications released in the past 10 years. Just like the M3s, I need the full generic name to know whether a medication is a GLP-1 inhibitor or a ­DPP-4 inhibitor, because I know that “flozins” are SGLT-2 inhibitors and ­“glutides” are GLP-1 agonists. The combined efforts of an ambulatory care pharmacist and some flashcards have helped me to better understand how they work and which ones to prescribe when. Meanwhile, the residents are capably counseling on the adverse effects of the latest diabetes agent, while I am googling its generic name.

The premise of science is continuous discovery. In the first 10 months of 2022, the US Food & Drug Administration approved more than 2 dozen new medications, almost 100 new generics, and new indications for dozens more.^1,2 The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued 13 new or reaffirmed recommendations in the first 10 months of 2022, and it is just one of dozens of bodies that issue guidelines relevant to primary care.³ PubMed indexes more than a million new articles each year. Learning new information and changing practice are crucial to being an effective clinician.

In this edition of JFP, Covey and Cagle⁴ write about updates to the USPSTF’s lung cancer screening guidelines. The authors reference changing evidence that led to the revised recommendations. When the original guideline was released in 2013, it drew on the best available evidence at the time.⁵ The National Lung Screening Trial, which looked at CT scanning compared with chest x-rays as screening tests for lung cancer, was groundbreaking in its methods and results.⁶ However, it was not without its flaws. It enrolled < 5% Black patients, and so the recommendations for age cutoffs and pack-year cutoffs were made based on the majority White population from the trial.

Not adopting the new lung cancer screening recommendations would exclude patients most at risk of lung cancer and allow disparities to grow.

Black patients experience a higher mortality from lung cancer and are diagnosed at an earlier age and a lower cumulative pack-year exposure than White patients.⁷ Other studies have explored the social and political factors that lead to these disparities, which range from access to care to racial segregation of neighborhoods and tobacco marketing practices.⁷ When the USPSTF performed its periodic update of the guideline, it had access to additional research. The updates reflect the new information.

Every physician has a responsibility to find a way to adapt to important new information in medicine. Not using ­SGLT-2 inhibitors in the management of diabetes would be substandard care, and my patients would suffer for it. Not adopting the new lung cancer screening recommendations would exclude patients most at risk of lung cancer and allow disparities in lung cancer morbidity and mortality to grow.^7,8Understanding the evidence behind the recommendations also reminds me that the guidelines will change again. These recommendations are no more static than the first guidelines were. I’ll be ready when the next update comes, and I’ll have the medical students and residents to keep me sharp.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A frail 76-year-old woman with a history of hypertension and hyperlipidemia presents for evaluation of palpitations. An in-office electrocardiogram reveals that the patient is in AF. Her CHA₂DS₂-VASc score is 4 and her HAS-BLED score is 2.^2,3 Using shared decision making, you decide to start medications for her AF. You plan to initiate a beta-blocker for rate control and must now decide on anticoagulation. Which oral anticoagulant would you prescribe for this patient’s AF, given her frail status?

Frailty is defined as a state of vulnerability with a decreased ability to recover from an acute stressful event.⁴ The prevalence of frailty varies by the measurements used and the population studied. A 2021 meta-analysis found that frailty prevalence ranges from 12% to 24% worldwide in patients older than 50 years⁵ and may increase to > 30% among those ages 85 years and older.⁶ Frailty increases rates of AEs such as falls⁷ and fracture,⁸ leading to disability,⁹ decreased quality of life,¹⁰ increased utilization of health care,¹¹ and increased mortality.¹² A number of validated approaches are available to screen for and measure frailty.^13-18

Given the association with negative health outcomes and high health care utilization, frailty is an important clinical factor for physicians to consider when treating elderly patients. Frailty assessment may allow for more tailored treatment choices for patients, with a potential reduction in complications. Although CHA₂DS₂-VASc and HAS-BLED scores assist in the decision-making process of whether to start anticoagulation,these tools do not take frailty into consideration or guide anticoagulant choice.^2,3 The purpose of this study was to analyze how levels of frailty affect the association of 3 different direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) vs warfarin with various AEs (death, stroke, or major bleeding).

STUDY SUMMARY

This DOAC rose above the others

This retrospective cohort study compared the safety of 3 DOACs—dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban—vs warfarin in Medicare beneficiaries with AF, using 1:1 propensity score (PS)–matched analysis. Eligible patients were ages 65 years or older, with a filled prescription for a DOAC or warfarin, no prior oral anticoagulant exposure in the previous 183 days, a diagnostic code of AF, and continuous enrollment in Medicare Parts A, B, and D only. Patients were excluded if they had missing demographic data, received hospice care, resided in a nursing facility at drug initiation, had another indication for anticoagulation, or had a contraindication to either a DOAC or warfarin.

Frailty was measured using a claims-based frailty index (CFI), which applies health care utilization data to estimate a frailty index, with cut points for nonfrailty, prefrailty, and frailty. The CFI score has 93 claims-based variables, including wheelchairs and durable medical equipment, open wounds, diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and ischemic heart disease, and transportation services.^15-17 In this study, nonfrailty was defined as a CFI < 0.15, prefrailty as a CFI of 0.15 to 0.24, and frailty as a CFI ≥ 0.25.

Among older patients treated with anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation, apixaban had the lowest adverse event rate vs warfarin among frail patients, compared with dabigatran and rivaroxaban.

The primary outcome—a composite endpoint of death, ischemic stroke, or major bleeding—was measured for each of the DOAC–warfarin cohorts in the overall population and stratified by frailty classification. Patients were followed until the occurrence of a study outcome, Medicare disenrollment, the end of the study period, discontinuation of the index drug (defined as > 5 days), change to a different anticoagulant, admission to a nursing facility, enrollment in hospice, initiation of dialysis, or kidney transplant. The authors conducted a PS-matched analysis to reduce any imbalances in clinical characteristics between the DOAC- and warfarin-­treated groups, as well as a sensitivity analysis to assess the strength of the data findings using different assumptions.

The authors created 3 DOAC–warfarin cohorts: dabigatran (n = 81,863) vs warfarin (n = 256,722), rivaroxaban (n = 185,011) vs warfarin (n = 228,028), and apixaban (n = 222,478) vs warfarin (n = 206,031). After PS matching, the mean age in all cohorts was 76 to 77 years, about 50% were female, and 91% were White. The mean HAS-BLED score was 2 and the mean CHA₂DS₂-VASc score was 4. The mean CFI was 0.19 to 0.20, defined as prefrail. Patients classified as frail were older, more likely to be female, and more likely to have greater comorbidities, higher scores on CHA₂DS₂-VASc and HAS-BLED, and higher health care utilization.

Continue to: In the dabigatran-warfarin...

In the dabigatran–warfarin cohort (median follow-up, 72 days), the event rate of the composite endpoint per 1000 person-years (PY) was 63.5 for dabigatran and 65.6 for warfarin (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.05; rate difference [RD] per 1000 PY = –2.2; 95% CI, –6.5 to 2.1). A lower rate of the composite endpoint was associated with dabigatran than warfarin for the nonfrail subgroup but not the prefrail or frail groups.

In the rivaroxaban–warfarin cohort (median follow-up, 82 days), the composite endpoint rate per 1000 PY was 77.8 for rivaroxaban and 83.7 for warfarin (HR = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.02; RD per 1000 PY = –5.9; 95% CI, –9.4 to –2.4). When stratifying by frailty category, both dabigatran and rivaroxaban were associated with a lower composite endpoint rate than warfarin for the nonfrail population only (HR = 0.81; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.97, and HR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.99, respectively).

In the apixaban–warfarin cohort (median follow-up, 84 days), the rate of the composite endpoint per 1000 PY was 60.1 for apixaban and 92.3 for warfarin (HR = 0.68; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.72; RD per 1000 PY = –32.2; 95% CI, –36.1 to –28.3). The beneficial association for apixaban was present in all frailty categories, with an HR of 0.61 (95% CI, 0.52 to 0.71) for nonfrail patients, 0.66 (95% CI, 0.61 to 0.70) for prefrail patients, and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.67 to 0.80) for frail patients. Apixaban was the only DOAC with a relative reduction in the hazard of death, ischemic stroke, or major bleeding among all frailty groups.

WHAT’S NEW

Only apixaban had lower AE rates vs warfarin across frailty levels

Three DOACs (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban) reduced the risk of death, ischemic stroke, or major bleeding compared with warfarin in older adults with AF, but only apixaban was associated with a relative reduction of these adverse outcomes in patients of all frailty classifications.

CAVEATS

Important data but RCTs are needed

The power of this observational study is considerable. However, it remains a retrospective observational study. The authors attempted to account for these limitations and potential confounders by performing a PS-matched analysis and sensitivity analysis; however, these findings should be confirmed with randomized controlled trials.

Continue to: Additionally, the study...

Additionally, the study collected data on each of the DOAC–warfarin cohorts for < 90 days. Trials to address long-term outcomes are warranted.

Finally, there was no control group in comparison with anticoagulation. It is possible that choosing not to use an anticoagulant is the best choice for frail elderly patients.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Doctors need a practical frailty scale, patients need an affordable Rx

Frailty is not often considered a measurable trait. The approach used in the study to determine the CFI is not a practical clinical tool. Studies comparing a frailty calculation software application or an easily implementable survey may help bring this clinically impactful information to the hands of primary care physicians. The Clinical Frailty Scale—a brief, 7-point scale based on the physician’s clinical impression of the patient—has been found to correlate with other established frailty measures¹⁸ and might be an option for busy clinicians. However, the current study did not utilize this measurement, and the validity of its use by primary care physicians in the outpatient setting requires further study.

Cost may be a barrier for patients younger than 65 years or for those older than 65 years who do not qualify for Medicare or do not have Medicare Part D.

In addition, cost may be a barrier for patients younger than 65 years or for those older than 65 years who do not qualify for Medicare or do not have Medicare Part D. The average monthly cost of the DOACs ranges from $560 for dabigatran¹⁹ to $600 for rivaroxaban²⁰ and $623 for apixaban.²¹ As always, the choice of anticoagulant therapy is a clinical judgment and a joint decision of the patient and physician.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A frail 76-year-old woman with a history of hypertension and hyperlipidemia presents for evaluation of palpitations. An in-office electrocardiogram reveals that the patient is in AF. Her CHA₂DS₂-VASc score is 4 and her HAS-BLED score is 2.^2,3 Using shared decision making, you decide to start medications for her AF. You plan to initiate a beta-blocker for rate control and must now decide on anticoagulation. Which oral anticoagulant would you prescribe for this patient’s AF, given her frail status?

