Article

Key clinical point: Risankizumab effectively reduced clinical manifestations of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients with inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD) with no new adverse events (AE).

Major finding: At week 24, at least a 20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology score was achieved by a significantly higher proportion of patients receiving risankizumab vs. placebo (57.3% vs. 33.5%; P < .001). Treatment-emergent AEs were mild/moderate and reported at similar frequencies in risankizumab (40.4%) and placebo (38.7%) groups.

Study details: Findings are from a double-blind, phase 3 KEEPsAKE 1 study including 964 patients with active PsA and inadequate response to ≥1 csDMARDs who were randomly assigned to receive 150 mg risankizumab or placebo at weeks 0, 4, and 16.

Disclosures: This study did not report any source of funding. The authors declared serving as speaker, consultant, investigator, or receiving honoraria, fees, and grants from several sources. Five authors declared being employees or shareholders of AbbVie.

Source: Kristensen LE et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021;81:225-231 (Dec 15). Doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-221019.

Key clinical point: Risankizumab effectively reduced clinical manifestations of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients with inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD) with no new adverse events (AE).

Major finding: At week 24, at least a 20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology score was achieved by a significantly higher proportion of patients receiving risankizumab vs. placebo (57.3% vs. 33.5%; P < .001). Treatment-emergent AEs were mild/moderate and reported at similar frequencies in risankizumab (40.4%) and placebo (38.7%) groups.

Study details: Findings are from a double-blind, phase 3 KEEPsAKE 1 study including 964 patients with active PsA and inadequate response to ≥1 csDMARDs who were randomly assigned to receive 150 mg risankizumab or placebo at weeks 0, 4, and 16.

Disclosures: This study did not report any source of funding. The authors declared serving as speaker, consultant, investigator, or receiving honoraria, fees, and grants from several sources. Five authors declared being employees or shareholders of AbbVie.

Source: Kristensen LE et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021;81:225-231 (Dec 15). Doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-221019.

Key clinical point: Risankizumab effectively reduced clinical manifestations of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients with inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD) with no new adverse events (AE).

Major finding: At week 24, at least a 20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology score was achieved by a significantly higher proportion of patients receiving risankizumab vs. placebo (57.3% vs. 33.5%; P < .001). Treatment-emergent AEs were mild/moderate and reported at similar frequencies in risankizumab (40.4%) and placebo (38.7%) groups.

Study details: Findings are from a double-blind, phase 3 KEEPsAKE 1 study including 964 patients with active PsA and inadequate response to ≥1 csDMARDs who were randomly assigned to receive 150 mg risankizumab or placebo at weeks 0, 4, and 16.

Disclosures: This study did not report any source of funding. The authors declared serving as speaker, consultant, investigator, or receiving honoraria, fees, and grants from several sources. Five authors declared being employees or shareholders of AbbVie.

Source: Kristensen LE et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021;81:225-231 (Dec 15). Doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-221019.

Key clinical point: In patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), clinical inflammation monitored by swollen joint counts (SJC) and biochemical inflammation monitored by C-reactive protein (CRP) level, have a direct effect on structural progression.

Major finding: Progression was significantly higher in patients with active vs. inactive time-averaged SJC (odds ratio [OR] 1.24; P = .016) and time-averaged CRP (OR 6.08; P = .036). Progression was greatest in presence of both clinical and biochemical inflammation and lowest in absence of both (P = .05).

Study details: Findings are secondary analysis of patient data from the IMPACT 2 trial, including 145 patients with PsA.

Disclosures: The study did not report any source of funding. The authors declared serving as associate editor or receiving grants and honoraria from several sources.

Source: Borst C et al. RMD Open. 2021;7:e002038 (Dec 8). Doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2021-002038.

Key clinical point: In patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), clinical inflammation monitored by swollen joint counts (SJC) and biochemical inflammation monitored by C-reactive protein (CRP) level, have a direct effect on structural progression.

Major finding: Progression was significantly higher in patients with active vs. inactive time-averaged SJC (odds ratio [OR] 1.24; P = .016) and time-averaged CRP (OR 6.08; P = .036). Progression was greatest in presence of both clinical and biochemical inflammation and lowest in absence of both (P = .05).

Study details: Findings are secondary analysis of patient data from the IMPACT 2 trial, including 145 patients with PsA.

Disclosures: The study did not report any source of funding. The authors declared serving as associate editor or receiving grants and honoraria from several sources.

Source: Borst C et al. RMD Open. 2021;7:e002038 (Dec 8). Doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2021-002038.

Key clinical point: In patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), clinical inflammation monitored by swollen joint counts (SJC) and biochemical inflammation monitored by C-reactive protein (CRP) level, have a direct effect on structural progression.

Major finding: Progression was significantly higher in patients with active vs. inactive time-averaged SJC (odds ratio [OR] 1.24; P = .016) and time-averaged CRP (OR 6.08; P = .036). Progression was greatest in presence of both clinical and biochemical inflammation and lowest in absence of both (P = .05).

Study details: Findings are secondary analysis of patient data from the IMPACT 2 trial, including 145 patients with PsA.

Disclosures: The study did not report any source of funding. The authors declared serving as associate editor or receiving grants and honoraria from several sources.

Source: Borst C et al. RMD Open. 2021;7:e002038 (Dec 8). Doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2021-002038.

Key clinical point: Upadacitinib showed similar efficacy and a consistent safety profile as monotherapy or in combination with nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (nbDMARDs) in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: At week 12, ≥20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology score was achieved by a similar proportion of patients receiving 15 mg upadacitinib or 30 mg upadacitinib as monotherapy (15 mg: 33.7%; 95% CI, 24.4%-43.1%; 30 mg: 45.7%; 95% CI, 36.9%-54.5%) or combination therapy (15 mg: 34.0%; 95% CI, 27.9%-40.1%; 30 mg: 39.6%; 95% CI, 33.7%-45.5%). Adverse events were generally similar with monotherapy and combination therapy.

Study details: This is a pooled analysis of 2 phase 3 trials, SELECT-PsA 1 and SELECT-PsA 2, including 1,916 patients with active PsA with an inadequate response to ≥1 nbDMARD/bDMARD who were randomly assigned to placebo, 15 mg upadacitinib, or 30 mg upadacitinib as monotherapy or in combination with ≤2 nbDMARDs for 24 weeks.

Disclosures: This work was supported by AbbVie. Six authors reported being employees and stockholders of AbbVie. The other authors reported ties with several sources including AbbVie.

Source: Nash P et al. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021;keab905 (Dec 3). Doi:  10.1093/rheumatology/keab905.

Key clinical point: Upadacitinib showed similar efficacy and a consistent safety profile as monotherapy or in combination with nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (nbDMARDs) in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: At week 12, ≥20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology score was achieved by a similar proportion of patients receiving 15 mg upadacitinib or 30 mg upadacitinib as monotherapy (15 mg: 33.7%; 95% CI, 24.4%-43.1%; 30 mg: 45.7%; 95% CI, 36.9%-54.5%) or combination therapy (15 mg: 34.0%; 95% CI, 27.9%-40.1%; 30 mg: 39.6%; 95% CI, 33.7%-45.5%). Adverse events were generally similar with monotherapy and combination therapy.

Study details: This is a pooled analysis of 2 phase 3 trials, SELECT-PsA 1 and SELECT-PsA 2, including 1,916 patients with active PsA with an inadequate response to ≥1 nbDMARD/bDMARD who were randomly assigned to placebo, 15 mg upadacitinib, or 30 mg upadacitinib as monotherapy or in combination with ≤2 nbDMARDs for 24 weeks.

Disclosures: This work was supported by AbbVie. Six authors reported being employees and stockholders of AbbVie. The other authors reported ties with several sources including AbbVie.

