Emergency Medicine

To the Editor:

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory disease characterized by the development of painful abscesses, fistulous tracts, and scars. It most commonly affects the apocrine gland–bearing areas of the body such as the axillary, inguinal, and anogenital regions. With a prevalence of approximately 1%, HS can lead to notable morbidity.¹ The pathogenesis is thought to be due to occlusion of terminal hair follicles that subsequently stimulates release of proinflammatory cytokines from nearby keratinocytes. The mechanism of initial occlusion is not well understood but may be due to friction or trauma. An inflammatory mechanism of disease also has been hypothesized; however, the exact cytokine profile is not known. Treatment of HS consists of several different modalities, including oral retinoids, antibiotics, antiandrogenic therapy, and surgery.^1,2 Adalimumab is a well-known biologic that has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of HS.

Adalimumab is a human monoclonal antibody against tumor necrosis factor (TNF) α and is thought to improve HS by several mechanisms. Inhibition of TNF-α and other proinflammatory cytokines found in inflammatory lesions and apocrine glands directly decreases the severity of lesion size and the frequency of recurrence.³ Adalimumab also is thought to downregulate expression of keratin 6 and prevent the hyperkeratinization seen in HS.⁴ Additionally, TNF-α inhibition decreases production of IL-1, which has been shown to cause hypercornification of follicles and perpetuate HS pathogenesis.⁵

Adalimumab is considered a safe medication with a low toxicity profile and rarely is associated with serious adverse effects. The most common adverse effects are injection-site reaction, headache, and rash. However, as with any immunosuppressant, there is an elevated incidence of opportunistic infections. Anti-TNF medications have been associated with an increased incidence of viral, bacterial, and fungal infections. We present a patient who developed Candida esophagitis 6 weeks after starting treatment with adalimumab for the treatment of HS. This case highlights the development of esophageal candidiasis as a notable adverse event.

A 41-year-old woman with a history of endometriosis, adenomyosis, polycystic ovary syndrome, interstitial cystitis, asthma, fibromyalgia, depression, and Hashimoto thyroiditis presented to our dermatology clinic with active draining lesions and sinus tracts in the perivaginal area that were consistent with HS, which initially was treated with doxycycline 100 mg twice daily. She experienced minimal improvement of the HS lesions at 2-month follow-up.

Due to disease severity, adalimumab was started. The patient received a loading dose of 4 injections totaling 160 mg and 80 mg on day 15, followed by a maintenance dose of 40 mg/0.4 mL weekly. The patient reported substantial improvement of pain, and complete resolution of active lesions was noted on physical examination after 4 weeks of treatment with adalimumab.

Six weeks after adalimumab was started, the patient developed severe dysphagia. She was evaluated by a gastroenterologist and underwent endoscopy (Figure), which led to a diagnosis of esophageal candidiasis. Adalimumab was discontinued immediately thereafter. The patient started treatment with nystatin oral rinse 4 times daily and oral fluconazole 200 mg daily. The candidiasis resolved within 2 weeks; however, she experienced recurrence of HS with draining lesions in the perivaginal area approximately 8 weeks after discontinuation of adalimumab. The patient requested to restart adalimumab treatment despite the recent history of esophagitis. Adalimumab 40 mg/0.4 mL weekly was restarted along with oral fluconazole 200 mg twice weekly and nystatin oral rinse 4 times daily. This regimen resulted in complete resolution of HS symptoms within 6 weeks with no recurrence of esophageal candidiasis during 6 months of follow-up.

Patients receiving adalimumab for dermatologic or other conditions should be closely monitored for opportunistic infections. Although immunomodulatory medications offer promising therapeutic benefits in patients with HS, larger studies regarding treatment with anti-TNF agents in HS are warranted to prevent complications from treatment and promote long-term efficacy and safety.

To the Editor:

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory disease characterized by the development of painful abscesses, fistulous tracts, and scars. It most commonly affects the apocrine gland–bearing areas of the body such as the axillary, inguinal, and anogenital regions. With a prevalence of approximately 1%, HS can lead to notable morbidity.¹ The pathogenesis is thought to be due to occlusion of terminal hair follicles that subsequently stimulates release of proinflammatory cytokines from nearby keratinocytes. The mechanism of initial occlusion is not well understood but may be due to friction or trauma. An inflammatory mechanism of disease also has been hypothesized; however, the exact cytokine profile is not known. Treatment of HS consists of several different modalities, including oral retinoids, antibiotics, antiandrogenic therapy, and surgery.^1,2 Adalimumab is a well-known biologic that has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of HS.

Adalimumab is a human monoclonal antibody against tumor necrosis factor (TNF) α and is thought to improve HS by several mechanisms. Inhibition of TNF-α and other proinflammatory cytokines found in inflammatory lesions and apocrine glands directly decreases the severity of lesion size and the frequency of recurrence.³ Adalimumab also is thought to downregulate expression of keratin 6 and prevent the hyperkeratinization seen in HS.⁴ Additionally, TNF-α inhibition decreases production of IL-1, which has been shown to cause hypercornification of follicles and perpetuate HS pathogenesis.⁵

Adalimumab is considered a safe medication with a low toxicity profile and rarely is associated with serious adverse effects. The most common adverse effects are injection-site reaction, headache, and rash. However, as with any immunosuppressant, there is an elevated incidence of opportunistic infections. Anti-TNF medications have been associated with an increased incidence of viral, bacterial, and fungal infections. We present a patient who developed Candida esophagitis 6 weeks after starting treatment with adalimumab for the treatment of HS. This case highlights the development of esophageal candidiasis as a notable adverse event.

A 41-year-old woman with a history of endometriosis, adenomyosis, polycystic ovary syndrome, interstitial cystitis, asthma, fibromyalgia, depression, and Hashimoto thyroiditis presented to our dermatology clinic with active draining lesions and sinus tracts in the perivaginal area that were consistent with HS, which initially was treated with doxycycline 100 mg twice daily. She experienced minimal improvement of the HS lesions at 2-month follow-up.

Due to disease severity, adalimumab was started. The patient received a loading dose of 4 injections totaling 160 mg and 80 mg on day 15, followed by a maintenance dose of 40 mg/0.4 mL weekly. The patient reported substantial improvement of pain, and complete resolution of active lesions was noted on physical examination after 4 weeks of treatment with adalimumab.

Six weeks after adalimumab was started, the patient developed severe dysphagia. She was evaluated by a gastroenterologist and underwent endoscopy (Figure), which led to a diagnosis of esophageal candidiasis. Adalimumab was discontinued immediately thereafter. The patient started treatment with nystatin oral rinse 4 times daily and oral fluconazole 200 mg daily. The candidiasis resolved within 2 weeks; however, she experienced recurrence of HS with draining lesions in the perivaginal area approximately 8 weeks after discontinuation of adalimumab. The patient requested to restart adalimumab treatment despite the recent history of esophagitis. Adalimumab 40 mg/0.4 mL weekly was restarted along with oral fluconazole 200 mg twice weekly and nystatin oral rinse 4 times daily. This regimen resulted in complete resolution of HS symptoms within 6 weeks with no recurrence of esophageal candidiasis during 6 months of follow-up.

Patients receiving adalimumab for dermatologic or other conditions should be closely monitored for opportunistic infections. Although immunomodulatory medications offer promising therapeutic benefits in patients with HS, larger studies regarding treatment with anti-TNF agents in HS are warranted to prevent complications from treatment and promote long-term efficacy and safety.

To the Editor:

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory disease characterized by the development of painful abscesses, fistulous tracts, and scars. It most commonly affects the apocrine gland–bearing areas of the body such as the axillary, inguinal, and anogenital regions. With a prevalence of approximately 1%, HS can lead to notable morbidity.¹ The pathogenesis is thought to be due to occlusion of terminal hair follicles that subsequently stimulates release of proinflammatory cytokines from nearby keratinocytes. The mechanism of initial occlusion is not well understood but may be due to friction or trauma. An inflammatory mechanism of disease also has been hypothesized; however, the exact cytokine profile is not known. Treatment of HS consists of several different modalities, including oral retinoids, antibiotics, antiandrogenic therapy, and surgery.^1,2 Adalimumab is a well-known biologic that has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of HS.

Adalimumab is a human monoclonal antibody against tumor necrosis factor (TNF) α and is thought to improve HS by several mechanisms. Inhibition of TNF-α and other proinflammatory cytokines found in inflammatory lesions and apocrine glands directly decreases the severity of lesion size and the frequency of recurrence.³ Adalimumab also is thought to downregulate expression of keratin 6 and prevent the hyperkeratinization seen in HS.⁴ Additionally, TNF-α inhibition decreases production of IL-1, which has been shown to cause hypercornification of follicles and perpetuate HS pathogenesis.⁵

Adalimumab is considered a safe medication with a low toxicity profile and rarely is associated with serious adverse effects. The most common adverse effects are injection-site reaction, headache, and rash. However, as with any immunosuppressant, there is an elevated incidence of opportunistic infections. Anti-TNF medications have been associated with an increased incidence of viral, bacterial, and fungal infections. We present a patient who developed Candida esophagitis 6 weeks after starting treatment with adalimumab for the treatment of HS. This case highlights the development of esophageal candidiasis as a notable adverse event.

A 41-year-old woman with a history of endometriosis, adenomyosis, polycystic ovary syndrome, interstitial cystitis, asthma, fibromyalgia, depression, and Hashimoto thyroiditis presented to our dermatology clinic with active draining lesions and sinus tracts in the perivaginal area that were consistent with HS, which initially was treated with doxycycline 100 mg twice daily. She experienced minimal improvement of the HS lesions at 2-month follow-up.

Due to disease severity, adalimumab was started. The patient received a loading dose of 4 injections totaling 160 mg and 80 mg on day 15, followed by a maintenance dose of 40 mg/0.4 mL weekly. The patient reported substantial improvement of pain, and complete resolution of active lesions was noted on physical examination after 4 weeks of treatment with adalimumab.

Six weeks after adalimumab was started, the patient developed severe dysphagia. She was evaluated by a gastroenterologist and underwent endoscopy (Figure), which led to a diagnosis of esophageal candidiasis. Adalimumab was discontinued immediately thereafter. The patient started treatment with nystatin oral rinse 4 times daily and oral fluconazole 200 mg daily. The candidiasis resolved within 2 weeks; however, she experienced recurrence of HS with draining lesions in the perivaginal area approximately 8 weeks after discontinuation of adalimumab. The patient requested to restart adalimumab treatment despite the recent history of esophagitis. Adalimumab 40 mg/0.4 mL weekly was restarted along with oral fluconazole 200 mg twice weekly and nystatin oral rinse 4 times daily. This regimen resulted in complete resolution of HS symptoms within 6 weeks with no recurrence of esophageal candidiasis during 6 months of follow-up.

Patients receiving adalimumab for dermatologic or other conditions should be closely monitored for opportunistic infections. Although immunomodulatory medications offer promising therapeutic benefits in patients with HS, larger studies regarding treatment with anti-TNF agents in HS are warranted to prevent complications from treatment and promote long-term efficacy and safety.