Frailty is defined as a state of vulnerability with a decreased ability to recover from an acute stressful event.⁴ The prevalence of frailty varies by the measurements used and the population studied. A 2021 meta-analysis found that frailty prevalence ranges from 12% to 24% worldwide in patients older than 50 years⁵ and may increase to > 30% among those ages 85 years and older.⁶ Frailty increases rates of AEs such as falls⁷ and fracture,⁸ leading to disability,⁹ decreased quality of life,¹⁰ increased utilization of health care,¹¹ and increased mortality.¹² A number of validated approaches are available to screen for and measure frailty.^13-18

Given the association with negative health outcomes and high health care utilization, frailty is an important clinical factor for physicians to consider when treating elderly patients. Frailty assessment may allow for more tailored treatment choices for patients, with a potential reduction in complications. Although CHA₂DS₂-VASc and HAS-BLED scores assist in the decision-making process of whether to start anticoagulation,these tools do not take frailty into consideration or guide anticoagulant choice.^2,3 The purpose of this study was to analyze how levels of frailty affect the association of 3 different direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) vs warfarin with various AEs (death, stroke, or major bleeding).

STUDY SUMMARY

This DOAC rose above the others

This retrospective cohort study compared the safety of 3 DOACs—dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban—vs warfarin in Medicare beneficiaries with AF, using 1:1 propensity score (PS)–matched analysis. Eligible patients were ages 65 years or older, with a filled prescription for a DOAC or warfarin, no prior oral anticoagulant exposure in the previous 183 days, a diagnostic code of AF, and continuous enrollment in Medicare Parts A, B, and D only. Patients were excluded if they had missing demographic data, received hospice care, resided in a nursing facility at drug initiation, had another indication for anticoagulation, or had a contraindication to either a DOAC or warfarin.

Frailty was measured using a claims-based frailty index (CFI), which applies health care utilization data to estimate a frailty index, with cut points for nonfrailty, prefrailty, and frailty. The CFI score has 93 claims-based variables, including wheelchairs and durable medical equipment, open wounds, diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and ischemic heart disease, and transportation services.^15-17 In this study, nonfrailty was defined as a CFI < 0.15, prefrailty as a CFI of 0.15 to 0.24, and frailty as a CFI ≥ 0.25.

Among older patients treated with anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation, apixaban had the lowest adverse event rate vs warfarin among frail patients, compared with dabigatran and rivaroxaban.

The primary outcome—a composite endpoint of death, ischemic stroke, or major bleeding—was measured for each of the DOAC–warfarin cohorts in the overall population and stratified by frailty classification. Patients were followed until the occurrence of a study outcome, Medicare disenrollment, the end of the study period, discontinuation of the index drug (defined as > 5 days), change to a different anticoagulant, admission to a nursing facility, enrollment in hospice, initiation of dialysis, or kidney transplant. The authors conducted a PS-matched analysis to reduce any imbalances in clinical characteristics between the DOAC- and warfarin-­treated groups, as well as a sensitivity analysis to assess the strength of the data findings using different assumptions.

The authors created 3 DOAC–warfarin cohorts: dabigatran (n = 81,863) vs warfarin (n = 256,722), rivaroxaban (n = 185,011) vs warfarin (n = 228,028), and apixaban (n = 222,478) vs warfarin (n = 206,031). After PS matching, the mean age in all cohorts was 76 to 77 years, about 50% were female, and 91% were White. The mean HAS-BLED score was 2 and the mean CHA₂DS₂-VASc score was 4. The mean CFI was 0.19 to 0.20, defined as prefrail. Patients classified as frail were older, more likely to be female, and more likely to have greater comorbidities, higher scores on CHA₂DS₂-VASc and HAS-BLED, and higher health care utilization.

Continue to: In the dabigatran-warfarin...

In the dabigatran–warfarin cohort (median follow-up, 72 days), the event rate of the composite endpoint per 1000 person-years (PY) was 63.5 for dabigatran and 65.6 for warfarin (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.05; rate difference [RD] per 1000 PY = –2.2; 95% CI, –6.5 to 2.1). A lower rate of the composite endpoint was associated with dabigatran than warfarin for the nonfrail subgroup but not the prefrail or frail groups.

In the rivaroxaban–warfarin cohort (median follow-up, 82 days), the composite endpoint rate per 1000 PY was 77.8 for rivaroxaban and 83.7 for warfarin (HR = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.02; RD per 1000 PY = –5.9; 95% CI, –9.4 to –2.4). When stratifying by frailty category, both dabigatran and rivaroxaban were associated with a lower composite endpoint rate than warfarin for the nonfrail population only (HR = 0.81; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.97, and HR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.99, respectively).

In the apixaban–warfarin cohort (median follow-up, 84 days), the rate of the composite endpoint per 1000 PY was 60.1 for apixaban and 92.3 for warfarin (HR = 0.68; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.72; RD per 1000 PY = –32.2; 95% CI, –36.1 to –28.3). The beneficial association for apixaban was present in all frailty categories, with an HR of 0.61 (95% CI, 0.52 to 0.71) for nonfrail patients, 0.66 (95% CI, 0.61 to 0.70) for prefrail patients, and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.67 to 0.80) for frail patients. Apixaban was the only DOAC with a relative reduction in the hazard of death, ischemic stroke, or major bleeding among all frailty groups.

WHAT’S NEW

Only apixaban had lower AE rates vs warfarin across frailty levels

Three DOACs (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban) reduced the risk of death, ischemic stroke, or major bleeding compared with warfarin in older adults with AF, but only apixaban was associated with a relative reduction of these adverse outcomes in patients of all frailty classifications.

CAVEATS

Important data but RCTs are needed

The power of this observational study is considerable. However, it remains a retrospective observational study. The authors attempted to account for these limitations and potential confounders by performing a PS-matched analysis and sensitivity analysis; however, these findings should be confirmed with randomized controlled trials.

Continue to: Additionally, the study...

Additionally, the study collected data on each of the DOAC–warfarin cohorts for < 90 days. Trials to address long-term outcomes are warranted.

Finally, there was no control group in comparison with anticoagulation. It is possible that choosing not to use an anticoagulant is the best choice for frail elderly patients.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Doctors need a practical frailty scale, patients need an affordable Rx

Frailty is not often considered a measurable trait. The approach used in the study to determine the CFI is not a practical clinical tool. Studies comparing a frailty calculation software application or an easily implementable survey may help bring this clinically impactful information to the hands of primary care physicians. The Clinical Frailty Scale—a brief, 7-point scale based on the physician’s clinical impression of the patient—has been found to correlate with other established frailty measures¹⁸ and might be an option for busy clinicians. However, the current study did not utilize this measurement, and the validity of its use by primary care physicians in the outpatient setting requires further study.

Cost may be a barrier for patients younger than 65 years or for those older than 65 years who do not qualify for Medicare or do not have Medicare Part D.

In addition, cost may be a barrier for patients younger than 65 years or for those older than 65 years who do not qualify for Medicare or do not have Medicare Part D. The average monthly cost of the DOACs ranges from $560 for dabigatran¹⁹ to $600 for rivaroxaban²⁰ and $623 for apixaban.²¹ As always, the choice of anticoagulant therapy is a clinical judgment and a joint decision of the patient and physician.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A frail 76-year-old woman with a history of hypertension and hyperlipidemia presents for evaluation of palpitations. An in-office electrocardiogram reveals that the patient is in AF. Her CHA₂DS₂-VASc score is 4 and her HAS-BLED score is 2.^2,3 Using shared decision making, you decide to start medications for her AF. You plan to initiate a beta-blocker for rate control and must now decide on anticoagulation. Which oral anticoagulant would you prescribe for this patient’s AF, given her frail status?

Frailty is defined as a state of vulnerability with a decreased ability to recover from an acute stressful event.⁴ The prevalence of frailty varies by the measurements used and the population studied. A 2021 meta-analysis found that frailty prevalence ranges from 12% to 24% worldwide in patients older than 50 years⁵ and may increase to > 30% among those ages 85 years and older.⁶ Frailty increases rates of AEs such as falls⁷ and fracture,⁸ leading to disability,⁹ decreased quality of life,¹⁰ increased utilization of health care,¹¹ and increased mortality.¹² A number of validated approaches are available to screen for and measure frailty.^13-18

Given the association with negative health outcomes and high health care utilization, frailty is an important clinical factor for physicians to consider when treating elderly patients. Frailty assessment may allow for more tailored treatment choices for patients, with a potential reduction in complications. Although CHA₂DS₂-VASc and HAS-BLED scores assist in the decision-making process of whether to start anticoagulation,these tools do not take frailty into consideration or guide anticoagulant choice.^2,3 The purpose of this study was to analyze how levels of frailty affect the association of 3 different direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) vs warfarin with various AEs (death, stroke, or major bleeding).

STUDY SUMMARY

This DOAC rose above the others

This retrospective cohort study compared the safety of 3 DOACs—dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban—vs warfarin in Medicare beneficiaries with AF, using 1:1 propensity score (PS)–matched analysis. Eligible patients were ages 65 years or older, with a filled prescription for a DOAC or warfarin, no prior oral anticoagulant exposure in the previous 183 days, a diagnostic code of AF, and continuous enrollment in Medicare Parts A, B, and D only. Patients were excluded if they had missing demographic data, received hospice care, resided in a nursing facility at drug initiation, had another indication for anticoagulation, or had a contraindication to either a DOAC or warfarin.

Frailty was measured using a claims-based frailty index (CFI), which applies health care utilization data to estimate a frailty index, with cut points for nonfrailty, prefrailty, and frailty. The CFI score has 93 claims-based variables, including wheelchairs and durable medical equipment, open wounds, diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and ischemic heart disease, and transportation services.^15-17 In this study, nonfrailty was defined as a CFI < 0.15, prefrailty as a CFI of 0.15 to 0.24, and frailty as a CFI ≥ 0.25.

Among older patients treated with anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation, apixaban had the lowest adverse event rate vs warfarin among frail patients, compared with dabigatran and rivaroxaban.

The primary outcome—a composite endpoint of death, ischemic stroke, or major bleeding—was measured for each of the DOAC–warfarin cohorts in the overall population and stratified by frailty classification. Patients were followed until the occurrence of a study outcome, Medicare disenrollment, the end of the study period, discontinuation of the index drug (defined as > 5 days), change to a different anticoagulant, admission to a nursing facility, enrollment in hospice, initiation of dialysis, or kidney transplant. The authors conducted a PS-matched analysis to reduce any imbalances in clinical characteristics between the DOAC- and warfarin-­treated groups, as well as a sensitivity analysis to assess the strength of the data findings using different assumptions.

The authors created 3 DOAC–warfarin cohorts: dabigatran (n = 81,863) vs warfarin (n = 256,722), rivaroxaban (n = 185,011) vs warfarin (n = 228,028), and apixaban (n = 222,478) vs warfarin (n = 206,031). After PS matching, the mean age in all cohorts was 76 to 77 years, about 50% were female, and 91% were White. The mean HAS-BLED score was 2 and the mean CHA₂DS₂-VASc score was 4. The mean CFI was 0.19 to 0.20, defined as prefrail. Patients classified as frail were older, more likely to be female, and more likely to have greater comorbidities, higher scores on CHA₂DS₂-VASc and HAS-BLED, and higher health care utilization.