Source: Nash P et al. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021;keab905 (Dec 3). Doi:  10.1093/rheumatology/keab905.

Key clinical point: Upadacitinib showed similar efficacy and a consistent safety profile as monotherapy or in combination with nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (nbDMARDs) in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: At week 12, ≥20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology score was achieved by a similar proportion of patients receiving 15 mg upadacitinib or 30 mg upadacitinib as monotherapy (15 mg: 33.7%; 95% CI, 24.4%-43.1%; 30 mg: 45.7%; 95% CI, 36.9%-54.5%) or combination therapy (15 mg: 34.0%; 95% CI, 27.9%-40.1%; 30 mg: 39.6%; 95% CI, 33.7%-45.5%). Adverse events were generally similar with monotherapy and combination therapy.

Study details: This is a pooled analysis of 2 phase 3 trials, SELECT-PsA 1 and SELECT-PsA 2, including 1,916 patients with active PsA with an inadequate response to ≥1 nbDMARD/bDMARD who were randomly assigned to placebo, 15 mg upadacitinib, or 30 mg upadacitinib as monotherapy or in combination with ≤2 nbDMARDs for 24 weeks.

Disclosures: This work was supported by AbbVie. Six authors reported being employees and stockholders of AbbVie. The other authors reported ties with several sources including AbbVie.

Source: Nash P et al. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021;keab905 (Dec 3). Doi:  10.1093/rheumatology/keab905.

Key clinical point: Continuation of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor therapy throughout the vaccination period was safe and did not hamper the immune response elicited by BNT162b2 (BioNTech-Pfizer) mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: There was no change in Clinical Disease Activity Index in patients with PsA before and after vaccination (P = .92). After 2 doses of BNT162b2 mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, all patients with PsA showed a positive immune response with mean anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody level not significantly different from matched controls (P = .08).

Study details: Findings are from a prospective study including 40 patients with PsA on TNF inhibitor therapy matched with 40 healthy controls; both groups received 2 shots of the BNT162b2 mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.

Disclosures: The study did not report any source of funding. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Venerito V et al. RMD Open. 2022;8:e001847 (Jan 5). Doi: 10.1136/ rmdopen-2021-001847.

Key clinical point: Continuation of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor therapy throughout the vaccination period was safe and did not hamper the immune response elicited by BNT162b2 (BioNTech-Pfizer) mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: There was no change in Clinical Disease Activity Index in patients with PsA before and after vaccination (P = .92). After 2 doses of BNT162b2 mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, all patients with PsA showed a positive immune response with mean anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody level not significantly different from matched controls (P = .08).

Study details: Findings are from a prospective study including 40 patients with PsA on TNF inhibitor therapy matched with 40 healthy controls; both groups received 2 shots of the BNT162b2 mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.

Disclosures: The study did not report any source of funding. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Venerito V et al. RMD Open. 2022;8:e001847 (Jan 5). Doi: 10.1136/ rmdopen-2021-001847.

Key clinical point: Continuation of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor therapy throughout the vaccination period was safe and did not hamper the immune response elicited by BNT162b2 (BioNTech-Pfizer) mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: There was no change in Clinical Disease Activity Index in patients with PsA before and after vaccination (P = .92). After 2 doses of BNT162b2 mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, all patients with PsA showed a positive immune response with mean anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody level not significantly different from matched controls (P = .08).

Study details: Findings are from a prospective study including 40 patients with PsA on TNF inhibitor therapy matched with 40 healthy controls; both groups received 2 shots of the BNT162b2 mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.

Disclosures: The study did not report any source of funding. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Venerito V et al. RMD Open. 2022;8:e001847 (Jan 5). Doi: 10.1136/ rmdopen-2021-001847.

THE COMPARISON

A Pink, elevated, granulomatous, indurated plaques on the face, including the nasal alae, of a 52-year-old woman with a darker skin tone.

B Orange and pink, elevated, granulomatous, indurated plaques on the face of a 55-year-old woman with a lighter skin tone.

Sarcoidosis is a granulomatous disease that may affect the skin in addition to multiple body organ systems, including the lungs. Bilateral hilar adenopathy on a chest radiograph is the most common finding. Sarcoidosis also has a variety of cutaneous manifestations. Early diagnosis is vital, as patients with sarcoidosis and pulmonary fibrosis have a shortened life span compared to the overall population.¹ With a growing skin of color population, it is important to recognize sarcoidosis as soon as possible.²

Epidemiology

People of African descent have the highest sarcoidosis prevalence in the United States.³ In the United States, the incidence of sarcoidosis in Black individuals peaks in the fourth decade of life. A 5-year study in a US health maintenance organization found that the age-adjusted annual incidence was 10.9 per 100,000 cases among Whites and 35.5 per 100,000 cases among Blacks.⁴

Key clinical features in people with darker skin tones:

• Papules are seen in sarcoidosis, primarily on the face, and may start as orange hued or yellow-brown and then become brown-red or pink to violaceous before involuting into faint macules.^5-7

• When round or oval sarcoid plaques appear, they often are more erythematous.

• In skin of color, plaques may become hypopigmented.⁸

• Erythema nodosum, the most common nonspecific cutaneous lesion seen in sarcoidosis, is less commonly seen in those of African and Asian descent.^9-11 This is in contrast to distinctive forms of specific sarcoid skin lesions such as lupus pernio and scar sarcoidosis, as well as papules and plaques and minor forms of specific sarcoid skin lesions including subcutaneous nodules; hypopigmented macules; psoriasiform lesions; and ulcerative, localized erythrodermic, ichthyosiform, scalp, and nail lesions.

• Lupus pernio is a cutaneous manifestation of sarcoidosis that appears on the face. It looks similar to lupus erythematosus and occurs most commonly in women of African descent.^8,12

• Hypopigmented lesions are more common in those with darker skin tones.⁹

• Ulcerative lesions are more common in those of African descent and women.¹³

• Scalp sarcoidosis is more common in patients of African descent.¹⁴

• Sarcoidosis may develop at sites of trauma, such as scars and tattoos.^15-17

Worth noting

The cutaneous lesions seen in sarcoidosis may be emotionally devastating and disfiguring. Due to the variety of clinical manifestations, sarcoidosis may be misdiagnosed, leading to delays in treatment.¹⁸

Health disparity highlight

Patients older than 40 years presenting with sarcoidosis and those of African descent have a worse prognosis.19 Despite adjustment for race, ethnic group, age, and sex, patients with low income and financial barriers present with more severe sarcoidosis.²⁰

THE COMPARISON

A Pink, elevated, granulomatous, indurated plaques on the face, including the nasal alae, of a 52-year-old woman with a darker skin tone.

B Orange and pink, elevated, granulomatous, indurated plaques on the face of a 55-year-old woman with a lighter skin tone.

Sarcoidosis is a granulomatous disease that may affect the skin in addition to multiple body organ systems, including the lungs. Bilateral hilar adenopathy on a chest radiograph is the most common finding. Sarcoidosis also has a variety of cutaneous manifestations. Early diagnosis is vital, as patients with sarcoidosis and pulmonary fibrosis have a shortened life span compared to the overall population.¹ With a growing skin of color population, it is important to recognize sarcoidosis as soon as possible.²

Epidemiology

People of African descent have the highest sarcoidosis prevalence in the United States.³ In the United States, the incidence of sarcoidosis in Black individuals peaks in the fourth decade of life. A 5-year study in a US health maintenance organization found that the age-adjusted annual incidence was 10.9 per 100,000 cases among Whites and 35.5 per 100,000 cases among Blacks.⁴

Key clinical features in people with darker skin tones:

• Papules are seen in sarcoidosis, primarily on the face, and may start as orange hued or yellow-brown and then become brown-red or pink to violaceous before involuting into faint macules.^5-7

• When round or oval sarcoid plaques appear, they often are more erythematous.