Congratulations, you’ve been vaccinated!

It’s been a year like no other, and outpatient psychiatrists turned to Zoom and other telemental health platforms to provide treatment for our patients. Offices sit empty as the dust lands and the plants wilt. Perhaps a few patients are seen in person, masked and carefully distanced, after health screening and temperature checks, with surfaces sanitized between visits, all in accordance with health department regulations. But now the vaccine offers both safety and the promise of a return to a new normal, one that is certain to look different from the normal that was left behind.

Courtesy CDC

Dr. Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore.

Congratulations, you’ve been vaccinated!

It’s been a year like no other, and outpatient psychiatrists turned to Zoom and other telemental health platforms to provide treatment for our patients. Offices sit empty as the dust lands and the plants wilt. Perhaps a few patients are seen in person, masked and carefully distanced, after health screening and temperature checks, with surfaces sanitized between visits, all in accordance with health department regulations. But now the vaccine offers both safety and the promise of a return to a new normal, one that is certain to look different from the normal that was left behind.

Courtesy CDC

Dr. Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore.

Congratulations, you’ve been vaccinated!

It’s been a year like no other, and outpatient psychiatrists turned to Zoom and other telemental health platforms to provide treatment for our patients. Offices sit empty as the dust lands and the plants wilt. Perhaps a few patients are seen in person, masked and carefully distanced, after health screening and temperature checks, with surfaces sanitized between visits, all in accordance with health department regulations. But now the vaccine offers both safety and the promise of a return to a new normal, one that is certain to look different from the normal that was left behind.

Courtesy CDC

Dr. Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore.

The new 2021 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) clinical practice guideline for blood pressure management for adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) who are not receiving dialysis advises treating to a target systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, provided measurements are “standardized” and that blood pressure is “measured properly.”

This blood pressure target – largely based on evidence from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) – represents “a major update” from the 2012 KDIGO guideline, which advised clinicians to treat to a target blood pressure of less than or equal to 130/80 mm Hg for patients with albuminuria or less than or equal to 140/90 mm Hg for patients without albuminuria.

The new goal is also lower than the less than 130/80 mm Hg target in the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline.

In a study of the public health implications of the guideline, Kathryn Foti, PhD, and colleagues determined that 70% of U.S. adults with CKD would now be eligible for treatment to lower blood pressure, as opposed to 50% under the previous KDIGO guideline and 56% under the ACC/AHA guideline.

“This is a major update of an influential set of guidelines for chronic kidney disease patients” at a time when blood pressure control is worsening in the United States, Dr. Foti, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, said in a statement from her institution.

The 2021 KDIGO blood pressure guideline and executive summary and the public health implications study are published online in Kidney International.
 

First, ‘take blood pressure well’

The cochair of the new KDIGO guidelines, Alfred K. Cheung, MD, from the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview that the guideline has “two important points.”

First, “take that blood pressure well,” he said. “That has a lot to do with patient preparation rather than any fancy instrument,” he emphasized.

Second, the guideline proposes a systolic blood pressure target of less than 120 mm Hg for most people with CKD not receiving dialysis, except for children and kidney transplant recipients. This target is “contingent on ‘standardized’ blood pressure measurement.”

The document provides a checklist for obtaining a standardized blood pressure measurement, adapted from the 2017 ACC/AHA blood pressure guidelines. It starts with the patient relaxed and sitting on a chair for more than 5 minutes.

In contrast to this measurement, a “routine” or “casual” office blood pressure measurement could be off by plus or minus 10 mm Hg, Dr. Cheung noted.

In a typical scenario, he continued, a patient cannot find a place to park, rushes into the clinic, and has his or her blood pressure checked right away, which would provide a “totally unreliable” reading. Adding a “fudge factor” (correction factor) would not provide an accurate reading.

Clinicians “would not settle for a potassium measurement that is 5.0 mmol/L plus or minus a few decimal points” to guide treatment, he pointed out.
 

Second, target 120, properly measured

“The very first chapter of the guidelines is devoted to blood pressure measurement, because we recognize if we’re going to do 120 [mm Hg] – the emphasis is on 120 measured properly – so we try to drive that point home,” Tara I. Chang, MD, guideline second author and a coauthor of the public health implications study, pointed out in an interview.

“There are a lot of other things that we base clinical decisions on where we really require some degree of precision, and blood pressure is important enough that to us it’s kind of in the same boat,” said Dr. Chang, from Stanford (Calif.) University.

“In SPRINT, people were randomized to less than less than 120 vs. less than 140 (they weren’t randomized to <130),” she noted.

“The recommendation should be widely adopted in clinical practice,” the guideline authors write, “since accurate measurements will ensure that proper guidance is being applied to the management of BP, as it is to the management of other risk factors.”
 

Still need individual treatment

Nevertheless, patients still need individualized treatment, the document stresses. “Not every patient with CKD will be appropriate to target to less than 120,” Dr. Chang said. However, “we want people to at least consider less than 120,” she added, to avoid therapeutic inertia.

“If you take the blood pressure in a standardized manner – such as in the ACCORD trial and in the SPRINT trial – even patients over 75 years old, or people over 80 years old, they have very little side effects,” Dr. Cheung noted.

“In the overall cohort,” he continued, “they do not have a significant increase in serious adverse events, do not have adverse events of postural hypotension, syncope, bradycardia, injurious falls – so people are worried about it, but it’s not borne out by the data.

“That said, I have two cautions,” Dr. Cheung noted. “One. If you drop somebody’s blood pressure rapidly over a week, you may be more likely to get in trouble. If you drop the blood pressure gradually over several weeks, several months, you’re much less likely to get into trouble.”

“Two. If the patient is old, you know the patient has carotid stenosis and already has postural dizziness, you may not want to try on that patient – but just because the patient is old is not the reason not to target 120.”
 

ACE inhibitors and ARBs beneficial in albuminuria, underused

“How do you get to less than 120? The short answer is, use whatever medications you need to – there is no necessarily right cocktail,” Dr. Chang said.

“We’ve known that angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and ARBs [angiotensin II receptor blockers] are beneficial in patients with CKD and in particular those with heavier albuminuria,” she continued. “We’ve known this for over 20 years.”

Yet, the study identified underutilization – “a persistent gap, just like blood pressure control and awareness,” she noted. “We’re just not making much headway.

“We are not recommending ACE inhibitors or ARBs for all the patients,” Dr. Cheung clarified. “If you are diabetic and have heavy proteinuria, that’s when the use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs are most indicated.”
 

Public health implications

SPRINT showed that treating to a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg vs. less than 140 mm Hg reduced the risk for cardiovascular disease by 25% and all-cause mortality by 27% for participants with and those without CKD, Dr. Foti and colleagues stress.

They aimed to estimate how the new guideline would affect (1) the number of U.S. patients with CKD who would be eligible for blood pressure lowering treatment, and (2) the proportion of those with albuminuria who would be eligible for an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.

The researchers analyzed data from 1,699 adults with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate, 15-59 mL/min/1.73 m² or a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of ≥30 mg/g) who participated in the 2015-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

Both the 2021 and 2012 KDIGO guidelines recommend that patients with albuminuria and blood pressure higher than the target value who are not kidney transplant recipients should be treated with an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.

On the basis of the new target, 78% of patients with CKD and albuminuria were eligible for ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment by the 2021 KDIGO guideline, compared with 71% by the 2012 KDIGO guideline. However, only 39% were taking one of these drugs.

These findings show that “with the new guideline and with the lower blood pressure target, you potentially have an even larger pool of people who have blood pressure that’s not under control, and a potential larger group of people who may benefit from ACE inhibitors and ARBs,” Dr. Chang said.

“Our paper is not the only one to show that we haven’t made a whole lot of progress,” she said, “and now that the bar has been lowered, there [have] to be some renewed efforts on controlling blood pressure, because we know that blood pressure control is such an important risk factor for cardiovascular outcomes.”

Dr. Foti is supported by an NIH/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grant. Dr. Cheung has received consultancy fees from Amgen, Bard, Boehringer Ingelheim, Calliditas, Tricida, and UpToDate, and grant/research support from the National Institutes of Health for SPRINT (monies paid to institution). Dr. Chang has received consultancy fees from Bayer, Gilead, Janssen Research and Development, Novo Nordisk, Tricida, and Vascular Dynamics; grant/research support from AstraZeneca and Satellite Healthcare (monies paid to institution), the NIH, and the American Heart Association; is on advisory boards for AstraZeneca and Fresenius Medical Care Renal Therapies Group; and has received workshop honoraria from Fresenius. Disclosures of relevant financial relationships of the other authors are listed in the original articles.

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

The new 2021 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) clinical practice guideline for blood pressure management for adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) who are not receiving dialysis advises treating to a target systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, provided measurements are “standardized” and that blood pressure is “measured properly.”

This blood pressure target – largely based on evidence from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) – represents “a major update” from the 2012 KDIGO guideline, which advised clinicians to treat to a target blood pressure of less than or equal to 130/80 mm Hg for patients with albuminuria or less than or equal to 140/90 mm Hg for patients without albuminuria.

The new goal is also lower than the less than 130/80 mm Hg target in the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline.

In a study of the public health implications of the guideline, Kathryn Foti, PhD, and colleagues determined that 70% of U.S. adults with CKD would now be eligible for treatment to lower blood pressure, as opposed to 50% under the previous KDIGO guideline and 56% under the ACC/AHA guideline.

“This is a major update of an influential set of guidelines for chronic kidney disease patients” at a time when blood pressure control is worsening in the United States, Dr. Foti, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, said in a statement from her institution.

The 2021 KDIGO blood pressure guideline and executive summary and the public health implications study are published online in Kidney International.
 

First, ‘take blood pressure well’

The cochair of the new KDIGO guidelines, Alfred K. Cheung, MD, from the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview that the guideline has “two important points.”

First, “take that blood pressure well,” he said. “That has a lot to do with patient preparation rather than any fancy instrument,” he emphasized.

Second, the guideline proposes a systolic blood pressure target of less than 120 mm Hg for most people with CKD not receiving dialysis, except for children and kidney transplant recipients. This target is “contingent on ‘standardized’ blood pressure measurement.”

The document provides a checklist for obtaining a standardized blood pressure measurement, adapted from the 2017 ACC/AHA blood pressure guidelines. It starts with the patient relaxed and sitting on a chair for more than 5 minutes.

In contrast to this measurement, a “routine” or “casual” office blood pressure measurement could be off by plus or minus 10 mm Hg, Dr. Cheung noted.

In a typical scenario, he continued, a patient cannot find a place to park, rushes into the clinic, and has his or her blood pressure checked right away, which would provide a “totally unreliable” reading. Adding a “fudge factor” (correction factor) would not provide an accurate reading.

Clinicians “would not settle for a potassium measurement that is 5.0 mmol/L plus or minus a few decimal points” to guide treatment, he pointed out.
 

Second, target 120, properly measured

“The very first chapter of the guidelines is devoted to blood pressure measurement, because we recognize if we’re going to do 120 [mm Hg] – the emphasis is on 120 measured properly – so we try to drive that point home,” Tara I. Chang, MD, guideline second author and a coauthor of the public health implications study, pointed out in an interview.