Continue to: In the dabigatran-warfarin...

In the dabigatran–warfarin cohort (median follow-up, 72 days), the event rate of the composite endpoint per 1000 person-years (PY) was 63.5 for dabigatran and 65.6 for warfarin (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.05; rate difference [RD] per 1000 PY = –2.2; 95% CI, –6.5 to 2.1). A lower rate of the composite endpoint was associated with dabigatran than warfarin for the nonfrail subgroup but not the prefrail or frail groups.

In the rivaroxaban–warfarin cohort (median follow-up, 82 days), the composite endpoint rate per 1000 PY was 77.8 for rivaroxaban and 83.7 for warfarin (HR = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.02; RD per 1000 PY = –5.9; 95% CI, –9.4 to –2.4). When stratifying by frailty category, both dabigatran and rivaroxaban were associated with a lower composite endpoint rate than warfarin for the nonfrail population only (HR = 0.81; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.97, and HR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.99, respectively).

In the apixaban–warfarin cohort (median follow-up, 84 days), the rate of the composite endpoint per 1000 PY was 60.1 for apixaban and 92.3 for warfarin (HR = 0.68; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.72; RD per 1000 PY = –32.2; 95% CI, –36.1 to –28.3). The beneficial association for apixaban was present in all frailty categories, with an HR of 0.61 (95% CI, 0.52 to 0.71) for nonfrail patients, 0.66 (95% CI, 0.61 to 0.70) for prefrail patients, and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.67 to 0.80) for frail patients. Apixaban was the only DOAC with a relative reduction in the hazard of death, ischemic stroke, or major bleeding among all frailty groups.

WHAT’S NEW

Only apixaban had lower AE rates vs warfarin across frailty levels

Three DOACs (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban) reduced the risk of death, ischemic stroke, or major bleeding compared with warfarin in older adults with AF, but only apixaban was associated with a relative reduction of these adverse outcomes in patients of all frailty classifications.

CAVEATS

Important data but RCTs are needed

The power of this observational study is considerable. However, it remains a retrospective observational study. The authors attempted to account for these limitations and potential confounders by performing a PS-matched analysis and sensitivity analysis; however, these findings should be confirmed with randomized controlled trials.

Continue to: Additionally, the study...

Additionally, the study collected data on each of the DOAC–warfarin cohorts for < 90 days. Trials to address long-term outcomes are warranted.

Finally, there was no control group in comparison with anticoagulation. It is possible that choosing not to use an anticoagulant is the best choice for frail elderly patients.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Doctors need a practical frailty scale, patients need an affordable Rx

Frailty is not often considered a measurable trait. The approach used in the study to determine the CFI is not a practical clinical tool. Studies comparing a frailty calculation software application or an easily implementable survey may help bring this clinically impactful information to the hands of primary care physicians. The Clinical Frailty Scale—a brief, 7-point scale based on the physician’s clinical impression of the patient—has been found to correlate with other established frailty measures¹⁸ and might be an option for busy clinicians. However, the current study did not utilize this measurement, and the validity of its use by primary care physicians in the outpatient setting requires further study.

Cost may be a barrier for patients younger than 65 years or for those older than 65 years who do not qualify for Medicare or do not have Medicare Part D.

In addition, cost may be a barrier for patients younger than 65 years or for those older than 65 years who do not qualify for Medicare or do not have Medicare Part D. The average monthly cost of the DOACs ranges from $560 for dabigatran¹⁹ to $600 for rivaroxaban²⁰ and $623 for apixaban.²¹ As always, the choice of anticoagulant therapy is a clinical judgment and a joint decision of the patient and physician.

CASE

A 51-year-old man presents to your office to discuss lung cancer screening. He has a history of hypertension and prediabetes. His father died of lung cancer 5 years ago, at age 77. The patient stopped smoking soon thereafter; prior to that, he smoked 1 pack of cigarettes per day for 20 years. He wants to know if he should be screened for lung cancer.

The relative lack of symptoms during the early stages of lung cancer frequently results in a delayed diagnosis. This, and the speed at which the disease progresses, underscores the need for an effective screening modality. More than half of people with lung cancer die within 1 year of diagnosis.¹ Excluding skin cancer, lung cancer is the second most commonly diagnosed cancer, and more people die of lung cancer than of colon, breast, and prostate cancers combined.² In 2022, it was estimated that there would be 236,740 new cases of lung cancer and 130,180 deaths from lung cancer.^1,2 The average age at diagnosis is 70 years.²

Screening modalities: Only 1 has demonstrated mortality benefit

In 1968, Wilson and Junger³ outlined the characteristics of the ideal screening test for the World Health Organization: it should limit risk to the patient, be sensitive for detecting the disease early in its course, limit false-positive results, be acceptable to the patient, and be inexpensive to the health system.³ For decades, several screening modalities for lung cancer were trialed to fit the above guidance, but many of them fell short of the most important outcome: the impact on mortality.

Sputum cytology. The use of sputum cytology, either in combination with or without chest radiography, is not recommended. Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have failed to demonstrate improved lung cancer detection or mortality reduction in patients screened with this modality.⁴

Chest radiography (CXR). Several studies have assessed the efficacy of CXR as a screening modality. The best known was the Prostate, Lung, Colon, Ovarian (PLCO) Trial.⁵ This multicenter RCT enrolled more than 154,000 participants, half of whom received CXR at baseline and then annually for 3 years; the other half continued usual care (no screening). After 13 years of follow-up, there were no significant differences in lung cancer detection or mortality rates between the 2 groups.⁵

Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). Several major medical societies recommend LDCT to screen high-risk individuals for lung cancer (TABLE 1^6-10). Results from 2 major RCTs have guided these recommendations.

At this time, low-dose computed tomography is the only lung cancer screening modality that has shown benefit for both disease-related and all-cause mortality.

The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) was a multicenter RCT comparing 2 screening tests for lung cancer.¹¹ Approximately 54,000 high-risk participants were enrolled between 2002 and 2004 and were randomized to receive annual screening with either LDCT or single-view CXR. The trial was discontinued prematurely when investigators noted a 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality in the LDCT group vs the CXR group.¹² This equates to 3 fewer deaths for every 1000 people screened with LDCT vs CXR. There was also a 6% reduction in all-cause mortality noted in the LDCT vs the CXR group.¹²

Continue to: The NELSON trial...

The NELSON trial, conducted between 2005 and 2015, studied more than 15,000 current or former smokers ages 50 to 74 years and compared LDCT screening at various intervals to no screening.¹³ After 10 years, lung cancer–related mortality was reduced by 24% (or 1 less death per 1000 person-years) in men who were screened vs their unscreened counterparts.¹³ In contrast to the NLST, in the NELSON trial, no significant difference in all-cause mortality was observed. Subgroup analysis of the relatively small population of women included in the NELSON trial suggested a 33% reduction in 10-year mortality; however, the difference was nonsignificant between the screened and unscreened groups.¹³

Each of these landmark studies had characteristics that could limit the results' generalizability to the US population. In the NELSON trial, more than 80% of the study participants were male. In both trials, there was significant underrepresentation of Black, Asian, Hispanic, and other non-White people.^12,13 Furthermore, participants in these studies were of higher socioeconomic status than the general US screening-eligible population.

At this time, LDCT is the only lung cancer screening modality that has shown benefit for both disease-related and all-cause mortality, in the populations that were studied. Based on the NLST, the number needed to screen (NNS) with LDCT to prevent 1 lung cancer–related death is 308. The NNS to prevent 1 death from any cause is 219.⁶

Updated evidence has led to a consensus on screening criteria

Many national societies endorse annual screening with LDCT in high-risk individuals (TABLE 1^6-10). Risk assessment for the purpose of lung cancer screening includes a detailed review of smoking history and age. The risk of lung cancer increases with advancing age and with cumulative quantity and duration of smoking, but decreases with increasing time since quitting. Therefore, a detailed smoking history should include total number of pack-years, current smoking status, and, if applicable, when smoking cessation occurred.

In 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) updated their 2013 lung cancer screening recommendations, expanding the screening age range and lowering the smoking history threshold for triggering initiation of screening.⁶ The impetus for the update was emerging evidence from systematic reviews, RCTs, and the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network ­(CISNET) that could help to determine the optimal age for screening and identify high-risk groups. For example, the NELSON trial, combined with results from CISNET modeling data, showed an empirical benefit for screening those ages 50 to 55 years.⁶

Continue to: As a result...

As a result, the USPSTF now recommends annual lung cancer screening with LDCT for any adult ages 50 to 80 years who has a 20-pack-year smoking history and currently smokes or has quit within the past 15 years.⁶ Screening should be discontinued once a person has not smoked for 15 years, develops a health problem that substantially limits life expectancy, or is not willing to have curative lung surgery.⁶

Expanding the screening eligibility may also address racial and gender disparities in health care. Black people and women who smoke have a higher risk for lung cancer at a lower intensity of smoking.⁶

Following the USPSTF update, the American College of Chest Physicians and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services published updated guidance that aligns with USPSTF’s recommendations to lower the age and pack-year qualifications for initiating screening.^7,10 The American Cancer Society is currently reviewing its 2018 guidelines on lung cancer screening.¹⁴TABLE 1^6-10 summarizes the guidance on lung cancer screening from these medical societies.

Effective screening could save lives (and money)

A smoker’s risk for lung cancer is 20 times higher than that of a nonsmoker^15,16; 55% of lung cancer deaths in women and 70% in men are attributed to smoking.¹⁷ Once diagnosed with lung cancer, more than 50% of people will die within 1 year.¹ This underpins the need for a lung cancer screening modality that reduces mortality. Large RCTs, including the NLST and NELSONtrials, have shown that screening high-risk individuals with LDCT can significantly reduce lung cancer–related death when compared to no screening or screening with CXR alone.^11,13

There is controversy surrounding the cost benefit of implementing a nationwide lung cancer screening program. However, recent use of microsimulation models has shown LDCT to be a cost-effective strategy, with an average cost of $81,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, which is below the threshold of $100,000 to be considered cost effective.¹⁸ Expanding the upper age limit for screening leads to a greater reduction in mortality but increases treatment costs and overdiagnosis rates, and overall does not improve quality-adjusted life-years.¹⁸

Continue to: Potential harms

Potential harms: False-positives and related complications

Screening for lung cancer is not without its risks. Harms from screening typically result from false-positive test results leading to over­diagnosis, anxiety and distress, unnecessary invasive tests or procedures, and increased costs.¹⁹TABLE 2^6,19-23 lists specific complications from lung cancer screening with LDCT.