• In skin of color, plaques may become hypopigmented.⁸

• Erythema nodosum, the most common nonspecific cutaneous lesion seen in sarcoidosis, is less commonly seen in those of African and Asian descent.^9-11 This is in contrast to distinctive forms of specific sarcoid skin lesions such as lupus pernio and scar sarcoidosis, as well as papules and plaques and minor forms of specific sarcoid skin lesions including subcutaneous nodules; hypopigmented macules; psoriasiform lesions; and ulcerative, localized erythrodermic, ichthyosiform, scalp, and nail lesions.

• Lupus pernio is a cutaneous manifestation of sarcoidosis that appears on the face. It looks similar to lupus erythematosus and occurs most commonly in women of African descent.^8,12

• Hypopigmented lesions are more common in those with darker skin tones.⁹

• Ulcerative lesions are more common in those of African descent and women.¹³

• Scalp sarcoidosis is more common in patients of African descent.¹⁴

• Sarcoidosis may develop at sites of trauma, such as scars and tattoos.^15-17

Worth noting

The cutaneous lesions seen in sarcoidosis may be emotionally devastating and disfiguring. Due to the variety of clinical manifestations, sarcoidosis may be misdiagnosed, leading to delays in treatment.¹⁸

Health disparity highlight

Patients older than 40 years presenting with sarcoidosis and those of African descent have a worse prognosis.19 Despite adjustment for race, ethnic group, age, and sex, patients with low income and financial barriers present with more severe sarcoidosis.²⁰

THE COMPARISON

A Pink, elevated, granulomatous, indurated plaques on the face, including the nasal alae, of a 52-year-old woman with a darker skin tone.

B Orange and pink, elevated, granulomatous, indurated plaques on the face of a 55-year-old woman with a lighter skin tone.

Sarcoidosis is a granulomatous disease that may affect the skin in addition to multiple body organ systems, including the lungs. Bilateral hilar adenopathy on a chest radiograph is the most common finding. Sarcoidosis also has a variety of cutaneous manifestations. Early diagnosis is vital, as patients with sarcoidosis and pulmonary fibrosis have a shortened life span compared to the overall population.¹ With a growing skin of color population, it is important to recognize sarcoidosis as soon as possible.²

Epidemiology

People of African descent have the highest sarcoidosis prevalence in the United States.³ In the United States, the incidence of sarcoidosis in Black individuals peaks in the fourth decade of life. A 5-year study in a US health maintenance organization found that the age-adjusted annual incidence was 10.9 per 100,000 cases among Whites and 35.5 per 100,000 cases among Blacks.⁴

Key clinical features in people with darker skin tones:

• Papules are seen in sarcoidosis, primarily on the face, and may start as orange hued or yellow-brown and then become brown-red or pink to violaceous before involuting into faint macules.^5-7

• When round or oval sarcoid plaques appear, they often are more erythematous.

• In skin of color, plaques may become hypopigmented.⁸

• Erythema nodosum, the most common nonspecific cutaneous lesion seen in sarcoidosis, is less commonly seen in those of African and Asian descent.^9-11 This is in contrast to distinctive forms of specific sarcoid skin lesions such as lupus pernio and scar sarcoidosis, as well as papules and plaques and minor forms of specific sarcoid skin lesions including subcutaneous nodules; hypopigmented macules; psoriasiform lesions; and ulcerative, localized erythrodermic, ichthyosiform, scalp, and nail lesions.

• Lupus pernio is a cutaneous manifestation of sarcoidosis that appears on the face. It looks similar to lupus erythematosus and occurs most commonly in women of African descent.^8,12

• Hypopigmented lesions are more common in those with darker skin tones.⁹

• Ulcerative lesions are more common in those of African descent and women.¹³

• Scalp sarcoidosis is more common in patients of African descent.¹⁴

• Sarcoidosis may develop at sites of trauma, such as scars and tattoos.^15-17

Worth noting

The cutaneous lesions seen in sarcoidosis may be emotionally devastating and disfiguring. Due to the variety of clinical manifestations, sarcoidosis may be misdiagnosed, leading to delays in treatment.¹⁸

Health disparity highlight

Patients older than 40 years presenting with sarcoidosis and those of African descent have a worse prognosis.19 Despite adjustment for race, ethnic group, age, and sex, patients with low income and financial barriers present with more severe sarcoidosis.²⁰

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 26-year-old man presents to the emergency department complaining of sudden-onset left-side chest pain and mild dyspnea that started while he was playing basketball. He denies any medical problems and takes no medications. He is able to speak in complete sentences as he answers your questions. His O₂ saturation is 95% and a chest x-ray reveals a left-side, moderate-to-large pneumothorax.

A primary spontaneous pneumothorax is one that occurs in the absence of underlying clinical lung disease and is not associated with an inciting cause, such as a rib fracture.² In the United States, the estimated incidence of primary spontaneous pneumothorax is 7.4 cases per 100,000 men and 1.2 cases per 100,000 women.³ The etiology is often unknown, but it is associated with several risk factors, including male sex, smoking, and a tall, thin body habitus.²

The management strategy for stable patients with a primary spontaneous pneumothorax largely depends on pneumothorax size and institutional practice. Multiple methods define pneumothorax size; the US standard cutoff for a small or large pneumothorax is 3 cm, between the pleural line and chest wall at the level of the apex,⁴ compared with 2 cm in Europe, when evaluating the distance at the hilum in an upright chest radiograph.⁵ The Collins method uses a formula to calculate the percentage of lung area affected based on 3 distinct measurements on a posterior/anterior upright chest radiograph.⁶

Management options include observation, supplemental oxygen, simple aspiration, and thoracostomy or chest tube placement. British Thoracic Society guidelines published in 2010 state that only a small pneumothorax can be managed conservatively with observation alone; for a large pneumothorax, the guidelines recommend needle aspiration to achieve lung reinflation, followed by chest tube placement if unsuccessful.⁵

In practice, management of a large primary spontaneous pneumothorax varies, but the most common treatment is chest tube placement.⁷ This procedure can be painful and may result in complications such as bleeding, infection, injury to internal structures, or the need for surgical intervention.⁷ In addition, once a chest tube is placed, hospital admission ensues, lasting an average of 4 days.⁸ Given these consequences, there is a need for safe and feasible treatment options for a large primary spontaneous pneumothorax.

STUDY SUMMARY

Observational management judged noninferior, with multiple advantages

The Primary Spontaneous Pneumothorax (PSP) trial was a prospective noninferiority trial conducted at 39 hospitals in Australia and New Zealand. This randomized controlled trial compared observational (“watch and wait”) vs interventional (chest tube placement) management of uncomplicated, unilateral, primary spontaneous pneumothorax. Patients ages 14 to 50 years with a moderate-to-large pneumothorax—32% or greater, as defined by the Collins method⁴—were randomly assigned to a study group to examine the primary outcome of lung reexpansion at 8 weeks.

“Watch-and-wait” management spared 85% of the patients from invasive intervention.

The intervention included chest tube insertion attached to an underwater seal without suction for 1 hour, followed by an x-ray and clamping for 4 hours if there was no air leak, followed by a repeat chest x-ray. If there was no evidence of radiographic resolution, or if during observation the pneumothorax recurred, the underwater seal was recommenced and the patient was admitted to the hospital, with further intervention at the discretion of the inpatient clinicians. If radiographic improvement was seen, the tube was removed and the patient discharged.

Continue to: In contrast...

In contrast, conservative management entailed patient observation for at least 4 hours followed by a repeat chest x-ray. If after the observation period, patients were walking comfortably and without supplemental oxygen, they were discharged. Patients in the observation group underwent an intervention if they met a variety of criteria, including unstable vitals or an enlarging pneumothorax. All patients received standard care with analgesia and supplemental oxygen as needed.