“There are a lot of other things that we base clinical decisions on where we really require some degree of precision, and blood pressure is important enough that to us it’s kind of in the same boat,” said Dr. Chang, from Stanford (Calif.) University.

“In SPRINT, people were randomized to less than less than 120 vs. less than 140 (they weren’t randomized to <130),” she noted.

“The recommendation should be widely adopted in clinical practice,” the guideline authors write, “since accurate measurements will ensure that proper guidance is being applied to the management of BP, as it is to the management of other risk factors.”
 

Still need individual treatment

Nevertheless, patients still need individualized treatment, the document stresses. “Not every patient with CKD will be appropriate to target to less than 120,” Dr. Chang said. However, “we want people to at least consider less than 120,” she added, to avoid therapeutic inertia.

“If you take the blood pressure in a standardized manner – such as in the ACCORD trial and in the SPRINT trial – even patients over 75 years old, or people over 80 years old, they have very little side effects,” Dr. Cheung noted.

“In the overall cohort,” he continued, “they do not have a significant increase in serious adverse events, do not have adverse events of postural hypotension, syncope, bradycardia, injurious falls – so people are worried about it, but it’s not borne out by the data.

“That said, I have two cautions,” Dr. Cheung noted. “One. If you drop somebody’s blood pressure rapidly over a week, you may be more likely to get in trouble. If you drop the blood pressure gradually over several weeks, several months, you’re much less likely to get into trouble.”

“Two. If the patient is old, you know the patient has carotid stenosis and already has postural dizziness, you may not want to try on that patient – but just because the patient is old is not the reason not to target 120.”
 

ACE inhibitors and ARBs beneficial in albuminuria, underused

“How do you get to less than 120? The short answer is, use whatever medications you need to – there is no necessarily right cocktail,” Dr. Chang said.

“We’ve known that angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and ARBs [angiotensin II receptor blockers] are beneficial in patients with CKD and in particular those with heavier albuminuria,” she continued. “We’ve known this for over 20 years.”

Yet, the study identified underutilization – “a persistent gap, just like blood pressure control and awareness,” she noted. “We’re just not making much headway.

“We are not recommending ACE inhibitors or ARBs for all the patients,” Dr. Cheung clarified. “If you are diabetic and have heavy proteinuria, that’s when the use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs are most indicated.”
 

Public health implications

SPRINT showed that treating to a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg vs. less than 140 mm Hg reduced the risk for cardiovascular disease by 25% and all-cause mortality by 27% for participants with and those without CKD, Dr. Foti and colleagues stress.

They aimed to estimate how the new guideline would affect (1) the number of U.S. patients with CKD who would be eligible for blood pressure lowering treatment, and (2) the proportion of those with albuminuria who would be eligible for an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.

The researchers analyzed data from 1,699 adults with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate, 15-59 mL/min/1.73 m² or a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of ≥30 mg/g) who participated in the 2015-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

Both the 2021 and 2012 KDIGO guidelines recommend that patients with albuminuria and blood pressure higher than the target value who are not kidney transplant recipients should be treated with an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.

On the basis of the new target, 78% of patients with CKD and albuminuria were eligible for ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment by the 2021 KDIGO guideline, compared with 71% by the 2012 KDIGO guideline. However, only 39% were taking one of these drugs.

These findings show that “with the new guideline and with the lower blood pressure target, you potentially have an even larger pool of people who have blood pressure that’s not under control, and a potential larger group of people who may benefit from ACE inhibitors and ARBs,” Dr. Chang said.

“Our paper is not the only one to show that we haven’t made a whole lot of progress,” she said, “and now that the bar has been lowered, there [have] to be some renewed efforts on controlling blood pressure, because we know that blood pressure control is such an important risk factor for cardiovascular outcomes.”

Dr. Foti is supported by an NIH/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grant. Dr. Cheung has received consultancy fees from Amgen, Bard, Boehringer Ingelheim, Calliditas, Tricida, and UpToDate, and grant/research support from the National Institutes of Health for SPRINT (monies paid to institution). Dr. Chang has received consultancy fees from Bayer, Gilead, Janssen Research and Development, Novo Nordisk, Tricida, and Vascular Dynamics; grant/research support from AstraZeneca and Satellite Healthcare (monies paid to institution), the NIH, and the American Heart Association; is on advisory boards for AstraZeneca and Fresenius Medical Care Renal Therapies Group; and has received workshop honoraria from Fresenius. Disclosures of relevant financial relationships of the other authors are listed in the original articles.

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

The new 2021 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) clinical practice guideline for blood pressure management for adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) who are not receiving dialysis advises treating to a target systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, provided measurements are “standardized” and that blood pressure is “measured properly.”

This blood pressure target – largely based on evidence from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) – represents “a major update” from the 2012 KDIGO guideline, which advised clinicians to treat to a target blood pressure of less than or equal to 130/80 mm Hg for patients with albuminuria or less than or equal to 140/90 mm Hg for patients without albuminuria.

The new goal is also lower than the less than 130/80 mm Hg target in the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline.

In a study of the public health implications of the guideline, Kathryn Foti, PhD, and colleagues determined that 70% of U.S. adults with CKD would now be eligible for treatment to lower blood pressure, as opposed to 50% under the previous KDIGO guideline and 56% under the ACC/AHA guideline.

“This is a major update of an influential set of guidelines for chronic kidney disease patients” at a time when blood pressure control is worsening in the United States, Dr. Foti, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, said in a statement from her institution.

The 2021 KDIGO blood pressure guideline and executive summary and the public health implications study are published online in Kidney International.
 

First, ‘take blood pressure well’

The cochair of the new KDIGO guidelines, Alfred K. Cheung, MD, from the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview that the guideline has “two important points.”

First, “take that blood pressure well,” he said. “That has a lot to do with patient preparation rather than any fancy instrument,” he emphasized.

Second, the guideline proposes a systolic blood pressure target of less than 120 mm Hg for most people with CKD not receiving dialysis, except for children and kidney transplant recipients. This target is “contingent on ‘standardized’ blood pressure measurement.”

The document provides a checklist for obtaining a standardized blood pressure measurement, adapted from the 2017 ACC/AHA blood pressure guidelines. It starts with the patient relaxed and sitting on a chair for more than 5 minutes.

In contrast to this measurement, a “routine” or “casual” office blood pressure measurement could be off by plus or minus 10 mm Hg, Dr. Cheung noted.

In a typical scenario, he continued, a patient cannot find a place to park, rushes into the clinic, and has his or her blood pressure checked right away, which would provide a “totally unreliable” reading. Adding a “fudge factor” (correction factor) would not provide an accurate reading.

Clinicians “would not settle for a potassium measurement that is 5.0 mmol/L plus or minus a few decimal points” to guide treatment, he pointed out.
 

Second, target 120, properly measured

“The very first chapter of the guidelines is devoted to blood pressure measurement, because we recognize if we’re going to do 120 [mm Hg] – the emphasis is on 120 measured properly – so we try to drive that point home,” Tara I. Chang, MD, guideline second author and a coauthor of the public health implications study, pointed out in an interview.

“There are a lot of other things that we base clinical decisions on where we really require some degree of precision, and blood pressure is important enough that to us it’s kind of in the same boat,” said Dr. Chang, from Stanford (Calif.) University.

“In SPRINT, people were randomized to less than less than 120 vs. less than 140 (they weren’t randomized to <130),” she noted.

“The recommendation should be widely adopted in clinical practice,” the guideline authors write, “since accurate measurements will ensure that proper guidance is being applied to the management of BP, as it is to the management of other risk factors.”
 

Still need individual treatment

Nevertheless, patients still need individualized treatment, the document stresses. “Not every patient with CKD will be appropriate to target to less than 120,” Dr. Chang said. However, “we want people to at least consider less than 120,” she added, to avoid therapeutic inertia.

“If you take the blood pressure in a standardized manner – such as in the ACCORD trial and in the SPRINT trial – even patients over 75 years old, or people over 80 years old, they have very little side effects,” Dr. Cheung noted.

“In the overall cohort,” he continued, “they do not have a significant increase in serious adverse events, do not have adverse events of postural hypotension, syncope, bradycardia, injurious falls – so people are worried about it, but it’s not borne out by the data.

“That said, I have two cautions,” Dr. Cheung noted. “One. If you drop somebody’s blood pressure rapidly over a week, you may be more likely to get in trouble. If you drop the blood pressure gradually over several weeks, several months, you’re much less likely to get into trouble.”

“Two. If the patient is old, you know the patient has carotid stenosis and already has postural dizziness, you may not want to try on that patient – but just because the patient is old is not the reason not to target 120.”
 

ACE inhibitors and ARBs beneficial in albuminuria, underused

“How do you get to less than 120? The short answer is, use whatever medications you need to – there is no necessarily right cocktail,” Dr. Chang said.

“We’ve known that angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and ARBs [angiotensin II receptor blockers] are beneficial in patients with CKD and in particular those with heavier albuminuria,” she continued. “We’ve known this for over 20 years.”

Yet, the study identified underutilization – “a persistent gap, just like blood pressure control and awareness,” she noted. “We’re just not making much headway.

“We are not recommending ACE inhibitors or ARBs for all the patients,” Dr. Cheung clarified. “If you are diabetic and have heavy proteinuria, that’s when the use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs are most indicated.”
 

Public health implications

SPRINT showed that treating to a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg vs. less than 140 mm Hg reduced the risk for cardiovascular disease by 25% and all-cause mortality by 27% for participants with and those without CKD, Dr. Foti and colleagues stress.

They aimed to estimate how the new guideline would affect (1) the number of U.S. patients with CKD who would be eligible for blood pressure lowering treatment, and (2) the proportion of those with albuminuria who would be eligible for an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.

The researchers analyzed data from 1,699 adults with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate, 15-59 mL/min/1.73 m² or a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of ≥30 mg/g) who participated in the 2015-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

Both the 2021 and 2012 KDIGO guidelines recommend that patients with albuminuria and blood pressure higher than the target value who are not kidney transplant recipients should be treated with an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.

On the basis of the new target, 78% of patients with CKD and albuminuria were eligible for ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment by the 2021 KDIGO guideline, compared with 71% by the 2012 KDIGO guideline. However, only 39% were taking one of these drugs.

These findings show that “with the new guideline and with the lower blood pressure target, you potentially have an even larger pool of people who have blood pressure that’s not under control, and a potential larger group of people who may benefit from ACE inhibitors and ARBs,” Dr. Chang said.

“Our paper is not the only one to show that we haven’t made a whole lot of progress,” she said, “and now that the bar has been lowered, there [have] to be some renewed efforts on controlling blood pressure, because we know that blood pressure control is such an important risk factor for cardiovascular outcomes.”