The false-positive rate is not trivial. For every 1000 patients screened, 250 people will have a positive LDCT finding but will not have lung cancer.¹⁹ Furthermore, about 1 in every 2000 individuals who screen positive, but who do not have lung cancer, die as a result of complications from the ensuing work-up.⁶

Annual LDCT screening increases the risk of radiation-induced cancer by approximately 0.05% over 10 years.²¹ The absolute risk is generally low but not insignificant. However, the mortality benefits previously outlined are significantly more robust in both absolute and relative terms vs the 10-year risk of radiation-induced cancer.

The trial was discontinued prematurely when investigators noted a 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality in the lowdose computed tomography group vs the chest x-ray group.

Lastly, it is important to note that the NELSON trial and NLST included a limited number of LDCT scans. Current guidelines for lung cancer screening with LDCT, including those from the USPSTF, recommend screening annually. We do not know the cumulative harm of annual LDCT over a 20- or 30-year period for those who would qualify (ie, current smokers).

If you screen, you must be able to act on the results

Effective screening programs should extend beyond the LDCT scan itself. The studies that have shown a benefit of LDCT were done at large academic centers that had the appropriate radiologic, pathologic, and surgical infrastructure to interpret and act on results and offer further diagnostic or treatment procedures.

Continue to: Prior to screening...

Prior to screening for lung cancer with LDCT, documentation of shared decision-making between the patient and the clinician is necessary.⁷ This discussion should include the potential benefits and harms of screening, potential results and likelihood of follow-up diagnostic testing, the false-positive rate of LDCT lung cancer screening, and cumulative radiation exposure. In addition, screening should be considered only if the patient is willing to be screened annually, is willing to pursue follow-up scans and procedures (including lung biopsy) if deemed necessary, and does not have comorbid conditions that significantly limit life expectancy.

Smoking cessation: The most important change to make

Smoking cessation is the single most important risk-modifying behavior to reduce one’s chance of developing lung cancer. At age 40, smokers have a 2-fold increase in all-cause mortality compared to age-matched nonsmokers. This rises to a 3-fold increase by the age of 70.¹⁶

Smoking cessation reduces the risk of lung cancer by 20% after 5 years, 30% to 50% after 10 years, and up to 70% after 15 years.²⁴ In its guidelines, the American Thoracic Society recommends varenicline (Chantix) for all smokers to assist with smoking cessation.²⁵

CASE

This 51-year-old patient with at least a 20-pack-year history of smoking should be commended for giving up smoking. Based on the USPSTF recommendations, he should be screened annually with LDCT for the next 10 years.

Screening to save more lives

The results of 2 large multicenter RCTs have led to the recent recommendation for lung cancer screening of high-risk adults with the use of LDCT. Screening with LDCT has been shown to reduce disease-related mortality and likely be cost effective in the long term.

Screening with LDCT should be part of a multidisciplinary system that has the infrastructure not only to perform the screening, but also to diagnose and appropriately follow up and treat patients whose results are concerning. The risk of false-positive results leading to increased anxiety, overdiagnosis, and unnecessary procedures points to the importance of proper patient selection, counseling, and shared decision-making. Smoking cessation remains the most important disease-modifying behavior one can make to reduce their risk for lung cancer.

CORRESPONDENCE
Carlton J. Covey, MD, 101 Bodin Circle, David Grant Medical Center, Travis Air Force Base, Fairfield, CA, 94545; [email protected]

CASE

A 51-year-old man presents to your office to discuss lung cancer screening. He has a history of hypertension and prediabetes. His father died of lung cancer 5 years ago, at age 77. The patient stopped smoking soon thereafter; prior to that, he smoked 1 pack of cigarettes per day for 20 years. He wants to know if he should be screened for lung cancer.

The relative lack of symptoms during the early stages of lung cancer frequently results in a delayed diagnosis. This, and the speed at which the disease progresses, underscores the need for an effective screening modality. More than half of people with lung cancer die within 1 year of diagnosis.¹ Excluding skin cancer, lung cancer is the second most commonly diagnosed cancer, and more people die of lung cancer than of colon, breast, and prostate cancers combined.² In 2022, it was estimated that there would be 236,740 new cases of lung cancer and 130,180 deaths from lung cancer.^1,2 The average age at diagnosis is 70 years.²

Screening modalities: Only 1 has demonstrated mortality benefit

In 1968, Wilson and Junger³ outlined the characteristics of the ideal screening test for the World Health Organization: it should limit risk to the patient, be sensitive for detecting the disease early in its course, limit false-positive results, be acceptable to the patient, and be inexpensive to the health system.³ For decades, several screening modalities for lung cancer were trialed to fit the above guidance, but many of them fell short of the most important outcome: the impact on mortality.

Sputum cytology. The use of sputum cytology, either in combination with or without chest radiography, is not recommended. Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have failed to demonstrate improved lung cancer detection or mortality reduction in patients screened with this modality.⁴

Chest radiography (CXR). Several studies have assessed the efficacy of CXR as a screening modality. The best known was the Prostate, Lung, Colon, Ovarian (PLCO) Trial.⁵ This multicenter RCT enrolled more than 154,000 participants, half of whom received CXR at baseline and then annually for 3 years; the other half continued usual care (no screening). After 13 years of follow-up, there were no significant differences in lung cancer detection or mortality rates between the 2 groups.⁵

Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). Several major medical societies recommend LDCT to screen high-risk individuals for lung cancer (TABLE 1^6-10). Results from 2 major RCTs have guided these recommendations.

At this time, low-dose computed tomography is the only lung cancer screening modality that has shown benefit for both disease-related and all-cause mortality.

The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) was a multicenter RCT comparing 2 screening tests for lung cancer.¹¹ Approximately 54,000 high-risk participants were enrolled between 2002 and 2004 and were randomized to receive annual screening with either LDCT or single-view CXR. The trial was discontinued prematurely when investigators noted a 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality in the LDCT group vs the CXR group.¹² This equates to 3 fewer deaths for every 1000 people screened with LDCT vs CXR. There was also a 6% reduction in all-cause mortality noted in the LDCT vs the CXR group.¹²

Continue to: The NELSON trial...

The NELSON trial, conducted between 2005 and 2015, studied more than 15,000 current or former smokers ages 50 to 74 years and compared LDCT screening at various intervals to no screening.¹³ After 10 years, lung cancer–related mortality was reduced by 24% (or 1 less death per 1000 person-years) in men who were screened vs their unscreened counterparts.¹³ In contrast to the NLST, in the NELSON trial, no significant difference in all-cause mortality was observed. Subgroup analysis of the relatively small population of women included in the NELSON trial suggested a 33% reduction in 10-year mortality; however, the difference was nonsignificant between the screened and unscreened groups.¹³

Each of these landmark studies had characteristics that could limit the results' generalizability to the US population. In the NELSON trial, more than 80% of the study participants were male. In both trials, there was significant underrepresentation of Black, Asian, Hispanic, and other non-White people.^12,13 Furthermore, participants in these studies were of higher socioeconomic status than the general US screening-eligible population.

At this time, LDCT is the only lung cancer screening modality that has shown benefit for both disease-related and all-cause mortality, in the populations that were studied. Based on the NLST, the number needed to screen (NNS) with LDCT to prevent 1 lung cancer–related death is 308. The NNS to prevent 1 death from any cause is 219.⁶

Updated evidence has led to a consensus on screening criteria

Many national societies endorse annual screening with LDCT in high-risk individuals (TABLE 1^6-10). Risk assessment for the purpose of lung cancer screening includes a detailed review of smoking history and age. The risk of lung cancer increases with advancing age and with cumulative quantity and duration of smoking, but decreases with increasing time since quitting. Therefore, a detailed smoking history should include total number of pack-years, current smoking status, and, if applicable, when smoking cessation occurred.

In 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) updated their 2013 lung cancer screening recommendations, expanding the screening age range and lowering the smoking history threshold for triggering initiation of screening.⁶ The impetus for the update was emerging evidence from systematic reviews, RCTs, and the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network ­(CISNET) that could help to determine the optimal age for screening and identify high-risk groups. For example, the NELSON trial, combined with results from CISNET modeling data, showed an empirical benefit for screening those ages 50 to 55 years.⁶

Continue to: As a result...

As a result, the USPSTF now recommends annual lung cancer screening with LDCT for any adult ages 50 to 80 years who has a 20-pack-year smoking history and currently smokes or has quit within the past 15 years.⁶ Screening should be discontinued once a person has not smoked for 15 years, develops a health problem that substantially limits life expectancy, or is not willing to have curative lung surgery.⁶

Expanding the screening eligibility may also address racial and gender disparities in health care. Black people and women who smoke have a higher risk for lung cancer at a lower intensity of smoking.⁶

Following the USPSTF update, the American College of Chest Physicians and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services published updated guidance that aligns with USPSTF’s recommendations to lower the age and pack-year qualifications for initiating screening.^7,10 The American Cancer Society is currently reviewing its 2018 guidelines on lung cancer screening.¹⁴TABLE 1^6-10 summarizes the guidance on lung cancer screening from these medical societies.

Effective screening could save lives (and money)

A smoker’s risk for lung cancer is 20 times higher than that of a nonsmoker^15,16; 55% of lung cancer deaths in women and 70% in men are attributed to smoking.¹⁷ Once diagnosed with lung cancer, more than 50% of people will die within 1 year.¹ This underpins the need for a lung cancer screening modality that reduces mortality. Large RCTs, including the NLST and NELSONtrials, have shown that screening high-risk individuals with LDCT can significantly reduce lung cancer–related death when compared to no screening or screening with CXR alone.^11,13

There is controversy surrounding the cost benefit of implementing a nationwide lung cancer screening program. However, recent use of microsimulation models has shown LDCT to be a cost-effective strategy, with an average cost of $81,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, which is below the threshold of $100,000 to be considered cost effective.¹⁸ Expanding the upper age limit for screening leads to a greater reduction in mortality but increases treatment costs and overdiagnosis rates, and overall does not improve quality-adjusted life-years.¹⁸

Continue to: Potential harms

Potential harms: False-positives and related complications

Screening for lung cancer is not without its risks. Harms from screening typically result from false-positive test results leading to over­diagnosis, anxiety and distress, unnecessary invasive tests or procedures, and increased costs.¹⁹TABLE 2^6,19-23 lists specific complications from lung cancer screening with LDCT.

The false-positive rate is not trivial. For every 1000 patients screened, 250 people will have a positive LDCT finding but will not have lung cancer.¹⁹ Furthermore, about 1 in every 2000 individuals who screen positive, but who do not have lung cancer, die as a result of complications from the ensuing work-up.⁶

Annual LDCT screening increases the risk of radiation-induced cancer by approximately 0.05% over 10 years.²¹ The absolute risk is generally low but not insignificant. However, the mortality benefits previously outlined are significantly more robust in both absolute and relative terms vs the 10-year risk of radiation-induced cancer.

The trial was discontinued prematurely when investigators noted a 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality in the lowdose computed tomography group vs the chest x-ray group.