A total of 316 patients were randomized, with 154 assigned to the intervention group and 162 to the observation group. The mean age for all participants was 26. Most patients were male (84.4% in the intervention group and 87.7% in the observation group) and almost half were current smokers (49.3% in the intervention and 42.5% in the observation group). The mean body mass index of participants was 21.4 in the intervention and 21.3 in the observation group. Twenty-five patients (15%) in the observation group underwent interventions for reasons specified in the research protocol (eg, “significant symptoms” such as abnormal physiologic observations and intolerable symptoms, or patient unwillingness to continue in the assigned group), and 10 patients assigned to the intervention group declined treatment.

Using a complete-case analysis, 129 of 131 patients (98.5%) in the intervention group and 118 of 125 patients (94.4%) in the observation group met the primary outcome of radiographic resolution within 8 weeks (risk difference [RD] = –4.1%; 95% CI, –8.6 to 0.5), thereby falling within the prespecified margin for noninferiority of less than 9%.

This study opens the possibility of managing selected patients with spontaneous pneumothorax in an outpatient setting.

Per-protocol analysis at 8 weeks also proved observational management noninferior, with 124 of 126 patients (98.4%) in the intervention group and 123 of 130 patients (94.6%) in the observation group achieving lung reexpansion within 8 weeks (RD = –3.8%; 95% CI, –8.3 to 0.7). The time to symptom resolution was similar between groups, with a median time of 15.5 days in the intervention group compared with 14 days in the observation group (hazard ratio = 1.11; 95% CI, 0.88-1.4). A lower risk of serious adverse events (relative risk [RR] = 3.3; 95% CI, 1.37-8.1) and pneumothorax recurrence (absolute RD = 8%; 95% CI, 0.5-15.4) occurred in the observation group vs the intervention group. The average length of hospital stay for patients in the intervention group was 6.1 days, vs 1.6 days in the observation group (RR = 2.8; 95% CI, 1.8-3.6).

Two additional sensitivity analyses were performed because multiple study participants were lost to follow-up or had data collected after 8 weeks. Noninferiority was maintained when data collected after the 8-week visit were included and extended to 63 days (RD = –3.7%: 95% CI, –7.9 to 0.6). However, noninferiority was lost when missing data after 8 weeks were deemed “treatment failure” (RD = –11%; 95% CI, –18.4 to –3.5).

Continue to: WHAT'S NEW

WHAT’S NEW

Conservative management enabled most patients to avoid invasive Tx risks

In this specific patient population, conservative management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax was noninferior to interventional management and had a lower risk of serious adverse events. This management practice spared 85% of the patients from invasive intervention. As a result, they experienced a shortened hospital stay, fewer days missed from school or work, less exposure to radiation from repeat chest x-rays, and a lower rate of adverse events. Additionally, fewer of these patients had early pneumothorax recurrence.

CAVEATS

There were limitations in the trial’s original statistical design

This study had a specific follow-up timetable, and some of the participants were not examined until after the 8-week checkpoint or were lost to follow-up entirely. The authors attempted to address these limitations (and show transparency) by providing additional sensitivity analyses as well as providing the intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses for the primary outcome at 8 weeks. Noninferiority was maintained in all analyses except for the sensitivity analysis that treated missing data as treatment failure. Therefore, the authors note these approaches result in “statistical fragility” and are exploratory.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Pneumothorax is not commonly seen in outpatient settings

Family physicians working in outpatient settings generally do not encounter pneumothorax and, using current guidelines, would refer for emergency or inpatient care. This study opens the possibility of managing selected patients in an outpatient setting; however, this would require at least a 4-hour period of observation, which may be impractical for many outpatient-based physicians. Additionally, the study uses the Collins method to define moderate-to-large pneumothorax, which is likely an uncommon practice and thus not applicable in most primary care settings.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 26-year-old man presents to the emergency department complaining of sudden-onset left-side chest pain and mild dyspnea that started while he was playing basketball. He denies any medical problems and takes no medications. He is able to speak in complete sentences as he answers your questions. His O₂ saturation is 95% and a chest x-ray reveals a left-side, moderate-to-large pneumothorax.

A primary spontaneous pneumothorax is one that occurs in the absence of underlying clinical lung disease and is not associated with an inciting cause, such as a rib fracture.² In the United States, the estimated incidence of primary spontaneous pneumothorax is 7.4 cases per 100,000 men and 1.2 cases per 100,000 women.³ The etiology is often unknown, but it is associated with several risk factors, including male sex, smoking, and a tall, thin body habitus.²

The management strategy for stable patients with a primary spontaneous pneumothorax largely depends on pneumothorax size and institutional practice. Multiple methods define pneumothorax size; the US standard cutoff for a small or large pneumothorax is 3 cm, between the pleural line and chest wall at the level of the apex,⁴ compared with 2 cm in Europe, when evaluating the distance at the hilum in an upright chest radiograph.⁵ The Collins method uses a formula to calculate the percentage of lung area affected based on 3 distinct measurements on a posterior/anterior upright chest radiograph.⁶

Management options include observation, supplemental oxygen, simple aspiration, and thoracostomy or chest tube placement. British Thoracic Society guidelines published in 2010 state that only a small pneumothorax can be managed conservatively with observation alone; for a large pneumothorax, the guidelines recommend needle aspiration to achieve lung reinflation, followed by chest tube placement if unsuccessful.⁵

In practice, management of a large primary spontaneous pneumothorax varies, but the most common treatment is chest tube placement.⁷ This procedure can be painful and may result in complications such as bleeding, infection, injury to internal structures, or the need for surgical intervention.⁷ In addition, once a chest tube is placed, hospital admission ensues, lasting an average of 4 days.⁸ Given these consequences, there is a need for safe and feasible treatment options for a large primary spontaneous pneumothorax.

STUDY SUMMARY

Observational management judged noninferior, with multiple advantages

The Primary Spontaneous Pneumothorax (PSP) trial was a prospective noninferiority trial conducted at 39 hospitals in Australia and New Zealand. This randomized controlled trial compared observational (“watch and wait”) vs interventional (chest tube placement) management of uncomplicated, unilateral, primary spontaneous pneumothorax. Patients ages 14 to 50 years with a moderate-to-large pneumothorax—32% or greater, as defined by the Collins method⁴—were randomly assigned to a study group to examine the primary outcome of lung reexpansion at 8 weeks.

“Watch-and-wait” management spared 85% of the patients from invasive intervention.

The intervention included chest tube insertion attached to an underwater seal without suction for 1 hour, followed by an x-ray and clamping for 4 hours if there was no air leak, followed by a repeat chest x-ray. If there was no evidence of radiographic resolution, or if during observation the pneumothorax recurred, the underwater seal was recommenced and the patient was admitted to the hospital, with further intervention at the discretion of the inpatient clinicians. If radiographic improvement was seen, the tube was removed and the patient discharged.

Continue to: In contrast...

In contrast, conservative management entailed patient observation for at least 4 hours followed by a repeat chest x-ray. If after the observation period, patients were walking comfortably and without supplemental oxygen, they were discharged. Patients in the observation group underwent an intervention if they met a variety of criteria, including unstable vitals or an enlarging pneumothorax. All patients received standard care with analgesia and supplemental oxygen as needed.

A total of 316 patients were randomized, with 154 assigned to the intervention group and 162 to the observation group. The mean age for all participants was 26. Most patients were male (84.4% in the intervention group and 87.7% in the observation group) and almost half were current smokers (49.3% in the intervention and 42.5% in the observation group). The mean body mass index of participants was 21.4 in the intervention and 21.3 in the observation group. Twenty-five patients (15%) in the observation group underwent interventions for reasons specified in the research protocol (eg, “significant symptoms” such as abnormal physiologic observations and intolerable symptoms, or patient unwillingness to continue in the assigned group), and 10 patients assigned to the intervention group declined treatment.