Dr. Foti is supported by an NIH/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grant. Dr. Cheung has received consultancy fees from Amgen, Bard, Boehringer Ingelheim, Calliditas, Tricida, and UpToDate, and grant/research support from the National Institutes of Health for SPRINT (monies paid to institution). Dr. Chang has received consultancy fees from Bayer, Gilead, Janssen Research and Development, Novo Nordisk, Tricida, and Vascular Dynamics; grant/research support from AstraZeneca and Satellite Healthcare (monies paid to institution), the NIH, and the American Heart Association; is on advisory boards for AstraZeneca and Fresenius Medical Care Renal Therapies Group; and has received workshop honoraria from Fresenius. Disclosures of relevant financial relationships of the other authors are listed in the original articles.

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

Edward H. Livingston, MD, has resigned as deputy editor of JAMA after he and the journal faced significant backlash over a February 2021 podcast that questioned the existence of structural racism.

JAMA editor in chief Howard Bauchner, MD, apologized to JAMA staff and stakeholders and asked for and received Dr. Livingston’s resignation, according to a statement from AMA CEO James Madara.

More than 2,000 people have signed a petition on Change.org calling for an investigation at JAMA over the podcast, called “Structural Racism for Doctors: What Is It?”

It appears they are now getting their wish. Dr. Bauchner announced that the journal’s oversight committee is investigating how the podcast and a tweet promoting the episode were developed, reviewed, and ultimately posted.

“This investigation and report of its findings will be thorough and completed rapidly,” Dr. Bauchner said.

Dr. Livingston, the host of the podcast, has been heavily criticized across social media. During the podcast, Dr. Livingston, who is White, said: “Structural racism is an unfortunate term. Personally, I think taking racism out of the conversation will help. Many of us are offended by the concept that we are racist.”

The audio of the podcast has been deleted from JAMA’s website. In its place is audio of a statement from Dr. Bauchner. In his statement, which he released last week, he said the comments in the podcast, which also featured Mitch Katz, MD, were “inaccurate, offensive, hurtful, and inconsistent with the standards of JAMA.”

Dr. Katz is an editor at JAMA Internal Medicine and CEO of NYC Health + Hospitals in New York.

Also deleted was a JAMA tweet promoting the podcast episode. The tweet said: “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors in this user-friendly podcast.”

The incident was met with anger and confusion in the medical community.

Herbert C. Smitherman, MD, vice dean of diversity and community affairs at Wayne State University, Detroit, noted after hearing the podcast that it was a symptom of a much larger problem.

“At its core, this podcast had racist tendencies. Those attitudes are why you don’t have as many articles by Black and Brown people in JAMA,” he said. “People’s attitudes, whether conscious or unconscious, are what drive the policies and practices which create the structural racism.”

Dr. Katz responded to the backlash last week with the following statement: “Systemic racism exists in our country. The disparate effects of the pandemic have made this painfully clear in New York City and across the country.

“As clinicians, we must understand how these structures and policies have a direct impact on the health outcomes of the patients and communities we serve. It is woefully naive to say that no physician is a racist just because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade it, or that we should avoid the term ‘systematic racism’ because it makes people uncomfortable. We must and can do better.”

JAMA, an independent arm of the AMA, is taking other steps to address concerns. Its executive publisher, Thomas Easley, held an employee town hall this week, and said JAMA acknowledges that “structural racism is real, pernicious, and pervasive in health care.” The journal is also starting an “end-to-end review” of all editorial processes across all JAMA publications. Finally, the journal will also create a new associate editor’s position who will provide “insight and counsel” on racism and structural racism in health care.

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

Edward H. Livingston, MD, has resigned as deputy editor of JAMA after he and the journal faced significant backlash over a February 2021 podcast that questioned the existence of structural racism.

JAMA editor in chief Howard Bauchner, MD, apologized to JAMA staff and stakeholders and asked for and received Dr. Livingston’s resignation, according to a statement from AMA CEO James Madara.

More than 2,000 people have signed a petition on Change.org calling for an investigation at JAMA over the podcast, called “Structural Racism for Doctors: What Is It?”

It appears they are now getting their wish. Dr. Bauchner announced that the journal’s oversight committee is investigating how the podcast and a tweet promoting the episode were developed, reviewed, and ultimately posted.

“This investigation and report of its findings will be thorough and completed rapidly,” Dr. Bauchner said.

Dr. Livingston, the host of the podcast, has been heavily criticized across social media. During the podcast, Dr. Livingston, who is White, said: “Structural racism is an unfortunate term. Personally, I think taking racism out of the conversation will help. Many of us are offended by the concept that we are racist.”

The audio of the podcast has been deleted from JAMA’s website. In its place is audio of a statement from Dr. Bauchner. In his statement, which he released last week, he said the comments in the podcast, which also featured Mitch Katz, MD, were “inaccurate, offensive, hurtful, and inconsistent with the standards of JAMA.”

Dr. Katz is an editor at JAMA Internal Medicine and CEO of NYC Health + Hospitals in New York.

Also deleted was a JAMA tweet promoting the podcast episode. The tweet said: “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors in this user-friendly podcast.”

The incident was met with anger and confusion in the medical community.

Herbert C. Smitherman, MD, vice dean of diversity and community affairs at Wayne State University, Detroit, noted after hearing the podcast that it was a symptom of a much larger problem.

“At its core, this podcast had racist tendencies. Those attitudes are why you don’t have as many articles by Black and Brown people in JAMA,” he said. “People’s attitudes, whether conscious or unconscious, are what drive the policies and practices which create the structural racism.”

Dr. Katz responded to the backlash last week with the following statement: “Systemic racism exists in our country. The disparate effects of the pandemic have made this painfully clear in New York City and across the country.

“As clinicians, we must understand how these structures and policies have a direct impact on the health outcomes of the patients and communities we serve. It is woefully naive to say that no physician is a racist just because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade it, or that we should avoid the term ‘systematic racism’ because it makes people uncomfortable. We must and can do better.”

JAMA, an independent arm of the AMA, is taking other steps to address concerns. Its executive publisher, Thomas Easley, held an employee town hall this week, and said JAMA acknowledges that “structural racism is real, pernicious, and pervasive in health care.” The journal is also starting an “end-to-end review” of all editorial processes across all JAMA publications. Finally, the journal will also create a new associate editor’s position who will provide “insight and counsel” on racism and structural racism in health care.

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

Edward H. Livingston, MD, has resigned as deputy editor of JAMA after he and the journal faced significant backlash over a February 2021 podcast that questioned the existence of structural racism.

JAMA editor in chief Howard Bauchner, MD, apologized to JAMA staff and stakeholders and asked for and received Dr. Livingston’s resignation, according to a statement from AMA CEO James Madara.

More than 2,000 people have signed a petition on Change.org calling for an investigation at JAMA over the podcast, called “Structural Racism for Doctors: What Is It?”

It appears they are now getting their wish. Dr. Bauchner announced that the journal’s oversight committee is investigating how the podcast and a tweet promoting the episode were developed, reviewed, and ultimately posted.

“This investigation and report of its findings will be thorough and completed rapidly,” Dr. Bauchner said.

Dr. Livingston, the host of the podcast, has been heavily criticized across social media. During the podcast, Dr. Livingston, who is White, said: “Structural racism is an unfortunate term. Personally, I think taking racism out of the conversation will help. Many of us are offended by the concept that we are racist.”

The audio of the podcast has been deleted from JAMA’s website. In its place is audio of a statement from Dr. Bauchner. In his statement, which he released last week, he said the comments in the podcast, which also featured Mitch Katz, MD, were “inaccurate, offensive, hurtful, and inconsistent with the standards of JAMA.”

Dr. Katz is an editor at JAMA Internal Medicine and CEO of NYC Health + Hospitals in New York.

Also deleted was a JAMA tweet promoting the podcast episode. The tweet said: “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors in this user-friendly podcast.”

The incident was met with anger and confusion in the medical community.

Herbert C. Smitherman, MD, vice dean of diversity and community affairs at Wayne State University, Detroit, noted after hearing the podcast that it was a symptom of a much larger problem.

“At its core, this podcast had racist tendencies. Those attitudes are why you don’t have as many articles by Black and Brown people in JAMA,” he said. “People’s attitudes, whether conscious or unconscious, are what drive the policies and practices which create the structural racism.”

Dr. Katz responded to the backlash last week with the following statement: “Systemic racism exists in our country. The disparate effects of the pandemic have made this painfully clear in New York City and across the country.

“As clinicians, we must understand how these structures and policies have a direct impact on the health outcomes of the patients and communities we serve. It is woefully naive to say that no physician is a racist just because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade it, or that we should avoid the term ‘systematic racism’ because it makes people uncomfortable. We must and can do better.”

JAMA, an independent arm of the AMA, is taking other steps to address concerns. Its executive publisher, Thomas Easley, held an employee town hall this week, and said JAMA acknowledges that “structural racism is real, pernicious, and pervasive in health care.” The journal is also starting an “end-to-end review” of all editorial processes across all JAMA publications. Finally, the journal will also create a new associate editor’s position who will provide “insight and counsel” on racism and structural racism in health care.

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

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS)(also known as acne inversa) is a chronic, recurrent, and debilitating inflammatory dermatologic disease of the hair follicle. It usually presents after puberty, with painful, deep-seated, inflamed lesions in apocrine gland–bearing areas of the body, most commonly the axillae and inguinal and anogenital regions.¹

Hidradenitis suppurativa patients have a high rate of psychologic and psychiatric comorbidities that often are interrelated and multidirectional. Approximately 1 in 4 adults with HS also experience depression (prevalence among all HS patients, 16.9%), and 1 in 5 experience anxiety (prevalence, 4.9%).^2,3 Hidradenitis suppurativa has been associated with bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and suicidality.^2,4

These comorbidity factors have a remarkable impact on HS patients’ quality of life (QOL). Compared to other diseases, including psoriasis, stroke, and conditions that create candidacy for heart transplantation, HS was identified as the most impairing condition.^5,6 It is estimated that more than 50% of HS patients experience a very or extremely large effect on their QOL, as measured by the dermatology life quality index.⁶

Pain, a major component of low QOL in HS patients, has an adverse impact on emotional health. Hidradenitis suppurativa causes body image dissatisfaction, leading to shame, embarrassment, lack of self-confidence, stigmatization, and social isolation.^7-9 Furthermore, patients with HS have an increased risk for antidepressant drug use, completed suicide, and suicidal behavior compared to the general population.¹⁰

Focusing therapy on physical manifestations of HS only while ignoring the psychologic aspect could lead to a vicious cycle in which stress triggers flares, leading to worsening HS, leading to more stress, and so on.¹¹ Therefore, psychological support for HS patients is critical, and we believe it should be an integral part of managing the disease.

There is no evidence to support effective therapeutic intervention for psychological aspects of HS. We conducted a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the term hidradenitis in combination with psychology, psychological, mindfulness, and cognitive behavioral therapy. No relevant articles were found. Most articles on HS focused on the low QOL associated with the disease and patient coping mechanisms. However, there are a number of psychological therapies to consider and evaluate for the management of HS.