Lastly, it is important to note that the NELSON trial and NLST included a limited number of LDCT scans. Current guidelines for lung cancer screening with LDCT, including those from the USPSTF, recommend screening annually. We do not know the cumulative harm of annual LDCT over a 20- or 30-year period for those who would qualify (ie, current smokers).

If you screen, you must be able to act on the results

Effective screening programs should extend beyond the LDCT scan itself. The studies that have shown a benefit of LDCT were done at large academic centers that had the appropriate radiologic, pathologic, and surgical infrastructure to interpret and act on results and offer further diagnostic or treatment procedures.

Continue to: Prior to screening...

Prior to screening for lung cancer with LDCT, documentation of shared decision-making between the patient and the clinician is necessary.⁷ This discussion should include the potential benefits and harms of screening, potential results and likelihood of follow-up diagnostic testing, the false-positive rate of LDCT lung cancer screening, and cumulative radiation exposure. In addition, screening should be considered only if the patient is willing to be screened annually, is willing to pursue follow-up scans and procedures (including lung biopsy) if deemed necessary, and does not have comorbid conditions that significantly limit life expectancy.

Smoking cessation: The most important change to make

Smoking cessation is the single most important risk-modifying behavior to reduce one’s chance of developing lung cancer. At age 40, smokers have a 2-fold increase in all-cause mortality compared to age-matched nonsmokers. This rises to a 3-fold increase by the age of 70.¹⁶

Smoking cessation reduces the risk of lung cancer by 20% after 5 years, 30% to 50% after 10 years, and up to 70% after 15 years.²⁴ In its guidelines, the American Thoracic Society recommends varenicline (Chantix) for all smokers to assist with smoking cessation.²⁵

CASE

This 51-year-old patient with at least a 20-pack-year history of smoking should be commended for giving up smoking. Based on the USPSTF recommendations, he should be screened annually with LDCT for the next 10 years.

Screening to save more lives

The results of 2 large multicenter RCTs have led to the recent recommendation for lung cancer screening of high-risk adults with the use of LDCT. Screening with LDCT has been shown to reduce disease-related mortality and likely be cost effective in the long term.

Screening with LDCT should be part of a multidisciplinary system that has the infrastructure not only to perform the screening, but also to diagnose and appropriately follow up and treat patients whose results are concerning. The risk of false-positive results leading to increased anxiety, overdiagnosis, and unnecessary procedures points to the importance of proper patient selection, counseling, and shared decision-making. Smoking cessation remains the most important disease-modifying behavior one can make to reduce their risk for lung cancer.

CORRESPONDENCE
Carlton J. Covey, MD, 101 Bodin Circle, David Grant Medical Center, Travis Air Force Base, Fairfield, CA, 94545; [email protected]

CASE

A 51-year-old man presents to your office to discuss lung cancer screening. He has a history of hypertension and prediabetes. His father died of lung cancer 5 years ago, at age 77. The patient stopped smoking soon thereafter; prior to that, he smoked 1 pack of cigarettes per day for 20 years. He wants to know if he should be screened for lung cancer.

The relative lack of symptoms during the early stages of lung cancer frequently results in a delayed diagnosis. This, and the speed at which the disease progresses, underscores the need for an effective screening modality. More than half of people with lung cancer die within 1 year of diagnosis.¹ Excluding skin cancer, lung cancer is the second most commonly diagnosed cancer, and more people die of lung cancer than of colon, breast, and prostate cancers combined.² In 2022, it was estimated that there would be 236,740 new cases of lung cancer and 130,180 deaths from lung cancer.^1,2 The average age at diagnosis is 70 years.²

Screening modalities: Only 1 has demonstrated mortality benefit

In 1968, Wilson and Junger³ outlined the characteristics of the ideal screening test for the World Health Organization: it should limit risk to the patient, be sensitive for detecting the disease early in its course, limit false-positive results, be acceptable to the patient, and be inexpensive to the health system.³ For decades, several screening modalities for lung cancer were trialed to fit the above guidance, but many of them fell short of the most important outcome: the impact on mortality.

Sputum cytology. The use of sputum cytology, either in combination with or without chest radiography, is not recommended. Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have failed to demonstrate improved lung cancer detection or mortality reduction in patients screened with this modality.⁴

Chest radiography (CXR). Several studies have assessed the efficacy of CXR as a screening modality. The best known was the Prostate, Lung, Colon, Ovarian (PLCO) Trial.⁵ This multicenter RCT enrolled more than 154,000 participants, half of whom received CXR at baseline and then annually for 3 years; the other half continued usual care (no screening). After 13 years of follow-up, there were no significant differences in lung cancer detection or mortality rates between the 2 groups.⁵

Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). Several major medical societies recommend LDCT to screen high-risk individuals for lung cancer (TABLE 1^6-10). Results from 2 major RCTs have guided these recommendations.

At this time, low-dose computed tomography is the only lung cancer screening modality that has shown benefit for both disease-related and all-cause mortality.

The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) was a multicenter RCT comparing 2 screening tests for lung cancer.¹¹ Approximately 54,000 high-risk participants were enrolled between 2002 and 2004 and were randomized to receive annual screening with either LDCT or single-view CXR. The trial was discontinued prematurely when investigators noted a 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality in the LDCT group vs the CXR group.¹² This equates to 3 fewer deaths for every 1000 people screened with LDCT vs CXR. There was also a 6% reduction in all-cause mortality noted in the LDCT vs the CXR group.¹²

Continue to: The NELSON trial...

The NELSON trial, conducted between 2005 and 2015, studied more than 15,000 current or former smokers ages 50 to 74 years and compared LDCT screening at various intervals to no screening.¹³ After 10 years, lung cancer–related mortality was reduced by 24% (or 1 less death per 1000 person-years) in men who were screened vs their unscreened counterparts.¹³ In contrast to the NLST, in the NELSON trial, no significant difference in all-cause mortality was observed. Subgroup analysis of the relatively small population of women included in the NELSON trial suggested a 33% reduction in 10-year mortality; however, the difference was nonsignificant between the screened and unscreened groups.¹³

Each of these landmark studies had characteristics that could limit the results' generalizability to the US population. In the NELSON trial, more than 80% of the study participants were male. In both trials, there was significant underrepresentation of Black, Asian, Hispanic, and other non-White people.^12,13 Furthermore, participants in these studies were of higher socioeconomic status than the general US screening-eligible population.

At this time, LDCT is the only lung cancer screening modality that has shown benefit for both disease-related and all-cause mortality, in the populations that were studied. Based on the NLST, the number needed to screen (NNS) with LDCT to prevent 1 lung cancer–related death is 308. The NNS to prevent 1 death from any cause is 219.⁶

Updated evidence has led to a consensus on screening criteria

Many national societies endorse annual screening with LDCT in high-risk individuals (TABLE 1^6-10). Risk assessment for the purpose of lung cancer screening includes a detailed review of smoking history and age. The risk of lung cancer increases with advancing age and with cumulative quantity and duration of smoking, but decreases with increasing time since quitting. Therefore, a detailed smoking history should include total number of pack-years, current smoking status, and, if applicable, when smoking cessation occurred.

In 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) updated their 2013 lung cancer screening recommendations, expanding the screening age range and lowering the smoking history threshold for triggering initiation of screening.⁶ The impetus for the update was emerging evidence from systematic reviews, RCTs, and the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network ­(CISNET) that could help to determine the optimal age for screening and identify high-risk groups. For example, the NELSON trial, combined with results from CISNET modeling data, showed an empirical benefit for screening those ages 50 to 55 years.⁶

Continue to: As a result...

As a result, the USPSTF now recommends annual lung cancer screening with LDCT for any adult ages 50 to 80 years who has a 20-pack-year smoking history and currently smokes or has quit within the past 15 years.⁶ Screening should be discontinued once a person has not smoked for 15 years, develops a health problem that substantially limits life expectancy, or is not willing to have curative lung surgery.⁶

Expanding the screening eligibility may also address racial and gender disparities in health care. Black people and women who smoke have a higher risk for lung cancer at a lower intensity of smoking.⁶

Following the USPSTF update, the American College of Chest Physicians and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services published updated guidance that aligns with USPSTF’s recommendations to lower the age and pack-year qualifications for initiating screening.^7,10 The American Cancer Society is currently reviewing its 2018 guidelines on lung cancer screening.¹⁴TABLE 1^6-10 summarizes the guidance on lung cancer screening from these medical societies.

Effective screening could save lives (and money)

A smoker’s risk for lung cancer is 20 times higher than that of a nonsmoker^15,16; 55% of lung cancer deaths in women and 70% in men are attributed to smoking.¹⁷ Once diagnosed with lung cancer, more than 50% of people will die within 1 year.¹ This underpins the need for a lung cancer screening modality that reduces mortality. Large RCTs, including the NLST and NELSONtrials, have shown that screening high-risk individuals with LDCT can significantly reduce lung cancer–related death when compared to no screening or screening with CXR alone.^11,13

There is controversy surrounding the cost benefit of implementing a nationwide lung cancer screening program. However, recent use of microsimulation models has shown LDCT to be a cost-effective strategy, with an average cost of $81,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, which is below the threshold of $100,000 to be considered cost effective.¹⁸ Expanding the upper age limit for screening leads to a greater reduction in mortality but increases treatment costs and overdiagnosis rates, and overall does not improve quality-adjusted life-years.¹⁸

Continue to: Potential harms

Potential harms: False-positives and related complications

Screening for lung cancer is not without its risks. Harms from screening typically result from false-positive test results leading to over­diagnosis, anxiety and distress, unnecessary invasive tests or procedures, and increased costs.¹⁹TABLE 2^6,19-23 lists specific complications from lung cancer screening with LDCT.

The false-positive rate is not trivial. For every 1000 patients screened, 250 people will have a positive LDCT finding but will not have lung cancer.¹⁹ Furthermore, about 1 in every 2000 individuals who screen positive, but who do not have lung cancer, die as a result of complications from the ensuing work-up.⁶

Annual LDCT screening increases the risk of radiation-induced cancer by approximately 0.05% over 10 years.²¹ The absolute risk is generally low but not insignificant. However, the mortality benefits previously outlined are significantly more robust in both absolute and relative terms vs the 10-year risk of radiation-induced cancer.

The trial was discontinued prematurely when investigators noted a 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality in the lowdose computed tomography group vs the chest x-ray group.

Lastly, it is important to note that the NELSON trial and NLST included a limited number of LDCT scans. Current guidelines for lung cancer screening with LDCT, including those from the USPSTF, recommend screening annually. We do not know the cumulative harm of annual LDCT over a 20- or 30-year period for those who would qualify (ie, current smokers).

If you screen, you must be able to act on the results

Effective screening programs should extend beyond the LDCT scan itself. The studies that have shown a benefit of LDCT were done at large academic centers that had the appropriate radiologic, pathologic, and surgical infrastructure to interpret and act on results and offer further diagnostic or treatment procedures.

Continue to: Prior to screening...