Using a complete-case analysis, 129 of 131 patients (98.5%) in the intervention group and 118 of 125 patients (94.4%) in the observation group met the primary outcome of radiographic resolution within 8 weeks (risk difference [RD] = –4.1%; 95% CI, –8.6 to 0.5), thereby falling within the prespecified margin for noninferiority of less than 9%.

This study opens the possibility of managing selected patients with spontaneous pneumothorax in an outpatient setting.

Per-protocol analysis at 8 weeks also proved observational management noninferior, with 124 of 126 patients (98.4%) in the intervention group and 123 of 130 patients (94.6%) in the observation group achieving lung reexpansion within 8 weeks (RD = –3.8%; 95% CI, –8.3 to 0.7). The time to symptom resolution was similar between groups, with a median time of 15.5 days in the intervention group compared with 14 days in the observation group (hazard ratio = 1.11; 95% CI, 0.88-1.4). A lower risk of serious adverse events (relative risk [RR] = 3.3; 95% CI, 1.37-8.1) and pneumothorax recurrence (absolute RD = 8%; 95% CI, 0.5-15.4) occurred in the observation group vs the intervention group. The average length of hospital stay for patients in the intervention group was 6.1 days, vs 1.6 days in the observation group (RR = 2.8; 95% CI, 1.8-3.6).

Two additional sensitivity analyses were performed because multiple study participants were lost to follow-up or had data collected after 8 weeks. Noninferiority was maintained when data collected after the 8-week visit were included and extended to 63 days (RD = –3.7%: 95% CI, –7.9 to 0.6). However, noninferiority was lost when missing data after 8 weeks were deemed “treatment failure” (RD = –11%; 95% CI, –18.4 to –3.5).

Continue to: WHAT'S NEW

WHAT’S NEW

Conservative management enabled most patients to avoid invasive Tx risks

In this specific patient population, conservative management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax was noninferior to interventional management and had a lower risk of serious adverse events. This management practice spared 85% of the patients from invasive intervention. As a result, they experienced a shortened hospital stay, fewer days missed from school or work, less exposure to radiation from repeat chest x-rays, and a lower rate of adverse events. Additionally, fewer of these patients had early pneumothorax recurrence.

CAVEATS

There were limitations in the trial’s original statistical design

This study had a specific follow-up timetable, and some of the participants were not examined until after the 8-week checkpoint or were lost to follow-up entirely. The authors attempted to address these limitations (and show transparency) by providing additional sensitivity analyses as well as providing the intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses for the primary outcome at 8 weeks. Noninferiority was maintained in all analyses except for the sensitivity analysis that treated missing data as treatment failure. Therefore, the authors note these approaches result in “statistical fragility” and are exploratory.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Pneumothorax is not commonly seen in outpatient settings

Family physicians working in outpatient settings generally do not encounter pneumothorax and, using current guidelines, would refer for emergency or inpatient care. This study opens the possibility of managing selected patients in an outpatient setting; however, this would require at least a 4-hour period of observation, which may be impractical for many outpatient-based physicians. Additionally, the study uses the Collins method to define moderate-to-large pneumothorax, which is likely an uncommon practice and thus not applicable in most primary care settings.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 26-year-old man presents to the emergency department complaining of sudden-onset left-side chest pain and mild dyspnea that started while he was playing basketball. He denies any medical problems and takes no medications. He is able to speak in complete sentences as he answers your questions. His O₂ saturation is 95% and a chest x-ray reveals a left-side, moderate-to-large pneumothorax.

A primary spontaneous pneumothorax is one that occurs in the absence of underlying clinical lung disease and is not associated with an inciting cause, such as a rib fracture.² In the United States, the estimated incidence of primary spontaneous pneumothorax is 7.4 cases per 100,000 men and 1.2 cases per 100,000 women.³ The etiology is often unknown, but it is associated with several risk factors, including male sex, smoking, and a tall, thin body habitus.²

The management strategy for stable patients with a primary spontaneous pneumothorax largely depends on pneumothorax size and institutional practice. Multiple methods define pneumothorax size; the US standard cutoff for a small or large pneumothorax is 3 cm, between the pleural line and chest wall at the level of the apex,⁴ compared with 2 cm in Europe, when evaluating the distance at the hilum in an upright chest radiograph.⁵ The Collins method uses a formula to calculate the percentage of lung area affected based on 3 distinct measurements on a posterior/anterior upright chest radiograph.⁶

Management options include observation, supplemental oxygen, simple aspiration, and thoracostomy or chest tube placement. British Thoracic Society guidelines published in 2010 state that only a small pneumothorax can be managed conservatively with observation alone; for a large pneumothorax, the guidelines recommend needle aspiration to achieve lung reinflation, followed by chest tube placement if unsuccessful.⁵

In practice, management of a large primary spontaneous pneumothorax varies, but the most common treatment is chest tube placement.⁷ This procedure can be painful and may result in complications such as bleeding, infection, injury to internal structures, or the need for surgical intervention.⁷ In addition, once a chest tube is placed, hospital admission ensues, lasting an average of 4 days.⁸ Given these consequences, there is a need for safe and feasible treatment options for a large primary spontaneous pneumothorax.

STUDY SUMMARY

Observational management judged noninferior, with multiple advantages

The Primary Spontaneous Pneumothorax (PSP) trial was a prospective noninferiority trial conducted at 39 hospitals in Australia and New Zealand. This randomized controlled trial compared observational (“watch and wait”) vs interventional (chest tube placement) management of uncomplicated, unilateral, primary spontaneous pneumothorax. Patients ages 14 to 50 years with a moderate-to-large pneumothorax—32% or greater, as defined by the Collins method⁴—were randomly assigned to a study group to examine the primary outcome of lung reexpansion at 8 weeks.

“Watch-and-wait” management spared 85% of the patients from invasive intervention.

The intervention included chest tube insertion attached to an underwater seal without suction for 1 hour, followed by an x-ray and clamping for 4 hours if there was no air leak, followed by a repeat chest x-ray. If there was no evidence of radiographic resolution, or if during observation the pneumothorax recurred, the underwater seal was recommenced and the patient was admitted to the hospital, with further intervention at the discretion of the inpatient clinicians. If radiographic improvement was seen, the tube was removed and the patient discharged.

Continue to: In contrast...

In contrast, conservative management entailed patient observation for at least 4 hours followed by a repeat chest x-ray. If after the observation period, patients were walking comfortably and without supplemental oxygen, they were discharged. Patients in the observation group underwent an intervention if they met a variety of criteria, including unstable vitals or an enlarging pneumothorax. All patients received standard care with analgesia and supplemental oxygen as needed.

A total of 316 patients were randomized, with 154 assigned to the intervention group and 162 to the observation group. The mean age for all participants was 26. Most patients were male (84.4% in the intervention group and 87.7% in the observation group) and almost half were current smokers (49.3% in the intervention and 42.5% in the observation group). The mean body mass index of participants was 21.4 in the intervention and 21.3 in the observation group. Twenty-five patients (15%) in the observation group underwent interventions for reasons specified in the research protocol (eg, “significant symptoms” such as abnormal physiologic observations and intolerable symptoms, or patient unwillingness to continue in the assigned group), and 10 patients assigned to the intervention group declined treatment.

Using a complete-case analysis, 129 of 131 patients (98.5%) in the intervention group and 118 of 125 patients (94.4%) in the observation group met the primary outcome of radiographic resolution within 8 weeks (risk difference [RD] = –4.1%; 95% CI, –8.6 to 0.5), thereby falling within the prespecified margin for noninferiority of less than 9%.

This study opens the possibility of managing selected patients with spontaneous pneumothorax in an outpatient setting.