Psychological Therapies to Consider in HS

Cognitive Behavioral Treatment
Cognitive behavioral treatment has been successfully used to manage skin diseases other than HS.¹² Patients’ shame and stigmatization due to body dissatisfaction often cause social isolation, which might appear as social anxiety.^9,13 Cognitive behavioral treatment, or compassion-focused therapy, could increase patients’ self-acceptance and reduce shameful feelings.¹³

Group Therapy
Alternatively, group therapy might be beneficial for HS patients. Research has shown that most HS patients know others affected by the same disease or attend an HS support group, and patients value the support of peers with the disease.¹³ Therefore, group therapy meetings with HS patients that are directed by a health care professional might reduce feelings of shame and stigmatization and increase feelings of social acceptance.

Mindfulness
Another approach for managing psychological aspects of skin diseases that might be useful in HS is mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR), developed by Kabat-Zinn and colleagues,¹⁴ which helps patients develop mindfulness through training in meditation. It is an intensive, structured, patient-centered approach that has been successfully used in a variety of settings.^14,15

Current evidence supports the use of MBSR in the adjunct treatment of chronic pain, anxiety, and depression—symptoms that have a great impact on HS patients’ QOL.¹⁶ Furthermore, MBSR is offered in a group setting, which is potentially an opportunity for peer support and understanding; social support has been reported to be highly beneficial for HS patients.¹⁷

Can the Placebo Effect Aid in Managing HS?

A recent review that assessed the placebo effect in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of treatments for cutaneous disease demonstrated that the placebo effect in HS therapy trials is higher than in RCTs of therapies for psoriasis and eczema. This finding highlights the importance of the physician-patient relationship when managing HS, which can result in greater treatment adherence and more patient education, empowerment, and encouragement toward beneficial lifestyle changes.¹⁸

Complementary psychological interventions for managing HS might maximize the placebo effect in clinical practice.¹⁸ The placebo effect in RCTs is higher for HS treatments than for psoriasis treatments, and if patients with psoriasis improved with psychological interventions,¹² it would be reasonable to expect an improvement in QOL with psychological interventions for HS.

Final Thoughts

Although a number of studies have been published in the medical literature regarding psychological intervention in psoriasis management,¹² we found no clinical studies assessing the psychological management of HS. We conclude that more research is necessary to develop psychological interventions targeting HS patients because a multidisciplinary and patient-centered approach is essential for the management of HS.

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS)(also known as acne inversa) is a chronic, recurrent, and debilitating inflammatory dermatologic disease of the hair follicle. It usually presents after puberty, with painful, deep-seated, inflamed lesions in apocrine gland–bearing areas of the body, most commonly the axillae and inguinal and anogenital regions.¹

Hidradenitis suppurativa patients have a high rate of psychologic and psychiatric comorbidities that often are interrelated and multidirectional. Approximately 1 in 4 adults with HS also experience depression (prevalence among all HS patients, 16.9%), and 1 in 5 experience anxiety (prevalence, 4.9%).^2,3 Hidradenitis suppurativa has been associated with bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and suicidality.^2,4

These comorbidity factors have a remarkable impact on HS patients’ quality of life (QOL). Compared to other diseases, including psoriasis, stroke, and conditions that create candidacy for heart transplantation, HS was identified as the most impairing condition.^5,6 It is estimated that more than 50% of HS patients experience a very or extremely large effect on their QOL, as measured by the dermatology life quality index.⁶

Pain, a major component of low QOL in HS patients, has an adverse impact on emotional health. Hidradenitis suppurativa causes body image dissatisfaction, leading to shame, embarrassment, lack of self-confidence, stigmatization, and social isolation.^7-9 Furthermore, patients with HS have an increased risk for antidepressant drug use, completed suicide, and suicidal behavior compared to the general population.¹⁰

Focusing therapy on physical manifestations of HS only while ignoring the psychologic aspect could lead to a vicious cycle in which stress triggers flares, leading to worsening HS, leading to more stress, and so on.¹¹ Therefore, psychological support for HS patients is critical, and we believe it should be an integral part of managing the disease.

There is no evidence to support effective therapeutic intervention for psychological aspects of HS. We conducted a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the term hidradenitis in combination with psychology, psychological, mindfulness, and cognitive behavioral therapy. No relevant articles were found. Most articles on HS focused on the low QOL associated with the disease and patient coping mechanisms. However, there are a number of psychological therapies to consider and evaluate for the management of HS.

Psychological Therapies to Consider in HS

Cognitive Behavioral Treatment
Cognitive behavioral treatment has been successfully used to manage skin diseases other than HS.¹² Patients’ shame and stigmatization due to body dissatisfaction often cause social isolation, which might appear as social anxiety.^9,13 Cognitive behavioral treatment, or compassion-focused therapy, could increase patients’ self-acceptance and reduce shameful feelings.¹³

Group Therapy
Alternatively, group therapy might be beneficial for HS patients. Research has shown that most HS patients know others affected by the same disease or attend an HS support group, and patients value the support of peers with the disease.¹³ Therefore, group therapy meetings with HS patients that are directed by a health care professional might reduce feelings of shame and stigmatization and increase feelings of social acceptance.

Mindfulness
Another approach for managing psychological aspects of skin diseases that might be useful in HS is mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR), developed by Kabat-Zinn and colleagues,¹⁴ which helps patients develop mindfulness through training in meditation. It is an intensive, structured, patient-centered approach that has been successfully used in a variety of settings.^14,15

Current evidence supports the use of MBSR in the adjunct treatment of chronic pain, anxiety, and depression—symptoms that have a great impact on HS patients’ QOL.¹⁶ Furthermore, MBSR is offered in a group setting, which is potentially an opportunity for peer support and understanding; social support has been reported to be highly beneficial for HS patients.¹⁷

Can the Placebo Effect Aid in Managing HS?

A recent review that assessed the placebo effect in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of treatments for cutaneous disease demonstrated that the placebo effect in HS therapy trials is higher than in RCTs of therapies for psoriasis and eczema. This finding highlights the importance of the physician-patient relationship when managing HS, which can result in greater treatment adherence and more patient education, empowerment, and encouragement toward beneficial lifestyle changes.¹⁸

Complementary psychological interventions for managing HS might maximize the placebo effect in clinical practice.¹⁸ The placebo effect in RCTs is higher for HS treatments than for psoriasis treatments, and if patients with psoriasis improved with psychological interventions,¹² it would be reasonable to expect an improvement in QOL with psychological interventions for HS.

Final Thoughts

Although a number of studies have been published in the medical literature regarding psychological intervention in psoriasis management,¹² we found no clinical studies assessing the psychological management of HS. We conclude that more research is necessary to develop psychological interventions targeting HS patients because a multidisciplinary and patient-centered approach is essential for the management of HS.

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS)(also known as acne inversa) is a chronic, recurrent, and debilitating inflammatory dermatologic disease of the hair follicle. It usually presents after puberty, with painful, deep-seated, inflamed lesions in apocrine gland–bearing areas of the body, most commonly the axillae and inguinal and anogenital regions.¹

Hidradenitis suppurativa patients have a high rate of psychologic and psychiatric comorbidities that often are interrelated and multidirectional. Approximately 1 in 4 adults with HS also experience depression (prevalence among all HS patients, 16.9%), and 1 in 5 experience anxiety (prevalence, 4.9%).^2,3 Hidradenitis suppurativa has been associated with bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and suicidality.^2,4

These comorbidity factors have a remarkable impact on HS patients’ quality of life (QOL). Compared to other diseases, including psoriasis, stroke, and conditions that create candidacy for heart transplantation, HS was identified as the most impairing condition.^5,6 It is estimated that more than 50% of HS patients experience a very or extremely large effect on their QOL, as measured by the dermatology life quality index.⁶

Pain, a major component of low QOL in HS patients, has an adverse impact on emotional health. Hidradenitis suppurativa causes body image dissatisfaction, leading to shame, embarrassment, lack of self-confidence, stigmatization, and social isolation.^7-9 Furthermore, patients with HS have an increased risk for antidepressant drug use, completed suicide, and suicidal behavior compared to the general population.¹⁰

Focusing therapy on physical manifestations of HS only while ignoring the psychologic aspect could lead to a vicious cycle in which stress triggers flares, leading to worsening HS, leading to more stress, and so on.¹¹ Therefore, psychological support for HS patients is critical, and we believe it should be an integral part of managing the disease.

There is no evidence to support effective therapeutic intervention for psychological aspects of HS. We conducted a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the term hidradenitis in combination with psychology, psychological, mindfulness, and cognitive behavioral therapy. No relevant articles were found. Most articles on HS focused on the low QOL associated with the disease and patient coping mechanisms. However, there are a number of psychological therapies to consider and evaluate for the management of HS.

Psychological Therapies to Consider in HS

Cognitive Behavioral Treatment
Cognitive behavioral treatment has been successfully used to manage skin diseases other than HS.¹² Patients’ shame and stigmatization due to body dissatisfaction often cause social isolation, which might appear as social anxiety.^9,13 Cognitive behavioral treatment, or compassion-focused therapy, could increase patients’ self-acceptance and reduce shameful feelings.¹³

Group Therapy
Alternatively, group therapy might be beneficial for HS patients. Research has shown that most HS patients know others affected by the same disease or attend an HS support group, and patients value the support of peers with the disease.¹³ Therefore, group therapy meetings with HS patients that are directed by a health care professional might reduce feelings of shame and stigmatization and increase feelings of social acceptance.

Mindfulness
Another approach for managing psychological aspects of skin diseases that might be useful in HS is mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR), developed by Kabat-Zinn and colleagues,¹⁴ which helps patients develop mindfulness through training in meditation. It is an intensive, structured, patient-centered approach that has been successfully used in a variety of settings.^14,15

Current evidence supports the use of MBSR in the adjunct treatment of chronic pain, anxiety, and depression—symptoms that have a great impact on HS patients’ QOL.¹⁶ Furthermore, MBSR is offered in a group setting, which is potentially an opportunity for peer support and understanding; social support has been reported to be highly beneficial for HS patients.¹⁷

Can the Placebo Effect Aid in Managing HS?

A recent review that assessed the placebo effect in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of treatments for cutaneous disease demonstrated that the placebo effect in HS therapy trials is higher than in RCTs of therapies for psoriasis and eczema. This finding highlights the importance of the physician-patient relationship when managing HS, which can result in greater treatment adherence and more patient education, empowerment, and encouragement toward beneficial lifestyle changes.¹⁸

Complementary psychological interventions for managing HS might maximize the placebo effect in clinical practice.¹⁸ The placebo effect in RCTs is higher for HS treatments than for psoriasis treatments, and if patients with psoriasis improved with psychological interventions,¹² it would be reasonable to expect an improvement in QOL with psychological interventions for HS.

Final Thoughts

Although a number of studies have been published in the medical literature regarding psychological intervention in psoriasis management,¹² we found no clinical studies assessing the psychological management of HS. We conclude that more research is necessary to develop psychological interventions targeting HS patients because a multidisciplinary and patient-centered approach is essential for the management of HS.

A 16-minute podcast from JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association that attempts to discuss structural racism in the U.S. health care system has stirred conversation on social media about the handling and promotion of the episode.

Published on Feb. 23, the episode is hosted on JAMA’s learning platform for doctors and is available for continuing medical education credits.