Prior to screening for lung cancer with LDCT, documentation of shared decision-making between the patient and the clinician is necessary.⁷ This discussion should include the potential benefits and harms of screening, potential results and likelihood of follow-up diagnostic testing, the false-positive rate of LDCT lung cancer screening, and cumulative radiation exposure. In addition, screening should be considered only if the patient is willing to be screened annually, is willing to pursue follow-up scans and procedures (including lung biopsy) if deemed necessary, and does not have comorbid conditions that significantly limit life expectancy.

Smoking cessation: The most important change to make

Smoking cessation is the single most important risk-modifying behavior to reduce one’s chance of developing lung cancer. At age 40, smokers have a 2-fold increase in all-cause mortality compared to age-matched nonsmokers. This rises to a 3-fold increase by the age of 70.¹⁶

Smoking cessation reduces the risk of lung cancer by 20% after 5 years, 30% to 50% after 10 years, and up to 70% after 15 years.²⁴ In its guidelines, the American Thoracic Society recommends varenicline (Chantix) for all smokers to assist with smoking cessation.²⁵

CASE

This 51-year-old patient with at least a 20-pack-year history of smoking should be commended for giving up smoking. Based on the USPSTF recommendations, he should be screened annually with LDCT for the next 10 years.

Screening to save more lives

The results of 2 large multicenter RCTs have led to the recent recommendation for lung cancer screening of high-risk adults with the use of LDCT. Screening with LDCT has been shown to reduce disease-related mortality and likely be cost effective in the long term.

Screening with LDCT should be part of a multidisciplinary system that has the infrastructure not only to perform the screening, but also to diagnose and appropriately follow up and treat patients whose results are concerning. The risk of false-positive results leading to increased anxiety, overdiagnosis, and unnecessary procedures points to the importance of proper patient selection, counseling, and shared decision-making. Smoking cessation remains the most important disease-modifying behavior one can make to reduce their risk for lung cancer.

CORRESPONDENCE
Carlton J. Covey, MD, 101 Bodin Circle, David Grant Medical Center, Travis Air Force Base, Fairfield, CA, 94545; [email protected]

This is a digital mucous cyst, also known as a myxoid cyst. The clear to translucent appearance over a finger or toe joint is usually diagnosed clinically. If uncertain, a biopsy can confirm the diagnosis.

Digital mucous cysts are a type of ganglion cyst that is associated with trauma or arthritis in the toe joint. A microscopic opening in the joint capsule results in a fluid filled cyst in the surrounding tissue. If the cyst is ruptured, thick, gelatinous (sometimes blood-tinged) hyaluronic acid–rich fluid may escape. Sometimes, the cyst applies pressure to the nail matrix, causing a scooped out longitudinal nail deformity.

Digital mucous cysts more commonly affect the fingers than the toes. Although benign, patients may be bothered by the appearance of these cysts and their effect on nails. Observation is a reasonable approach. Rarely, digital mucous cysts resolve spontaneously.

Treatment options include cryotherapy, needle draining and scarification, and surgical excision with flap repair. Surgical excision may be performed quickly in the office and offers the highest cure rate of 95% in 1 study on fingers.¹ Cryotherapy is successful in 70% of cases and needle drainage is successful in 39% of cases, but these modalities are quick and require minimal downtime.¹

In this case, the patient was not significantly bothered by the lesion and was happy to forego treatment.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained). Dr. Karnes is the medical director of MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME.

This is a digital mucous cyst, also known as a myxoid cyst. The clear to translucent appearance over a finger or toe joint is usually diagnosed clinically. If uncertain, a biopsy can confirm the diagnosis.

Digital mucous cysts are a type of ganglion cyst that is associated with trauma or arthritis in the toe joint. A microscopic opening in the joint capsule results in a fluid filled cyst in the surrounding tissue. If the cyst is ruptured, thick, gelatinous (sometimes blood-tinged) hyaluronic acid–rich fluid may escape. Sometimes, the cyst applies pressure to the nail matrix, causing a scooped out longitudinal nail deformity.

Digital mucous cysts more commonly affect the fingers than the toes. Although benign, patients may be bothered by the appearance of these cysts and their effect on nails. Observation is a reasonable approach. Rarely, digital mucous cysts resolve spontaneously.

Treatment options include cryotherapy, needle draining and scarification, and surgical excision with flap repair. Surgical excision may be performed quickly in the office and offers the highest cure rate of 95% in 1 study on fingers.¹ Cryotherapy is successful in 70% of cases and needle drainage is successful in 39% of cases, but these modalities are quick and require minimal downtime.¹

In this case, the patient was not significantly bothered by the lesion and was happy to forego treatment.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained). Dr. Karnes is the medical director of MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME.

This is a digital mucous cyst, also known as a myxoid cyst. The clear to translucent appearance over a finger or toe joint is usually diagnosed clinically. If uncertain, a biopsy can confirm the diagnosis.

Digital mucous cysts are a type of ganglion cyst that is associated with trauma or arthritis in the toe joint. A microscopic opening in the joint capsule results in a fluid filled cyst in the surrounding tissue. If the cyst is ruptured, thick, gelatinous (sometimes blood-tinged) hyaluronic acid–rich fluid may escape. Sometimes, the cyst applies pressure to the nail matrix, causing a scooped out longitudinal nail deformity.

Digital mucous cysts more commonly affect the fingers than the toes. Although benign, patients may be bothered by the appearance of these cysts and their effect on nails. Observation is a reasonable approach. Rarely, digital mucous cysts resolve spontaneously.

Treatment options include cryotherapy, needle draining and scarification, and surgical excision with flap repair. Surgical excision may be performed quickly in the office and offers the highest cure rate of 95% in 1 study on fingers.¹ Cryotherapy is successful in 70% of cases and needle drainage is successful in 39% of cases, but these modalities are quick and require minimal downtime.¹

In this case, the patient was not significantly bothered by the lesion and was happy to forego treatment.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained). Dr. Karnes is the medical director of MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME.

Dermoscopy revealed a keratotic, 2.5-cm scaly plaque with linearly arranged dotted vessels, ulceration, and shiny white lines. A shave biopsy was consistent with a squamous cell carcinoma in situ (SCC in situ)—a pre-invasive keratinocyte carcinoma.

SCC in situ, also known as Bowen’s disease, is a very common skin cancer that can be easily treated. Lesions may manifest anywhere on the skin but are most often found on sun-damaged areas. Actinic keratoses are a pre-malignant precursor of SCC in situ; both are characterized by a sandpapery rough surface on a pink or brown background. Histologically, SCC in situ has atypia of keratinocytes over the full thickness of the epidermis, while actinic keratoses have limited atypia of the upper epidermis only. With this in mind, suspect SCC in situ (over actinic keratosis) when a lesion is thicker than 1 mm, larger in diameter than 5 mm, or painful.¹

Treatment options include surgical and nonsurgical modalities. Excision and electrodessication and curettage (EDC) are both effective surgical procedures, with cure rates greater than 90%.² Nonsurgical options include cryotherapy, 5-fluorouracil (5FU), imiquimod, and photodynamic therapy. Treatment with 5FU or imiquimod involves the application of cream to the lesion for 4 to 6 weeks. Marked inflammation during treatment is to be expected.

In the case described here, the patient underwent EDC in the office and was counseled to continue with complete skin exams twice a year for the next 2 years.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained). Dr. Karnes is the medical director of MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME.

Dermoscopy revealed a keratotic, 2.5-cm scaly plaque with linearly arranged dotted vessels, ulceration, and shiny white lines. A shave biopsy was consistent with a squamous cell carcinoma in situ (SCC in situ)—a pre-invasive keratinocyte carcinoma.

SCC in situ, also known as Bowen’s disease, is a very common skin cancer that can be easily treated. Lesions may manifest anywhere on the skin but are most often found on sun-damaged areas. Actinic keratoses are a pre-malignant precursor of SCC in situ; both are characterized by a sandpapery rough surface on a pink or brown background. Histologically, SCC in situ has atypia of keratinocytes over the full thickness of the epidermis, while actinic keratoses have limited atypia of the upper epidermis only. With this in mind, suspect SCC in situ (over actinic keratosis) when a lesion is thicker than 1 mm, larger in diameter than 5 mm, or painful.¹

Treatment options include surgical and nonsurgical modalities. Excision and electrodessication and curettage (EDC) are both effective surgical procedures, with cure rates greater than 90%.² Nonsurgical options include cryotherapy, 5-fluorouracil (5FU), imiquimod, and photodynamic therapy. Treatment with 5FU or imiquimod involves the application of cream to the lesion for 4 to 6 weeks. Marked inflammation during treatment is to be expected.

In the case described here, the patient underwent EDC in the office and was counseled to continue with complete skin exams twice a year for the next 2 years.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained). Dr. Karnes is the medical director of MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME.

Dermoscopy revealed a keratotic, 2.5-cm scaly plaque with linearly arranged dotted vessels, ulceration, and shiny white lines. A shave biopsy was consistent with a squamous cell carcinoma in situ (SCC in situ)—a pre-invasive keratinocyte carcinoma.

SCC in situ, also known as Bowen’s disease, is a very common skin cancer that can be easily treated. Lesions may manifest anywhere on the skin but are most often found on sun-damaged areas. Actinic keratoses are a pre-malignant precursor of SCC in situ; both are characterized by a sandpapery rough surface on a pink or brown background. Histologically, SCC in situ has atypia of keratinocytes over the full thickness of the epidermis, while actinic keratoses have limited atypia of the upper epidermis only. With this in mind, suspect SCC in situ (over actinic keratosis) when a lesion is thicker than 1 mm, larger in diameter than 5 mm, or painful.¹

Treatment options include surgical and nonsurgical modalities. Excision and electrodessication and curettage (EDC) are both effective surgical procedures, with cure rates greater than 90%.² Nonsurgical options include cryotherapy, 5-fluorouracil (5FU), imiquimod, and photodynamic therapy. Treatment with 5FU or imiquimod involves the application of cream to the lesion for 4 to 6 weeks. Marked inflammation during treatment is to be expected.

In the case described here, the patient underwent EDC in the office and was counseled to continue with complete skin exams twice a year for the next 2 years.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained). Dr. Karnes is the medical director of MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME.

To the Editor:

The Moderna COVID-19 messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine was authorized for use on December 18, 2020, with the second dose beginning on January 15, 2021.^1-3 Some individuals who received the Moderna vaccine experienced an intense rash known as “COVID arm,” a harmless but bothersome adverse effect that typically appears within a week and is a localized and transient immunogenic response.⁴ COVID arm differs from most vaccine adverse effects. The rash emerges not immediately but 5 to 9 days after the initial dose—on average, 1 week later. Apart from being itchy, the rash does not appear to be harmful and is not a reason to hesitate getting vaccinated.