Per-protocol analysis at 8 weeks also proved observational management noninferior, with 124 of 126 patients (98.4%) in the intervention group and 123 of 130 patients (94.6%) in the observation group achieving lung reexpansion within 8 weeks (RD = –3.8%; 95% CI, –8.3 to 0.7). The time to symptom resolution was similar between groups, with a median time of 15.5 days in the intervention group compared with 14 days in the observation group (hazard ratio = 1.11; 95% CI, 0.88-1.4). A lower risk of serious adverse events (relative risk [RR] = 3.3; 95% CI, 1.37-8.1) and pneumothorax recurrence (absolute RD = 8%; 95% CI, 0.5-15.4) occurred in the observation group vs the intervention group. The average length of hospital stay for patients in the intervention group was 6.1 days, vs 1.6 days in the observation group (RR = 2.8; 95% CI, 1.8-3.6).

Two additional sensitivity analyses were performed because multiple study participants were lost to follow-up or had data collected after 8 weeks. Noninferiority was maintained when data collected after the 8-week visit were included and extended to 63 days (RD = –3.7%: 95% CI, –7.9 to 0.6). However, noninferiority was lost when missing data after 8 weeks were deemed “treatment failure” (RD = –11%; 95% CI, –18.4 to –3.5).

Continue to: WHAT'S NEW

WHAT’S NEW

Conservative management enabled most patients to avoid invasive Tx risks

In this specific patient population, conservative management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax was noninferior to interventional management and had a lower risk of serious adverse events. This management practice spared 85% of the patients from invasive intervention. As a result, they experienced a shortened hospital stay, fewer days missed from school or work, less exposure to radiation from repeat chest x-rays, and a lower rate of adverse events. Additionally, fewer of these patients had early pneumothorax recurrence.

CAVEATS

There were limitations in the trial’s original statistical design

This study had a specific follow-up timetable, and some of the participants were not examined until after the 8-week checkpoint or were lost to follow-up entirely. The authors attempted to address these limitations (and show transparency) by providing additional sensitivity analyses as well as providing the intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses for the primary outcome at 8 weeks. Noninferiority was maintained in all analyses except for the sensitivity analysis that treated missing data as treatment failure. Therefore, the authors note these approaches result in “statistical fragility” and are exploratory.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Pneumothorax is not commonly seen in outpatient settings

Family physicians working in outpatient settings generally do not encounter pneumothorax and, using current guidelines, would refer for emergency or inpatient care. This study opens the possibility of managing selected patients in an outpatient setting; however, this would require at least a 4-hour period of observation, which may be impractical for many outpatient-based physicians. Additionally, the study uses the Collins method to define moderate-to-large pneumothorax, which is likely an uncommon practice and thus not applicable in most primary care settings.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

Dietary guidelines provide scientifically sound and practical advice that, if followed by every person, would probably result in less obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and bone loss. But few US adults meet these recommendations, according to a recent report in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR).¹

Data from the 2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance system indicate that only 12.3% of US adults consumed the recommended amount of fruit and 10% the recommended amount of vegetables (more on that shortly). Women were more likely than men to meet the requirements for fruit (14.5% vs 10.1%) and vegetable (12.4% vs 7.6%) intake. The vegetable recommendation was more likely to be met by those in higher income households than those in the lowest income categories (12.2% vs 6.8%).¹

Just what’s recommended? The most recent dietary guidelines from the Department of Agriculture suggest that adults should consume 1.5 to 2 cup-equivalents of fruits and 2 to 3 cup-equivalents of vegetables each day.² What is a cup-equivalent? Examples include: 1 cup of a raw, or cooked, vegetable or fruit; 1 cup of fruit juice; 2 cups of leafy salad greens; or 1/2 cup of a dried fruit or vegetable. Additional recommendations are that added sugar constitute < 10% of calories per day, saturated fat < 10% of calories per day, and sodium < 2300 mg per day.

Simplify the message to this … There’s an easy message for clinicians to provide to patients: Consume 2 cups of fruit and 2 to 3 cups of vegetables per day; increase intake of whole grains, seafood, nuts, and seeds; choose fat-free and low-fat dairy products; and avoid sugary beverages and foods. But as we know, recommending that patients do something and actually having them do it are often 2 different things. So how can we tip the scales in a healthier direction?

Advise patients not to go it alone. The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends intensive behavioral interventions to alter eating habits. These interventions include individual or group counseling sessions over extended periods (eg, 6 hours of contact time over 6 to 18 months), including some 1-on-1 time with a specially trained professional, such as a primary care physician, nurse, registered dietitian, or nutritionist. The good news is that, for those with cardiovascular risk factors (dyslipidemia, elevated blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, and hypertension), this is a level “B” recommendation—meaning these interventions should be covered by commercial health insurance with no out-of-pocket cost to patients.³

Dietary guidelines provide scientifically sound and practical advice that, if followed by every person, would probably result in less obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and bone loss. But few US adults meet these recommendations, according to a recent report in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR).¹

Data from the 2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance system indicate that only 12.3% of US adults consumed the recommended amount of fruit and 10% the recommended amount of vegetables (more on that shortly). Women were more likely than men to meet the requirements for fruit (14.5% vs 10.1%) and vegetable (12.4% vs 7.6%) intake. The vegetable recommendation was more likely to be met by those in higher income households than those in the lowest income categories (12.2% vs 6.8%).¹

Just what’s recommended? The most recent dietary guidelines from the Department of Agriculture suggest that adults should consume 1.5 to 2 cup-equivalents of fruits and 2 to 3 cup-equivalents of vegetables each day.² What is a cup-equivalent? Examples include: 1 cup of a raw, or cooked, vegetable or fruit; 1 cup of fruit juice; 2 cups of leafy salad greens; or 1/2 cup of a dried fruit or vegetable. Additional recommendations are that added sugar constitute < 10% of calories per day, saturated fat < 10% of calories per day, and sodium < 2300 mg per day.

Simplify the message to this … There’s an easy message for clinicians to provide to patients: Consume 2 cups of fruit and 2 to 3 cups of vegetables per day; increase intake of whole grains, seafood, nuts, and seeds; choose fat-free and low-fat dairy products; and avoid sugary beverages and foods. But as we know, recommending that patients do something and actually having them do it are often 2 different things. So how can we tip the scales in a healthier direction?

Advise patients not to go it alone. The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends intensive behavioral interventions to alter eating habits. These interventions include individual or group counseling sessions over extended periods (eg, 6 hours of contact time over 6 to 18 months), including some 1-on-1 time with a specially trained professional, such as a primary care physician, nurse, registered dietitian, or nutritionist. The good news is that, for those with cardiovascular risk factors (dyslipidemia, elevated blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, and hypertension), this is a level “B” recommendation—meaning these interventions should be covered by commercial health insurance with no out-of-pocket cost to patients.³

Dietary guidelines provide scientifically sound and practical advice that, if followed by every person, would probably result in less obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and bone loss. But few US adults meet these recommendations, according to a recent report in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR).¹

Data from the 2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance system indicate that only 12.3% of US adults consumed the recommended amount of fruit and 10% the recommended amount of vegetables (more on that shortly). Women were more likely than men to meet the requirements for fruit (14.5% vs 10.1%) and vegetable (12.4% vs 7.6%) intake. The vegetable recommendation was more likely to be met by those in higher income households than those in the lowest income categories (12.2% vs 6.8%).¹

Just what’s recommended? The most recent dietary guidelines from the Department of Agriculture suggest that adults should consume 1.5 to 2 cup-equivalents of fruits and 2 to 3 cup-equivalents of vegetables each day.² What is a cup-equivalent? Examples include: 1 cup of a raw, or cooked, vegetable or fruit; 1 cup of fruit juice; 2 cups of leafy salad greens; or 1/2 cup of a dried fruit or vegetable. Additional recommendations are that added sugar constitute < 10% of calories per day, saturated fat < 10% of calories per day, and sodium < 2300 mg per day.