“No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors in this user-friendly podcast,” JAMA wrote in a Twitter post to promote the episode. That tweet has since been deleted.

“Systemic and interpersonal racism both still exist in our country — they must be rooted out. I do not share the JAMA host’s belief of doing away with the word ‘racism’ will help us be more successful in ending inequities that exists across racial and ethnic lines,” Dr. Katz said. “Further, I believe that we will only produce an equitable society when social and political structures do not continue to produce and perpetuate disparate results based on social race and ethnicity.”

Dr. Katz reiterated that both interpersonal and structural racism continue to exist in the United States, “and it is woefully naive to say that no physician is a racist just because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade it.”

He also recommended JAMA use this controversy “as a learning opportunity for continued dialogue and create another podcast series as an open conversation that invites diverse experts in the field to have an open discussion about structural racism in healthcare.”

The podcast and JAMA’s tweet promoting it were widely criticized on Twitter. In interviews with WebMD, many doctors expressed disbelief that such a respected journal would lend its name to this podcast episode.

B. Bobby Chiong, MD, a radiologist in New York, said although JAMA’s effort to engage with its audience about racism is laudable, it missed the mark.

“I think the backlash comes from how they tried to make a podcast about the subject and somehow made themselves an example of unconscious bias and unfamiliarity with just how embedded in our system is structural racism,” he said. 

Perhaps the podcast’s worst offense was its failure to address the painful history of racial bias in this country that still permeates the medical community, says Tamara Saint-Surin, MD, assistant professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“For physicians in leadership to have the belief that structural racism does not exist in medicine, they don’t really appreciate what affects their patients and what their patients were dealing with,” Dr. Saint-Surin said in an interview. “It was a very harmful podcast and goes to show we still have so much work to do.”

Along with a flawed premise, she says, the podcast was not nearly long enough to address such a nuanced issue. And Dr. Livingston focused on interpersonal racism rather than structural racism, she said, failing to address widespread problems such as higher rates of asthma among Black populations living in areas with poor air quality.

The number of Black doctors remains low and the lack of representation adds to an environment already rife with racism, according to many medical professionals.

Shirlene Obuobi, MD, an internal medicine doctor in Chicago, said JAMA failed to live up to its own standards by publishing material that lacked research and expertise.

“I can’t submit a clinical trial to JAMA without them combing through methods with a fine-tooth comb,” Dr. Obuobi said. “They didn’t uphold the standards they normally apply to anyone else.”

Both the editor of JAMA and the head of the American Medical Association issued statements criticizing the episode and the tweet that promoted it.

JAMA Editor-in-Chief Howard Bauchner, MD, said, “The language of the tweet, and some portions of the podcast, do not reflect my commitment as editorial leader of JAMA and JAMA Network to call out and discuss the adverse effects of injustice, inequity, and racism in society and medicine as JAMA has done for many years.” He said JAMA will schedule a future podcast to address the concerns raised about the recent episode.

AMA CEO James L. Madara, MD, said, “The AMA’s House of Delegates passed policy stating that racism is structural, systemic, cultural, and interpersonal, and we are deeply disturbed – and angered – by a recent JAMA podcast that questioned the existence of structural racism and the affiliated tweet that promoted the podcast and stated ‘no physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care?’ ”

He continued: “JAMA has editorial independence from AMA, but this tweet and podcast are inconsistent with the policies and views of AMA, and I’m concerned about and acknowledge the harms they have caused. Structural racism in health care and our society exists, and it is incumbent on all of us to fix it.”

This article was updated 3/5/21.

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

A 16-minute podcast from JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association that attempts to discuss structural racism in the U.S. health care system has stirred conversation on social media about the handling and promotion of the episode.

Published on Feb. 23, the episode is hosted on JAMA’s learning platform for doctors and is available for continuing medical education credits.

“No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors in this user-friendly podcast,” JAMA wrote in a Twitter post to promote the episode. That tweet has since been deleted.

“Systemic and interpersonal racism both still exist in our country — they must be rooted out. I do not share the JAMA host’s belief of doing away with the word ‘racism’ will help us be more successful in ending inequities that exists across racial and ethnic lines,” Dr. Katz said. “Further, I believe that we will only produce an equitable society when social and political structures do not continue to produce and perpetuate disparate results based on social race and ethnicity.”

Dr. Katz reiterated that both interpersonal and structural racism continue to exist in the United States, “and it is woefully naive to say that no physician is a racist just because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade it.”

He also recommended JAMA use this controversy “as a learning opportunity for continued dialogue and create another podcast series as an open conversation that invites diverse experts in the field to have an open discussion about structural racism in healthcare.”

The podcast and JAMA’s tweet promoting it were widely criticized on Twitter. In interviews with WebMD, many doctors expressed disbelief that such a respected journal would lend its name to this podcast episode.

B. Bobby Chiong, MD, a radiologist in New York, said although JAMA’s effort to engage with its audience about racism is laudable, it missed the mark.

“I think the backlash comes from how they tried to make a podcast about the subject and somehow made themselves an example of unconscious bias and unfamiliarity with just how embedded in our system is structural racism,” he said. 

Perhaps the podcast’s worst offense was its failure to address the painful history of racial bias in this country that still permeates the medical community, says Tamara Saint-Surin, MD, assistant professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“For physicians in leadership to have the belief that structural racism does not exist in medicine, they don’t really appreciate what affects their patients and what their patients were dealing with,” Dr. Saint-Surin said in an interview. “It was a very harmful podcast and goes to show we still have so much work to do.”

Along with a flawed premise, she says, the podcast was not nearly long enough to address such a nuanced issue. And Dr. Livingston focused on interpersonal racism rather than structural racism, she said, failing to address widespread problems such as higher rates of asthma among Black populations living in areas with poor air quality.

The number of Black doctors remains low and the lack of representation adds to an environment already rife with racism, according to many medical professionals.

Shirlene Obuobi, MD, an internal medicine doctor in Chicago, said JAMA failed to live up to its own standards by publishing material that lacked research and expertise.

“I can’t submit a clinical trial to JAMA without them combing through methods with a fine-tooth comb,” Dr. Obuobi said. “They didn’t uphold the standards they normally apply to anyone else.”

Both the editor of JAMA and the head of the American Medical Association issued statements criticizing the episode and the tweet that promoted it.

JAMA Editor-in-Chief Howard Bauchner, MD, said, “The language of the tweet, and some portions of the podcast, do not reflect my commitment as editorial leader of JAMA and JAMA Network to call out and discuss the adverse effects of injustice, inequity, and racism in society and medicine as JAMA has done for many years.” He said JAMA will schedule a future podcast to address the concerns raised about the recent episode.

AMA CEO James L. Madara, MD, said, “The AMA’s House of Delegates passed policy stating that racism is structural, systemic, cultural, and interpersonal, and we are deeply disturbed – and angered – by a recent JAMA podcast that questioned the existence of structural racism and the affiliated tweet that promoted the podcast and stated ‘no physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care?’ ”

He continued: “JAMA has editorial independence from AMA, but this tweet and podcast are inconsistent with the policies and views of AMA, and I’m concerned about and acknowledge the harms they have caused. Structural racism in health care and our society exists, and it is incumbent on all of us to fix it.”

This article was updated 3/5/21.

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

A 16-minute podcast from JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association that attempts to discuss structural racism in the U.S. health care system has stirred conversation on social media about the handling and promotion of the episode.

Published on Feb. 23, the episode is hosted on JAMA’s learning platform for doctors and is available for continuing medical education credits.

“No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors in this user-friendly podcast,” JAMA wrote in a Twitter post to promote the episode. That tweet has since been deleted.

“Systemic and interpersonal racism both still exist in our country — they must be rooted out. I do not share the JAMA host’s belief of doing away with the word ‘racism’ will help us be more successful in ending inequities that exists across racial and ethnic lines,” Dr. Katz said. “Further, I believe that we will only produce an equitable society when social and political structures do not continue to produce and perpetuate disparate results based on social race and ethnicity.”

Dr. Katz reiterated that both interpersonal and structural racism continue to exist in the United States, “and it is woefully naive to say that no physician is a racist just because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade it.”

He also recommended JAMA use this controversy “as a learning opportunity for continued dialogue and create another podcast series as an open conversation that invites diverse experts in the field to have an open discussion about structural racism in healthcare.”

The podcast and JAMA’s tweet promoting it were widely criticized on Twitter. In interviews with WebMD, many doctors expressed disbelief that such a respected journal would lend its name to this podcast episode.

B. Bobby Chiong, MD, a radiologist in New York, said although JAMA’s effort to engage with its audience about racism is laudable, it missed the mark.

“I think the backlash comes from how they tried to make a podcast about the subject and somehow made themselves an example of unconscious bias and unfamiliarity with just how embedded in our system is structural racism,” he said. 

Perhaps the podcast’s worst offense was its failure to address the painful history of racial bias in this country that still permeates the medical community, says Tamara Saint-Surin, MD, assistant professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“For physicians in leadership to have the belief that structural racism does not exist in medicine, they don’t really appreciate what affects their patients and what their patients were dealing with,” Dr. Saint-Surin said in an interview. “It was a very harmful podcast and goes to show we still have so much work to do.”

Along with a flawed premise, she says, the podcast was not nearly long enough to address such a nuanced issue. And Dr. Livingston focused on interpersonal racism rather than structural racism, she said, failing to address widespread problems such as higher rates of asthma among Black populations living in areas with poor air quality.

The number of Black doctors remains low and the lack of representation adds to an environment already rife with racism, according to many medical professionals.

Shirlene Obuobi, MD, an internal medicine doctor in Chicago, said JAMA failed to live up to its own standards by publishing material that lacked research and expertise.

“I can’t submit a clinical trial to JAMA without them combing through methods with a fine-tooth comb,” Dr. Obuobi said. “They didn’t uphold the standards they normally apply to anyone else.”

Both the editor of JAMA and the head of the American Medical Association issued statements criticizing the episode and the tweet that promoted it.

JAMA Editor-in-Chief Howard Bauchner, MD, said, “The language of the tweet, and some portions of the podcast, do not reflect my commitment as editorial leader of JAMA and JAMA Network to call out and discuss the adverse effects of injustice, inequity, and racism in society and medicine as JAMA has done for many years.” He said JAMA will schedule a future podcast to address the concerns raised about the recent episode.

AMA CEO James L. Madara, MD, said, “The AMA’s House of Delegates passed policy stating that racism is structural, systemic, cultural, and interpersonal, and we are deeply disturbed – and angered – by a recent JAMA podcast that questioned the existence of structural racism and the affiliated tweet that promoted the podcast and stated ‘no physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care?’ ”

He continued: “JAMA has editorial independence from AMA, but this tweet and podcast are inconsistent with the policies and views of AMA, and I’m concerned about and acknowledge the harms they have caused. Structural racism in health care and our society exists, and it is incumbent on all of us to fix it.”

This article was updated 3/5/21.

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

Many women with hidradenitis suppurativa have pregnancy-related concerns that go unaddressed by their doctors, according to a study that surveyed 59 women with HS.