Dermatologists and allergists have been studying this adverse effect, which has been formally termed delayed cutaneous hypersensitivity. Of potential clinical consequence is that the efficacy of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine may be harmed if postvaccination dermal reactions necessitate systemic corticosteroid therapy. Because this vaccine stimulates an immune response as viral RNA integrates in cells secondary to production of the spike protein of the virus, the skin may be affected secondarily and manifestations of any underlying disease may be aggravated.⁵ We report a patient who developed a psoriasiform dermatitis after the first dose of the Moderna vaccine.

A 65-year-old woman presented to her primary care physician because of the severity of psoriasiform dermatitis that developed 5 days after she received the first dose of the Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. The patient had a medical history of Sjögren syndrome. Her medication history was negative, and her family history was negative for autoimmune disease. Physical examination by primary care revealed an erythematous scaly rash with plaques and papules on the neck and back (Figure 1). The patient presented again to primary care 2 days later with swollen, painful, discolored digits (Figure 2) and a stiff, sore neck.

Laboratory results were positive for anti–Sjögren syndrome–related antigens A and B. A complete blood cell count; comprehensive metabolic panel; erythrocyte sedimentation rate; and assays of rheumatoid factor, C-reactive protein, and anti–cyclic citrullinated peptide were within reference range. A biopsy of a lesion on the back showed psoriasiform dermatitis with confluent parakeratosis and scattered necrotic keratinocytes. There was superficial perivascular inflammation with rare eosinophils (Figure 3).

The patient was treated with a course of systemic corticosteroids. The rash resolved in 1 week. She did not receive the second dose due to the rash.

Two mRNA COVID-19 vaccines—Pfizer BioNTech and Moderna—have been granted emergency use authorization by the US Food and Drug Administration.⁶ The safety profile of the mRNA-1273 vaccine for the median 2-month follow-up showed no safety concerns.³ Minor localized adverse effects (eg, pain, redness, swelling) have been observed more frequently with the vaccines than with placebo. Systemic symptoms, such as fever, fatigue, headache, and muscle and joint pain, also were seen somewhat more often with the vaccines than with placebo; most such effects occurred 24 to 48 hours after vaccination.^3,6,7 The frequency of unsolicited adverse events and serious adverse events reported during the 28-day period after vaccination generally was similar among participants in the vaccine and placebo groups.³

There are 2 types of reactions to COVID-19 vaccination: immediate and delayed. Immediate reactions usually are due to anaphylaxis, requiring prompt recognition and treatment with epinephrine to stop rapid progression of life-threatening symptoms. Delayed reactions include localized reactions, such as urticaria and benign exanthema; serum sickness and serum sickness–like reactions; fever; and rare skin, organ, and neurologic sequelae.^1,6-8

Cutaneous manifestations, present in 16% to 50% of patients with Sjögren syndrome, are considered one of the most common extraglandular presentations of the syndrome. They are classified as nonvascular (eg, xerosis, angular cheilitis, eyelid dermatitis, annular erythema) and vascular (eg, Raynaud phenomenon, vasculitis).^9-11 Our patient did not have any of those findings. She had not taken any medications before the rash appeared, thereby ruling out a drug reaction.

The differential for our patient included post–urinary tract infection immune-reactive arthritis and rash, which is not typical with Escherichia coli infection but is described with infection with Chlamydia species and Salmonella species. Moreover, post–urinary tract infection immune-reactive arthritis and rash appear mostly on the palms and soles. Systemic lupus erythematosus–like rashes have a different histology and appear on sun-exposed areas; our patient’s rash was found mainly on unexposed areas.¹²

Because our patient received the Moderna vaccine 5 days before the rash appeared and later developed swelling of the digits with morning stiffness, a delayed serum sickness–like reaction secondary to COVID-19 vaccination was possible.^3,6

COVID-19 mRNA vaccines developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna incorporate a lipid-based nanoparticle carrier system that prevents rapid enzymatic degradation of mRNA and facilitates in vivo delivery of mRNA. This lipid-based nanoparticle carrier system is further stabilized by a polyethylene glycol 2000 lipid conjugate that provides a hydrophilic layer, thus prolonging half-life. The presence of lipid polyethylene glycol 2000 in mRNA vaccines has led to concern that this component could be implicated in anaphylaxis.⁶

COVID-19 antigens can give rise to varying clinical manifestations that are directly related to viral tissue damage or are indirectly induced by the antiviral immune response.^13,14 Hyperactivation of the immune system to eradicate COVID-19 may trigger autoimmunity; several immune-mediated disorders have been described in individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2. Dermal manifestations include cutaneous rash and vasculitis.^13-16 Crucial immunologic steps occur during SARS-CoV-2 infection that may link autoimmunity to COVID-19.^13,14 In preliminary published data on the efficacy of the Moderna vaccine on 45 trial enrollees, 3 did not receive the second dose of vaccination, including 1 who developed urticaria on both legs 5 days after the first dose.¹

Introduction of viral RNA can induce autoimmunity that can be explained by various phenomena, including epitope spreading, molecular mimicry, cryptic antigen, and bystander activation. Remarkably, more than one-third of immunogenic proteins in SARS-CoV-2 have potentially problematic homology to proteins that are key to the human adaptive immune system.⁵

Moreover, SARS-CoV-2 seems to induce organ injury through alternative mechanisms beyond direct viral infection, including immunologic injury. In some situations, hyperactivation of the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 RNA can result in autoimmune disease. COVID-19 has been associated with immune-mediated systemic or organ-selective manifestations, some of which fulfill the diagnostic or classification criteria of specific autoimmune diseases. It is unclear whether those medical disorders are the result of transitory postinfectious epiphenomena.⁵

A few studies have shown that patients with rheumatic disease have an incidence and prevalence of COVID-19 that is similar to the general population. A similar pattern has been detected in COVID-19 morbidity and mortality rates, even among patients with an autoimmune disease, such as rheumatoid arthritis and Sjögren syndrome.^5,17 Furthermore, exacerbation of preexisting rheumatic symptoms may be due to hyperactivation of antiviral pathways in a person with an autoimmune disease.^17-19 The findings in our patient suggested a direct role for the vaccine in skin manifestations, rather than for reactivation or development of new systemic autoimmune processes, such as systemic lupus erythematosus.

Exacerbation of psoriasis following COVID-19 vaccination has been described²⁰; however, the case patient did not have a history of psoriasis. The mechanism(s) of such exacerbation remain unclear; COVID-19 vaccine–induced helper T cells (T_H17) may play a role.²¹ Other skin manifestations encountered following COVID-19 vaccination include lichen planus, leukocytoclastic vasculitic rash, erythema multiforme–like rash, and pityriasis rosea–like rash.^22-25 The immune mechanisms of these manifestations remain unclear.

The clinical presentation of delayed vaccination reactions can be attributed to the timing of symptoms and, in this case, the immune-mediated background of a psoriasiform reaction. Although adverse reactions to the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine are rare, more individuals should be studied after vaccination to confirm and better understand this phenomenon.

To the Editor:

The Moderna COVID-19 messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine was authorized for use on December 18, 2020, with the second dose beginning on January 15, 2021.^1-3 Some individuals who received the Moderna vaccine experienced an intense rash known as “COVID arm,” a harmless but bothersome adverse effect that typically appears within a week and is a localized and transient immunogenic response.⁴ COVID arm differs from most vaccine adverse effects. The rash emerges not immediately but 5 to 9 days after the initial dose—on average, 1 week later. Apart from being itchy, the rash does not appear to be harmful and is not a reason to hesitate getting vaccinated.

Dermatologists and allergists have been studying this adverse effect, which has been formally termed delayed cutaneous hypersensitivity. Of potential clinical consequence is that the efficacy of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine may be harmed if postvaccination dermal reactions necessitate systemic corticosteroid therapy. Because this vaccine stimulates an immune response as viral RNA integrates in cells secondary to production of the spike protein of the virus, the skin may be affected secondarily and manifestations of any underlying disease may be aggravated.⁵ We report a patient who developed a psoriasiform dermatitis after the first dose of the Moderna vaccine.

A 65-year-old woman presented to her primary care physician because of the severity of psoriasiform dermatitis that developed 5 days after she received the first dose of the Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. The patient had a medical history of Sjögren syndrome. Her medication history was negative, and her family history was negative for autoimmune disease. Physical examination by primary care revealed an erythematous scaly rash with plaques and papules on the neck and back (Figure 1). The patient presented again to primary care 2 days later with swollen, painful, discolored digits (Figure 2) and a stiff, sore neck.

Laboratory results were positive for anti–Sjögren syndrome–related antigens A and B. A complete blood cell count; comprehensive metabolic panel; erythrocyte sedimentation rate; and assays of rheumatoid factor, C-reactive protein, and anti–cyclic citrullinated peptide were within reference range. A biopsy of a lesion on the back showed psoriasiform dermatitis with confluent parakeratosis and scattered necrotic keratinocytes. There was superficial perivascular inflammation with rare eosinophils (Figure 3).

The patient was treated with a course of systemic corticosteroids. The rash resolved in 1 week. She did not receive the second dose due to the rash.

Two mRNA COVID-19 vaccines—Pfizer BioNTech and Moderna—have been granted emergency use authorization by the US Food and Drug Administration.⁶ The safety profile of the mRNA-1273 vaccine for the median 2-month follow-up showed no safety concerns.³ Minor localized adverse effects (eg, pain, redness, swelling) have been observed more frequently with the vaccines than with placebo. Systemic symptoms, such as fever, fatigue, headache, and muscle and joint pain, also were seen somewhat more often with the vaccines than with placebo; most such effects occurred 24 to 48 hours after vaccination.^3,6,7 The frequency of unsolicited adverse events and serious adverse events reported during the 28-day period after vaccination generally was similar among participants in the vaccine and placebo groups.³

There are 2 types of reactions to COVID-19 vaccination: immediate and delayed. Immediate reactions usually are due to anaphylaxis, requiring prompt recognition and treatment with epinephrine to stop rapid progression of life-threatening symptoms. Delayed reactions include localized reactions, such as urticaria and benign exanthema; serum sickness and serum sickness–like reactions; fever; and rare skin, organ, and neurologic sequelae.^1,6-8

Cutaneous manifestations, present in 16% to 50% of patients with Sjögren syndrome, are considered one of the most common extraglandular presentations of the syndrome. They are classified as nonvascular (eg, xerosis, angular cheilitis, eyelid dermatitis, annular erythema) and vascular (eg, Raynaud phenomenon, vasculitis).^9-11 Our patient did not have any of those findings. She had not taken any medications before the rash appeared, thereby ruling out a drug reaction.