Simplify the message to this … There’s an easy message for clinicians to provide to patients: Consume 2 cups of fruit and 2 to 3 cups of vegetables per day; increase intake of whole grains, seafood, nuts, and seeds; choose fat-free and low-fat dairy products; and avoid sugary beverages and foods. But as we know, recommending that patients do something and actually having them do it are often 2 different things. So how can we tip the scales in a healthier direction?

Advise patients not to go it alone. The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends intensive behavioral interventions to alter eating habits. These interventions include individual or group counseling sessions over extended periods (eg, 6 hours of contact time over 6 to 18 months), including some 1-on-1 time with a specially trained professional, such as a primary care physician, nurse, registered dietitian, or nutritionist. The good news is that, for those with cardiovascular risk factors (dyslipidemia, elevated blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, and hypertension), this is a level “B” recommendation—meaning these interventions should be covered by commercial health insurance with no out-of-pocket cost to patients.³

The Diagnosis: Gamasoidosis

An entomologist confirmed the specimen as an avian mite in either the Dermanyssus or Ornithonyssus genera (quiz image [bottom]). The patient was asked whether any bird had nested around her bedroom, and she affirmed that a woodpecker had nested outside her bedroom closet that spring. She subsequently discovered it had burrowed a hole into her closet wall. She and her husband removed the nest, and within 4 weeks, the eruption permanently cleared.

Gamasoidosis, or avian mite dermatitis, often is an overlooked, difficult-to-make diagnosis that is increasing in prevalence.¹ Bird mites are ectoparasitic arthropods that are 0.3 to 1 mm in length. They have egg-shaped bodies with 4 pairs of legs; they are a translucent brown color before feeding and red after feeding.² Although most avian mites cannot subsist off human blood, if the mites are without an avian host, such as after affected birds abandon their nests, the mites will bite humans.³ Studies have discovered the presence of mammalian erythrocytes in the digestive tracts of one species of bird mite, Dermanyssus gallinae, suggesting that at least one form of avian mite may feed off humans but typically cannot reproduce without an avian blood meal.⁴ Individuals with gamasoidosis often are exposed to avian mites by owning birds as pets, rearing chickens or messenger pigeons, or having bird’s nests around their bedrooms or air conditioning units.¹

Most people who develop avian mite dermatitis are the only affected member of the family to develop pruritus and papules since the reaction requires both bites and hypersensitivity to them; however, there are cases of nuclear families all reacting to avian mite bites.^2,4 As in this case, hypersensitivity to avian mite bites causes exquisitely pruritic 2- to 5-mm papules, vesicles, or urticarial lesions that may be diagnosed as papular urticaria or misdiagnosed as scabies. Although bird mites may carry bacteria such as Salmonella, Spirochaete, Rickettsia, and Pasteurella, they have not demonstrated an ability to pass these on to human vectors.^5,6

Bird mites will spend most of their lives on avian hosts but can spread to humans through direct contact or through air.⁷ Mites can go through floors, walls, ceilings, or most commonly through ventilation or air conditioning units. Increasing urbanization, especially in warmer climates where avian mites thrive, has increased the prevalence of gamasoidosis.¹

Avian mite dermatitis commonly can be mistaken for scabies, but the mites can be seen with the naked eye and cannot form burrows, unlike scabies.^4,8 Avian mites usually are not found on human skin since they leave the host after feeding and move with surprising speed.⁸ Pediculosis corporis (body lice) results from an infestation of Pediculus humanus corporis. At 2- to 4-mm long, this louse is much larger than a bird mite. Body lice rarely are found on the skin but rather live and lay eggs on clothing, particularly along the seams. The body louse has an elongated body with 3 segments and short antennae. Pthirus pubis (pubic lice) measure 1.5 to 2.0 mm in adulthood and have wider, more crablike bodies compared to body or hair lice or avian mites. Lice, being insects, have 6 legs as opposed to mites, being arachnids, having 8 legs. Cheyletiella are 0.5-mm long, nonburrowing mites commonly found on cats, dogs, and rabbits. Cheyletiella blakei affects cats. They look somewhat similar to bird mites but have hooklike palps extending from their heads instead of antennae.

Antihistamines and topical corticosteroids may reduce discomfort from avian bites but are not curative.^2,9 The most efficient way to treat gamasoidosis is to remove any affected birds or nearby bird’s nests, as the mites cannot survive more than a few weeks to months without feeding on an avian host.⁸ It also may be necessary to fumigate infested rooms.¹⁰

The diagnosis of avian mite dermatitis often is missed to the frustration of the patient and clinician alike. Becoming familiar with this bite reaction will help clinicians diagnose this dermatologic conundrum.

The Diagnosis: Gamasoidosis

An entomologist confirmed the specimen as an avian mite in either the Dermanyssus or Ornithonyssus genera (quiz image [bottom]). The patient was asked whether any bird had nested around her bedroom, and she affirmed that a woodpecker had nested outside her bedroom closet that spring. She subsequently discovered it had burrowed a hole into her closet wall. She and her husband removed the nest, and within 4 weeks, the eruption permanently cleared.

Gamasoidosis, or avian mite dermatitis, often is an overlooked, difficult-to-make diagnosis that is increasing in prevalence.¹ Bird mites are ectoparasitic arthropods that are 0.3 to 1 mm in length. They have egg-shaped bodies with 4 pairs of legs; they are a translucent brown color before feeding and red after feeding.² Although most avian mites cannot subsist off human blood, if the mites are without an avian host, such as after affected birds abandon their nests, the mites will bite humans.³ Studies have discovered the presence of mammalian erythrocytes in the digestive tracts of one species of bird mite, Dermanyssus gallinae, suggesting that at least one form of avian mite may feed off humans but typically cannot reproduce without an avian blood meal.⁴ Individuals with gamasoidosis often are exposed to avian mites by owning birds as pets, rearing chickens or messenger pigeons, or having bird’s nests around their bedrooms or air conditioning units.¹

Most people who develop avian mite dermatitis are the only affected member of the family to develop pruritus and papules since the reaction requires both bites and hypersensitivity to them; however, there are cases of nuclear families all reacting to avian mite bites.^2,4 As in this case, hypersensitivity to avian mite bites causes exquisitely pruritic 2- to 5-mm papules, vesicles, or urticarial lesions that may be diagnosed as papular urticaria or misdiagnosed as scabies. Although bird mites may carry bacteria such as Salmonella, Spirochaete, Rickettsia, and Pasteurella, they have not demonstrated an ability to pass these on to human vectors.^5,6

Bird mites will spend most of their lives on avian hosts but can spread to humans through direct contact or through air.⁷ Mites can go through floors, walls, ceilings, or most commonly through ventilation or air conditioning units. Increasing urbanization, especially in warmer climates where avian mites thrive, has increased the prevalence of gamasoidosis.¹

Avian mite dermatitis commonly can be mistaken for scabies, but the mites can be seen with the naked eye and cannot form burrows, unlike scabies.^4,8 Avian mites usually are not found on human skin since they leave the host after feeding and move with surprising speed.⁸ Pediculosis corporis (body lice) results from an infestation of Pediculus humanus corporis. At 2- to 4-mm long, this louse is much larger than a bird mite. Body lice rarely are found on the skin but rather live and lay eggs on clothing, particularly along the seams. The body louse has an elongated body with 3 segments and short antennae. Pthirus pubis (pubic lice) measure 1.5 to 2.0 mm in adulthood and have wider, more crablike bodies compared to body or hair lice or avian mites. Lice, being insects, have 6 legs as opposed to mites, being arachnids, having 8 legs. Cheyletiella are 0.5-mm long, nonburrowing mites commonly found on cats, dogs, and rabbits. Cheyletiella blakei affects cats. They look somewhat similar to bird mites but have hooklike palps extending from their heads instead of antennae.