Previous studies have shown the potential for adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with inflammatory conditions such as systemic vasculitis and lupus, but such data on HS and pregnancy are limited, which makes patient counseling a challenge, Ademide A. Adelekun, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues wrote.

In a research letter published in JAMA Dermatology, they reported their findings from an email survey of female patients at two academic dermatology departments. A total of 59 women responded to the survey; their average age was 32 years, the majority (76%) had Hurley stage II disease, and 29 (49%) reported having ever been pregnant.

Two of the 29 women (7%) were pregnant at the time of the study survey; 20 of the other 27 pregnant women (74%) said they had full-term births, 4 (15%) reported miscarriages, and 3 (11%) had undergone an abortion.

A total of five patients (9%) reported difficulty getting pregnant after 1 year, and seven (12%) reported undergoing fertility treatments.

Nearly three-quarters of the women (73%) reported that HS had a negative impact on their sexual health, and 54% said they wished their doctors provided more counseling on HS and pregnancy.

A total of 14 patients (24%) said they believed HS affected their ability to become pregnant because of either decreased sexual activity or decreased fertility caused by HS medications, and nearly half (49%) said they believed that discontinuing all HS medications during pregnancy was necessary for safety reasons.

Patients also expressed concern about the possible heritability of HS: 80% said that physicians had not counseled them about HS heritability and 68% expressed concern that their child would have HS.

In addition, 83% said they had not received information about the potential impact of HS on pregnancy, and 22%, or 13 women, were concerned that childbirth would be more difficult; 11 of these 13 women (85%) had HS that affected the vulva and groin, and 4 of the 8 women who reported concerns about difficulty breastfeeding had HS that involved the breast.

Of the 59 patients surveyed, 12 (20%) said they believed HS poses risks to the child, including through transmission of HS in 8 (67%) or through an infection during a vaginal delivery in 7 women (58%).

The prevalence of HS patients’ concerns about pregnancy “may have unfavorable implications for family planning and mental health and may play a role in the inadequate treatment of HS in patients who are pregnant or planning to become pregnant,” the authors noted. “Family planning and prenatal counseling are particularly critical for those with HS given that clinicians weigh the risks of medication use against the benefits of disease control, which is associated with improved pregnancy outcomes for those with inflammatory conditions.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including “recall bias, low response rate, use of a nonvalidated survey, and generalizability to nonacademic settings,” the researchers noted. However, the results emphasize the often-underrecognized concerns of women with HS and the need for improvements in pregnancy-related counseling and systematic evaluation of outcomes.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. This study was funded by a FOCUS Medical Student Fellowship in Women’s Health grant.

Many women with hidradenitis suppurativa have pregnancy-related concerns that go unaddressed by their doctors, according to a study that surveyed 59 women with HS.

Previous studies have shown the potential for adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with inflammatory conditions such as systemic vasculitis and lupus, but such data on HS and pregnancy are limited, which makes patient counseling a challenge, Ademide A. Adelekun, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues wrote.

In a research letter published in JAMA Dermatology, they reported their findings from an email survey of female patients at two academic dermatology departments. A total of 59 women responded to the survey; their average age was 32 years, the majority (76%) had Hurley stage II disease, and 29 (49%) reported having ever been pregnant.

Two of the 29 women (7%) were pregnant at the time of the study survey; 20 of the other 27 pregnant women (74%) said they had full-term births, 4 (15%) reported miscarriages, and 3 (11%) had undergone an abortion.

A total of five patients (9%) reported difficulty getting pregnant after 1 year, and seven (12%) reported undergoing fertility treatments.

Nearly three-quarters of the women (73%) reported that HS had a negative impact on their sexual health, and 54% said they wished their doctors provided more counseling on HS and pregnancy.

A total of 14 patients (24%) said they believed HS affected their ability to become pregnant because of either decreased sexual activity or decreased fertility caused by HS medications, and nearly half (49%) said they believed that discontinuing all HS medications during pregnancy was necessary for safety reasons.

Patients also expressed concern about the possible heritability of HS: 80% said that physicians had not counseled them about HS heritability and 68% expressed concern that their child would have HS.

In addition, 83% said they had not received information about the potential impact of HS on pregnancy, and 22%, or 13 women, were concerned that childbirth would be more difficult; 11 of these 13 women (85%) had HS that affected the vulva and groin, and 4 of the 8 women who reported concerns about difficulty breastfeeding had HS that involved the breast.

Of the 59 patients surveyed, 12 (20%) said they believed HS poses risks to the child, including through transmission of HS in 8 (67%) or through an infection during a vaginal delivery in 7 women (58%).

The prevalence of HS patients’ concerns about pregnancy “may have unfavorable implications for family planning and mental health and may play a role in the inadequate treatment of HS in patients who are pregnant or planning to become pregnant,” the authors noted. “Family planning and prenatal counseling are particularly critical for those with HS given that clinicians weigh the risks of medication use against the benefits of disease control, which is associated with improved pregnancy outcomes for those with inflammatory conditions.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including “recall bias, low response rate, use of a nonvalidated survey, and generalizability to nonacademic settings,” the researchers noted. However, the results emphasize the often-underrecognized concerns of women with HS and the need for improvements in pregnancy-related counseling and systematic evaluation of outcomes.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. This study was funded by a FOCUS Medical Student Fellowship in Women’s Health grant.

Many women with hidradenitis suppurativa have pregnancy-related concerns that go unaddressed by their doctors, according to a study that surveyed 59 women with HS.

Previous studies have shown the potential for adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with inflammatory conditions such as systemic vasculitis and lupus, but such data on HS and pregnancy are limited, which makes patient counseling a challenge, Ademide A. Adelekun, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues wrote.

In a research letter published in JAMA Dermatology, they reported their findings from an email survey of female patients at two academic dermatology departments. A total of 59 women responded to the survey; their average age was 32 years, the majority (76%) had Hurley stage II disease, and 29 (49%) reported having ever been pregnant.

Two of the 29 women (7%) were pregnant at the time of the study survey; 20 of the other 27 pregnant women (74%) said they had full-term births, 4 (15%) reported miscarriages, and 3 (11%) had undergone an abortion.

A total of five patients (9%) reported difficulty getting pregnant after 1 year, and seven (12%) reported undergoing fertility treatments.

Nearly three-quarters of the women (73%) reported that HS had a negative impact on their sexual health, and 54% said they wished their doctors provided more counseling on HS and pregnancy.

A total of 14 patients (24%) said they believed HS affected their ability to become pregnant because of either decreased sexual activity or decreased fertility caused by HS medications, and nearly half (49%) said they believed that discontinuing all HS medications during pregnancy was necessary for safety reasons.

Patients also expressed concern about the possible heritability of HS: 80% said that physicians had not counseled them about HS heritability and 68% expressed concern that their child would have HS.

In addition, 83% said they had not received information about the potential impact of HS on pregnancy, and 22%, or 13 women, were concerned that childbirth would be more difficult; 11 of these 13 women (85%) had HS that affected the vulva and groin, and 4 of the 8 women who reported concerns about difficulty breastfeeding had HS that involved the breast.

Of the 59 patients surveyed, 12 (20%) said they believed HS poses risks to the child, including through transmission of HS in 8 (67%) or through an infection during a vaginal delivery in 7 women (58%).

The prevalence of HS patients’ concerns about pregnancy “may have unfavorable implications for family planning and mental health and may play a role in the inadequate treatment of HS in patients who are pregnant or planning to become pregnant,” the authors noted. “Family planning and prenatal counseling are particularly critical for those with HS given that clinicians weigh the risks of medication use against the benefits of disease control, which is associated with improved pregnancy outcomes for those with inflammatory conditions.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including “recall bias, low response rate, use of a nonvalidated survey, and generalizability to nonacademic settings,” the researchers noted. However, the results emphasize the often-underrecognized concerns of women with HS and the need for improvements in pregnancy-related counseling and systematic evaluation of outcomes.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. This study was funded by a FOCUS Medical Student Fellowship in Women’s Health grant.

Many emergency medicine (EM) physicians who responded to a Medscape survey said they have treated COVID-19 patients without appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE).

In the Medscape Emergency Medicine Physicians’ COVID-19 Experience Report, 21% of respondents said that that was sometimes the case; 7% said that it was often the case; and 1% said they always treat patients without appropriate PPE.

EM physicians were the physicians most likely to treat COVID-19 patients in person.

Steep income drops

Survey authors wrote that two-thirds of EM physicians have experienced income loss during the pandemic. Most (71%) saw their income drop by between 11% and 50%; 11% saw a decrease of more than 50%. Among other specialties, the percentages of those who have experienced a drop of more than 50% are far higher. Among ophthalmologists, 51% said they had experienced such a drop; among allergists, 46%; plastic surgeons, 46%; and otolaryngologists, 45%.

Asked whether their burnout levels have increased in the wake of COVID-19, 74% of EM physicians said burnout had intensified; 23% reported no change; and 3% said burnout had lessened.

Reports of loneliness have been widespread during the pandemic, owing to stay-at-home orders and social distancing. More EM physicians than physicians in general said feelings of loneliness had increased for them in the past year.

More than half of EM doctors (55%) said they are experiencing more loneliness in the pandemic, compared with 46% of all physicians who felt that way; 42% said those feelings have not changed; and 3% said they have been less lonely.
 

Grief and stress relief

Fewer than half (42%) of the respondents reported that their workplace offers clinician activities to help with grief and stress; 39% said their workplace didn’t offer such help; and 19% said they were unsure.

The percentages were nearly identical to the percentages of physicians overall who answered whether their workplace offered help for grief and stress.

Along with insecurity regarding physical and mental health, COVID-19 has introduced more questions about financial health. Here’s a look at how emergency physicians said they would change the way they save and spend.

Challenges to daily practice

By the time this survey was taken, a large percentage of patients had delayed or avoided urgent or routine medical care for reasons related to COVID-19, so survey authors asked whether EM physicians’ patient population had changed.

Survey authors wrote that “most EM physicians (82%) are seeing patients with non-COVID diseases, such as cardiovascular problems or diabetes, who otherwise probably would have sought treatment earlier.”

COVID-19 has also thrown a major obstacle into most EM physicians’ careers by preventing them from doing the job to the best of their ability. That loss is one of the three primary components of burnout.

More than two-thirds (67%) said COVID-19 has hampered their ability to be as good a doctor as they would like.

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

Many emergency medicine (EM) physicians who responded to a Medscape survey said they have treated COVID-19 patients without appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE).

In the Medscape Emergency Medicine Physicians’ COVID-19 Experience Report, 21% of respondents said that that was sometimes the case; 7% said that it was often the case; and 1% said they always treat patients without appropriate PPE.

EM physicians were the physicians most likely to treat COVID-19 patients in person.

Steep income drops

Survey authors wrote that two-thirds of EM physicians have experienced income loss during the pandemic. Most (71%) saw their income drop by between 11% and 50%; 11% saw a decrease of more than 50%. Among other specialties, the percentages of those who have experienced a drop of more than 50% are far higher. Among ophthalmologists, 51% said they had experienced such a drop; among allergists, 46%; plastic surgeons, 46%; and otolaryngologists, 45%.