The differential for our patient included post–urinary tract infection immune-reactive arthritis and rash, which is not typical with Escherichia coli infection but is described with infection with Chlamydia species and Salmonella species. Moreover, post–urinary tract infection immune-reactive arthritis and rash appear mostly on the palms and soles. Systemic lupus erythematosus–like rashes have a different histology and appear on sun-exposed areas; our patient’s rash was found mainly on unexposed areas.¹²

Because our patient received the Moderna vaccine 5 days before the rash appeared and later developed swelling of the digits with morning stiffness, a delayed serum sickness–like reaction secondary to COVID-19 vaccination was possible.^3,6

COVID-19 mRNA vaccines developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna incorporate a lipid-based nanoparticle carrier system that prevents rapid enzymatic degradation of mRNA and facilitates in vivo delivery of mRNA. This lipid-based nanoparticle carrier system is further stabilized by a polyethylene glycol 2000 lipid conjugate that provides a hydrophilic layer, thus prolonging half-life. The presence of lipid polyethylene glycol 2000 in mRNA vaccines has led to concern that this component could be implicated in anaphylaxis.⁶

COVID-19 antigens can give rise to varying clinical manifestations that are directly related to viral tissue damage or are indirectly induced by the antiviral immune response.^13,14 Hyperactivation of the immune system to eradicate COVID-19 may trigger autoimmunity; several immune-mediated disorders have been described in individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2. Dermal manifestations include cutaneous rash and vasculitis.^13-16 Crucial immunologic steps occur during SARS-CoV-2 infection that may link autoimmunity to COVID-19.^13,14 In preliminary published data on the efficacy of the Moderna vaccine on 45 trial enrollees, 3 did not receive the second dose of vaccination, including 1 who developed urticaria on both legs 5 days after the first dose.¹

Introduction of viral RNA can induce autoimmunity that can be explained by various phenomena, including epitope spreading, molecular mimicry, cryptic antigen, and bystander activation. Remarkably, more than one-third of immunogenic proteins in SARS-CoV-2 have potentially problematic homology to proteins that are key to the human adaptive immune system.⁵

Moreover, SARS-CoV-2 seems to induce organ injury through alternative mechanisms beyond direct viral infection, including immunologic injury. In some situations, hyperactivation of the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 RNA can result in autoimmune disease. COVID-19 has been associated with immune-mediated systemic or organ-selective manifestations, some of which fulfill the diagnostic or classification criteria of specific autoimmune diseases. It is unclear whether those medical disorders are the result of transitory postinfectious epiphenomena.⁵

A few studies have shown that patients with rheumatic disease have an incidence and prevalence of COVID-19 that is similar to the general population. A similar pattern has been detected in COVID-19 morbidity and mortality rates, even among patients with an autoimmune disease, such as rheumatoid arthritis and Sjögren syndrome.^5,17 Furthermore, exacerbation of preexisting rheumatic symptoms may be due to hyperactivation of antiviral pathways in a person with an autoimmune disease.^17-19 The findings in our patient suggested a direct role for the vaccine in skin manifestations, rather than for reactivation or development of new systemic autoimmune processes, such as systemic lupus erythematosus.

Exacerbation of psoriasis following COVID-19 vaccination has been described²⁰; however, the case patient did not have a history of psoriasis. The mechanism(s) of such exacerbation remain unclear; COVID-19 vaccine–induced helper T cells (T_H17) may play a role.²¹ Other skin manifestations encountered following COVID-19 vaccination include lichen planus, leukocytoclastic vasculitic rash, erythema multiforme–like rash, and pityriasis rosea–like rash.^22-25 The immune mechanisms of these manifestations remain unclear.

The clinical presentation of delayed vaccination reactions can be attributed to the timing of symptoms and, in this case, the immune-mediated background of a psoriasiform reaction. Although adverse reactions to the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine are rare, more individuals should be studied after vaccination to confirm and better understand this phenomenon.

To the Editor:

The Moderna COVID-19 messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine was authorized for use on December 18, 2020, with the second dose beginning on January 15, 2021.^1-3 Some individuals who received the Moderna vaccine experienced an intense rash known as “COVID arm,” a harmless but bothersome adverse effect that typically appears within a week and is a localized and transient immunogenic response.⁴ COVID arm differs from most vaccine adverse effects. The rash emerges not immediately but 5 to 9 days after the initial dose—on average, 1 week later. Apart from being itchy, the rash does not appear to be harmful and is not a reason to hesitate getting vaccinated.

Dermatologists and allergists have been studying this adverse effect, which has been formally termed delayed cutaneous hypersensitivity. Of potential clinical consequence is that the efficacy of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine may be harmed if postvaccination dermal reactions necessitate systemic corticosteroid therapy. Because this vaccine stimulates an immune response as viral RNA integrates in cells secondary to production of the spike protein of the virus, the skin may be affected secondarily and manifestations of any underlying disease may be aggravated.⁵ We report a patient who developed a psoriasiform dermatitis after the first dose of the Moderna vaccine.

A 65-year-old woman presented to her primary care physician because of the severity of psoriasiform dermatitis that developed 5 days after she received the first dose of the Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. The patient had a medical history of Sjögren syndrome. Her medication history was negative, and her family history was negative for autoimmune disease. Physical examination by primary care revealed an erythematous scaly rash with plaques and papules on the neck and back (Figure 1). The patient presented again to primary care 2 days later with swollen, painful, discolored digits (Figure 2) and a stiff, sore neck.

Laboratory results were positive for anti–Sjögren syndrome–related antigens A and B. A complete blood cell count; comprehensive metabolic panel; erythrocyte sedimentation rate; and assays of rheumatoid factor, C-reactive protein, and anti–cyclic citrullinated peptide were within reference range. A biopsy of a lesion on the back showed psoriasiform dermatitis with confluent parakeratosis and scattered necrotic keratinocytes. There was superficial perivascular inflammation with rare eosinophils (Figure 3).

The patient was treated with a course of systemic corticosteroids. The rash resolved in 1 week. She did not receive the second dose due to the rash.

Two mRNA COVID-19 vaccines—Pfizer BioNTech and Moderna—have been granted emergency use authorization by the US Food and Drug Administration.⁶ The safety profile of the mRNA-1273 vaccine for the median 2-month follow-up showed no safety concerns.³ Minor localized adverse effects (eg, pain, redness, swelling) have been observed more frequently with the vaccines than with placebo. Systemic symptoms, such as fever, fatigue, headache, and muscle and joint pain, also were seen somewhat more often with the vaccines than with placebo; most such effects occurred 24 to 48 hours after vaccination.^3,6,7 The frequency of unsolicited adverse events and serious adverse events reported during the 28-day period after vaccination generally was similar among participants in the vaccine and placebo groups.³

There are 2 types of reactions to COVID-19 vaccination: immediate and delayed. Immediate reactions usually are due to anaphylaxis, requiring prompt recognition and treatment with epinephrine to stop rapid progression of life-threatening symptoms. Delayed reactions include localized reactions, such as urticaria and benign exanthema; serum sickness and serum sickness–like reactions; fever; and rare skin, organ, and neurologic sequelae.^1,6-8

Cutaneous manifestations, present in 16% to 50% of patients with Sjögren syndrome, are considered one of the most common extraglandular presentations of the syndrome. They are classified as nonvascular (eg, xerosis, angular cheilitis, eyelid dermatitis, annular erythema) and vascular (eg, Raynaud phenomenon, vasculitis).^9-11 Our patient did not have any of those findings. She had not taken any medications before the rash appeared, thereby ruling out a drug reaction.

The differential for our patient included post–urinary tract infection immune-reactive arthritis and rash, which is not typical with Escherichia coli infection but is described with infection with Chlamydia species and Salmonella species. Moreover, post–urinary tract infection immune-reactive arthritis and rash appear mostly on the palms and soles. Systemic lupus erythematosus–like rashes have a different histology and appear on sun-exposed areas; our patient’s rash was found mainly on unexposed areas.¹²

Because our patient received the Moderna vaccine 5 days before the rash appeared and later developed swelling of the digits with morning stiffness, a delayed serum sickness–like reaction secondary to COVID-19 vaccination was possible.^3,6

COVID-19 mRNA vaccines developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna incorporate a lipid-based nanoparticle carrier system that prevents rapid enzymatic degradation of mRNA and facilitates in vivo delivery of mRNA. This lipid-based nanoparticle carrier system is further stabilized by a polyethylene glycol 2000 lipid conjugate that provides a hydrophilic layer, thus prolonging half-life. The presence of lipid polyethylene glycol 2000 in mRNA vaccines has led to concern that this component could be implicated in anaphylaxis.⁶

COVID-19 antigens can give rise to varying clinical manifestations that are directly related to viral tissue damage or are indirectly induced by the antiviral immune response.^13,14 Hyperactivation of the immune system to eradicate COVID-19 may trigger autoimmunity; several immune-mediated disorders have been described in individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2. Dermal manifestations include cutaneous rash and vasculitis.^13-16 Crucial immunologic steps occur during SARS-CoV-2 infection that may link autoimmunity to COVID-19.^13,14 In preliminary published data on the efficacy of the Moderna vaccine on 45 trial enrollees, 3 did not receive the second dose of vaccination, including 1 who developed urticaria on both legs 5 days after the first dose.¹

Introduction of viral RNA can induce autoimmunity that can be explained by various phenomena, including epitope spreading, molecular mimicry, cryptic antigen, and bystander activation. Remarkably, more than one-third of immunogenic proteins in SARS-CoV-2 have potentially problematic homology to proteins that are key to the human adaptive immune system.⁵

Moreover, SARS-CoV-2 seems to induce organ injury through alternative mechanisms beyond direct viral infection, including immunologic injury. In some situations, hyperactivation of the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 RNA can result in autoimmune disease. COVID-19 has been associated with immune-mediated systemic or organ-selective manifestations, some of which fulfill the diagnostic or classification criteria of specific autoimmune diseases. It is unclear whether those medical disorders are the result of transitory postinfectious epiphenomena.⁵

A few studies have shown that patients with rheumatic disease have an incidence and prevalence of COVID-19 that is similar to the general population. A similar pattern has been detected in COVID-19 morbidity and mortality rates, even among patients with an autoimmune disease, such as rheumatoid arthritis and Sjögren syndrome.^5,17 Furthermore, exacerbation of preexisting rheumatic symptoms may be due to hyperactivation of antiviral pathways in a person with an autoimmune disease.^17-19 The findings in our patient suggested a direct role for the vaccine in skin manifestations, rather than for reactivation or development of new systemic autoimmune processes, such as systemic lupus erythematosus.

Exacerbation of psoriasis following COVID-19 vaccination has been described²⁰; however, the case patient did not have a history of psoriasis. The mechanism(s) of such exacerbation remain unclear; COVID-19 vaccine–induced helper T cells (T_H17) may play a role.²¹ Other skin manifestations encountered following COVID-19 vaccination include lichen planus, leukocytoclastic vasculitic rash, erythema multiforme–like rash, and pityriasis rosea–like rash.^22-25 The immune mechanisms of these manifestations remain unclear.

The clinical presentation of delayed vaccination reactions can be attributed to the timing of symptoms and, in this case, the immune-mediated background of a psoriasiform reaction. Although adverse reactions to the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine are rare, more individuals should be studied after vaccination to confirm and better understand this phenomenon.