Antihistamines and topical corticosteroids may reduce discomfort from avian bites but are not curative.^2,9 The most efficient way to treat gamasoidosis is to remove any affected birds or nearby bird’s nests, as the mites cannot survive more than a few weeks to months without feeding on an avian host.⁸ It also may be necessary to fumigate infested rooms.¹⁰

The diagnosis of avian mite dermatitis often is missed to the frustration of the patient and clinician alike. Becoming familiar with this bite reaction will help clinicians diagnose this dermatologic conundrum.

The Diagnosis: Gamasoidosis

An entomologist confirmed the specimen as an avian mite in either the Dermanyssus or Ornithonyssus genera (quiz image [bottom]). The patient was asked whether any bird had nested around her bedroom, and she affirmed that a woodpecker had nested outside her bedroom closet that spring. She subsequently discovered it had burrowed a hole into her closet wall. She and her husband removed the nest, and within 4 weeks, the eruption permanently cleared.

Gamasoidosis, or avian mite dermatitis, often is an overlooked, difficult-to-make diagnosis that is increasing in prevalence.¹ Bird mites are ectoparasitic arthropods that are 0.3 to 1 mm in length. They have egg-shaped bodies with 4 pairs of legs; they are a translucent brown color before feeding and red after feeding.² Although most avian mites cannot subsist off human blood, if the mites are without an avian host, such as after affected birds abandon their nests, the mites will bite humans.³ Studies have discovered the presence of mammalian erythrocytes in the digestive tracts of one species of bird mite, Dermanyssus gallinae, suggesting that at least one form of avian mite may feed off humans but typically cannot reproduce without an avian blood meal.⁴ Individuals with gamasoidosis often are exposed to avian mites by owning birds as pets, rearing chickens or messenger pigeons, or having bird’s nests around their bedrooms or air conditioning units.¹

Most people who develop avian mite dermatitis are the only affected member of the family to develop pruritus and papules since the reaction requires both bites and hypersensitivity to them; however, there are cases of nuclear families all reacting to avian mite bites.^2,4 As in this case, hypersensitivity to avian mite bites causes exquisitely pruritic 2- to 5-mm papules, vesicles, or urticarial lesions that may be diagnosed as papular urticaria or misdiagnosed as scabies. Although bird mites may carry bacteria such as Salmonella, Spirochaete, Rickettsia, and Pasteurella, they have not demonstrated an ability to pass these on to human vectors.^5,6

Bird mites will spend most of their lives on avian hosts but can spread to humans through direct contact or through air.⁷ Mites can go through floors, walls, ceilings, or most commonly through ventilation or air conditioning units. Increasing urbanization, especially in warmer climates where avian mites thrive, has increased the prevalence of gamasoidosis.¹

Avian mite dermatitis commonly can be mistaken for scabies, but the mites can be seen with the naked eye and cannot form burrows, unlike scabies.^4,8 Avian mites usually are not found on human skin since they leave the host after feeding and move with surprising speed.⁸ Pediculosis corporis (body lice) results from an infestation of Pediculus humanus corporis. At 2- to 4-mm long, this louse is much larger than a bird mite. Body lice rarely are found on the skin but rather live and lay eggs on clothing, particularly along the seams. The body louse has an elongated body with 3 segments and short antennae. Pthirus pubis (pubic lice) measure 1.5 to 2.0 mm in adulthood and have wider, more crablike bodies compared to body or hair lice or avian mites. Lice, being insects, have 6 legs as opposed to mites, being arachnids, having 8 legs. Cheyletiella are 0.5-mm long, nonburrowing mites commonly found on cats, dogs, and rabbits. Cheyletiella blakei affects cats. They look somewhat similar to bird mites but have hooklike palps extending from their heads instead of antennae.

Antihistamines and topical corticosteroids may reduce discomfort from avian bites but are not curative.^2,9 The most efficient way to treat gamasoidosis is to remove any affected birds or nearby bird’s nests, as the mites cannot survive more than a few weeks to months without feeding on an avian host.⁸ It also may be necessary to fumigate infested rooms.¹⁰

The diagnosis of avian mite dermatitis often is missed to the frustration of the patient and clinician alike. Becoming familiar with this bite reaction will help clinicians diagnose this dermatologic conundrum.

The goal of this activity is to improve healthcare providers’ knowledge on the treatment of patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) in the outpatient setting as well as how to best incorporate novel antimicrobials into patient care plans.

Click here to access this content now 

The goal of this activity is to improve healthcare providers’ knowledge on the treatment of patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) in the outpatient setting as well as how to best incorporate novel antimicrobials into patient care plans.

Click here to access this content now 

The goal of this activity is to improve healthcare providers’ knowledge on the treatment of patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) in the outpatient setting as well as how to best incorporate novel antimicrobials into patient care plans.

Click here to access this content now 

Key clinical point: General anesthesia administered during major surgery poses a similar risk of postoperative migraine as neuraxial anesthesia.

Main finding: General anesthesia was not associated with a significantly higher risk of postoperative migraine compared with neuraxial anesthesia (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.93; P = .357), even across patient subgroups varying in age (≥65 years: aOR 0.94; P = .698; <65 years: aOR 0.93; P = .397) or migraine subtype (with aura: aOR 1.02; P = .929; without aura: aOR 0.73; P = .069).

Study details: The data come from a nationwide population-based cohort study that matched 68,131 patients with no prior history of migraine undergoing major surgery with general anesthesia with an equal number of those undergoing neuraxial anesthesia-supported surgery.

Disclosures: The study was sponsored by Taipei Medical University, Taiwan. The authors declared having no conflicts of interest.

Source: Liao C-Y et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;19(1):362 (Dec 30). Doi: 10.3390/ijerph19010362.

Key clinical point: General anesthesia administered during major surgery poses a similar risk of postoperative migraine as neuraxial anesthesia.

Main finding: General anesthesia was not associated with a significantly higher risk of postoperative migraine compared with neuraxial anesthesia (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.93; P = .357), even across patient subgroups varying in age (≥65 years: aOR 0.94; P = .698; <65 years: aOR 0.93; P = .397) or migraine subtype (with aura: aOR 1.02; P = .929; without aura: aOR 0.73; P = .069).

Study details: The data come from a nationwide population-based cohort study that matched 68,131 patients with no prior history of migraine undergoing major surgery with general anesthesia with an equal number of those undergoing neuraxial anesthesia-supported surgery.

Disclosures: The study was sponsored by Taipei Medical University, Taiwan. The authors declared having no conflicts of interest.

Source: Liao C-Y et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;19(1):362 (Dec 30). Doi: 10.3390/ijerph19010362.

Key clinical point: General anesthesia administered during major surgery poses a similar risk of postoperative migraine as neuraxial anesthesia.

Main finding: General anesthesia was not associated with a significantly higher risk of postoperative migraine compared with neuraxial anesthesia (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.93; P = .357), even across patient subgroups varying in age (≥65 years: aOR 0.94; P = .698; <65 years: aOR 0.93; P = .397) or migraine subtype (with aura: aOR 1.02; P = .929; without aura: aOR 0.73; P = .069).

Study details: The data come from a nationwide population-based cohort study that matched 68,131 patients with no prior history of migraine undergoing major surgery with general anesthesia with an equal number of those undergoing neuraxial anesthesia-supported surgery.

Disclosures: The study was sponsored by Taipei Medical University, Taiwan. The authors declared having no conflicts of interest.

Source: Liao C-Y et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;19(1):362 (Dec 30). Doi: 10.3390/ijerph19010362.