Asked whether their burnout levels have increased in the wake of COVID-19, 74% of EM physicians said burnout had intensified; 23% reported no change; and 3% said burnout had lessened.

Reports of loneliness have been widespread during the pandemic, owing to stay-at-home orders and social distancing. More EM physicians than physicians in general said feelings of loneliness had increased for them in the past year.

More than half of EM doctors (55%) said they are experiencing more loneliness in the pandemic, compared with 46% of all physicians who felt that way; 42% said those feelings have not changed; and 3% said they have been less lonely.
 

Grief and stress relief

Fewer than half (42%) of the respondents reported that their workplace offers clinician activities to help with grief and stress; 39% said their workplace didn’t offer such help; and 19% said they were unsure.

The percentages were nearly identical to the percentages of physicians overall who answered whether their workplace offered help for grief and stress.

Along with insecurity regarding physical and mental health, COVID-19 has introduced more questions about financial health. Here’s a look at how emergency physicians said they would change the way they save and spend.

Challenges to daily practice

By the time this survey was taken, a large percentage of patients had delayed or avoided urgent or routine medical care for reasons related to COVID-19, so survey authors asked whether EM physicians’ patient population had changed.

Survey authors wrote that “most EM physicians (82%) are seeing patients with non-COVID diseases, such as cardiovascular problems or diabetes, who otherwise probably would have sought treatment earlier.”

COVID-19 has also thrown a major obstacle into most EM physicians’ careers by preventing them from doing the job to the best of their ability. That loss is one of the three primary components of burnout.

More than two-thirds (67%) said COVID-19 has hampered their ability to be as good a doctor as they would like.

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

Many emergency medicine (EM) physicians who responded to a Medscape survey said they have treated COVID-19 patients without appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE).

In the Medscape Emergency Medicine Physicians’ COVID-19 Experience Report, 21% of respondents said that that was sometimes the case; 7% said that it was often the case; and 1% said they always treat patients without appropriate PPE.

EM physicians were the physicians most likely to treat COVID-19 patients in person.

Steep income drops

Survey authors wrote that two-thirds of EM physicians have experienced income loss during the pandemic. Most (71%) saw their income drop by between 11% and 50%; 11% saw a decrease of more than 50%. Among other specialties, the percentages of those who have experienced a drop of more than 50% are far higher. Among ophthalmologists, 51% said they had experienced such a drop; among allergists, 46%; plastic surgeons, 46%; and otolaryngologists, 45%.

Asked whether their burnout levels have increased in the wake of COVID-19, 74% of EM physicians said burnout had intensified; 23% reported no change; and 3% said burnout had lessened.

Reports of loneliness have been widespread during the pandemic, owing to stay-at-home orders and social distancing. More EM physicians than physicians in general said feelings of loneliness had increased for them in the past year.

More than half of EM doctors (55%) said they are experiencing more loneliness in the pandemic, compared with 46% of all physicians who felt that way; 42% said those feelings have not changed; and 3% said they have been less lonely.
 

Grief and stress relief

Fewer than half (42%) of the respondents reported that their workplace offers clinician activities to help with grief and stress; 39% said their workplace didn’t offer such help; and 19% said they were unsure.

The percentages were nearly identical to the percentages of physicians overall who answered whether their workplace offered help for grief and stress.

Along with insecurity regarding physical and mental health, COVID-19 has introduced more questions about financial health. Here’s a look at how emergency physicians said they would change the way they save and spend.

Challenges to daily practice

By the time this survey was taken, a large percentage of patients had delayed or avoided urgent or routine medical care for reasons related to COVID-19, so survey authors asked whether EM physicians’ patient population had changed.

Survey authors wrote that “most EM physicians (82%) are seeing patients with non-COVID diseases, such as cardiovascular problems or diabetes, who otherwise probably would have sought treatment earlier.”

COVID-19 has also thrown a major obstacle into most EM physicians’ careers by preventing them from doing the job to the best of their ability. That loss is one of the three primary components of burnout.

More than two-thirds (67%) said COVID-19 has hampered their ability to be as good a doctor as they would like.

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

Nearly a quarter of ED visits were deemed preventable in a single-center study of patients with non–small cell lung cancer.

The leading cause of ED visits in the study was the cancer itself, although many visits were unrelated to non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or cancer therapy.

Less than 10% of ED visits were related to cancer therapy, but visits were much more common among patients receiving chemotherapy than among those receiving immunotherapy or tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs).

Manan P. Shah, MD, and Joel W. Neal, MD, PhD, both of Stanford (Calif. ) University, reported these results in JCO Oncology Practice.

The authors noted that, in the United States, care of patients with cancer, among all diseases, leads to the highest per-person cost. Unplanned hospital visits are among the largest drivers of increased spending in advanced cancer care, accounting for 48% of spending. However, that spending may not be indicative of better quality care, but rather of inefficiency, according to the authors.

One registry spanning 2009-2012 and including more than 400,000 newly diagnosed cancer patients found lung cancer to have the third-highest rate of unplanned hospitalizations (after hepatobiliary and pancreatic cancer). Those findings were published in JCO Oncology Practice in 2018.

While the reason for presentation to the ED is often the cancer or its therapy in this population, there is a paucity of research on the relative contribution of factors leading to unplanned hospital visits.

Common precipitants of medical emergencies in advanced stages of lung cancer include pulmonary embolism, obstructive pneumonia, spinal cord compression caused by metastasis, and tumor progression or pleural effusion leading to respiratory failure.

Lung cancer therapies, such as TKIs, immunotherapy, and cytotoxic chemotherapy, can also cause various medical emergencies arising out of skin reactions, gastrointestinal dysfunction, organ inflammatory processes, and bone marrow suppression.
 

Identifying drivers of unplanned ED visits

The primary goals of Dr. Shah and Dr. Neal’s study were to understand the drivers of unplanned ED visits and identify potential strategies to prevent them.

Drawing from the Stanford Medicine Research Data Repository, the authors identified 97 NSCLC patients with 173 ED visits at Stanford.

Patients were sorted according to which of the three therapies they had been receiving in the 3 months prior to the unplanned visit – TKIs (n = 47), immunotherapy (n = 24), or chemotherapy (n = 26). Patients receiving a combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy were classified under the immunotherapy category.

ED visits were divided into four categories: cancer related, therapy related, unrelated to cancer or therapy, and rule-out (when an outpatient provider sent the patient to rule out medico-oncologic emergencies such as pulmonary embolism or cord compression).

If the patient’s main complaint(s) began 2 or more days before presentation, the diagnostics or therapeutics could have been provided in an outpatient setting (e.g., in clinic or urgent care), and the patient was discharged directly from the ED, the encounter was classified as potentially preventable. Among these preventable encounters, those made during business hours were also labeled unnecessary because they could have been managed through the Stanford sick call system for same-day urgent visits.
 

Leading cause is cancer

Overall, the leading cause of ED visits was NSCLC itself (54%). The patient’s cancer contributed to 61% of ED visits in the TKI group, 49% in the immunotherapy group, and 42% in the chemotherapy group.

Many ED visits were deemed unrelated to cancer or its therapies – 30% in the TKI group, 26% in the immunotherapy group, and 32% in the chemotherapy group.

Rule-out cases contributed to 7% of ED visits in the TKI group, 14% in the immunotherapy group, and 5% in the chemotherapy group.

Overall, 9% of ED visits were therapy related. The smallest proportion of these was observed in the TKI group (2%), which was significantly smaller than in the immunotherapy group (12%), a rate also significantly smaller than in the chemotherapy group (21%, P < .001).

Most unplanned ED visits did not lead to admissions (55%), were for complaints that began 2 or more days prior to presentation (53%), led to diagnostics or therapeutics that could have been administered in an outpatient setting (48%), and were during business hours (52%).

As a result, 24% of visits were classified as preventable, and 10% were deemed unnecessary.
 

Preventive strategies

“Our study suggests that TKIs lead to fewer emergency room visits than immunotherapy and chemotherapy,” Dr. Shah said in an interview.

“Overall, this may not necessarily change which therapy we prescribe,” he added, “as TKI therapy is often first line for patients with targeted mutations. However, recognizing that those on chemotherapy or immunotherapy are at higher risk for emergency room visits, we may target preventative strategies, for example, nursing phone calls, telemonitoring of symptoms, and frequent video visits toward this high-risk population.”

Dr. Shah and Dr. Neal said it’s “reassuring” that TKIs and immunotherapy are small drivers of unplanned hospital care. However, they also said efforts aimed at reducing chemotherapy-related ED visits are warranted.

The authors speculated that early intervention, extension of ambulatory care, and patient education about outpatient avenues of care could eliminate a significant proportion (at least 20%) of unplanned ED visits by NSCLC patients.

There was no specific funding for this study. Dr. Shah disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Neal disclosed relationships with many companies, including this news organization.

Nearly a quarter of ED visits were deemed preventable in a single-center study of patients with non–small cell lung cancer.

The leading cause of ED visits in the study was the cancer itself, although many visits were unrelated to non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or cancer therapy.

Less than 10% of ED visits were related to cancer therapy, but visits were much more common among patients receiving chemotherapy than among those receiving immunotherapy or tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs).

Manan P. Shah, MD, and Joel W. Neal, MD, PhD, both of Stanford (Calif. ) University, reported these results in JCO Oncology Practice.

The authors noted that, in the United States, care of patients with cancer, among all diseases, leads to the highest per-person cost. Unplanned hospital visits are among the largest drivers of increased spending in advanced cancer care, accounting for 48% of spending. However, that spending may not be indicative of better quality care, but rather of inefficiency, according to the authors.

One registry spanning 2009-2012 and including more than 400,000 newly diagnosed cancer patients found lung cancer to have the third-highest rate of unplanned hospitalizations (after hepatobiliary and pancreatic cancer). Those findings were published in JCO Oncology Practice in 2018.

While the reason for presentation to the ED is often the cancer or its therapy in this population, there is a paucity of research on the relative contribution of factors leading to unplanned hospital visits.

Common precipitants of medical emergencies in advanced stages of lung cancer include pulmonary embolism, obstructive pneumonia, spinal cord compression caused by metastasis, and tumor progression or pleural effusion leading to respiratory failure.

Lung cancer therapies, such as TKIs, immunotherapy, and cytotoxic chemotherapy, can also cause various medical emergencies arising out of skin reactions, gastrointestinal dysfunction, organ inflammatory processes, and bone marrow suppression.
 

Identifying drivers of unplanned ED visits

The primary goals of Dr. Shah and Dr. Neal’s study were to understand the drivers of unplanned ED visits and identify potential strategies to prevent them.

Drawing from the Stanford Medicine Research Data Repository, the authors identified 97 NSCLC patients with 173 ED visits at Stanford.

Patients were sorted according to which of the three therapies they had been receiving in the 3 months prior to the unplanned visit – TKIs (n = 47), immunotherapy (n = 24), or chemotherapy (n = 26). Patients receiving a combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy were classified under the immunotherapy category.

ED visits were divided into four categories: cancer related, therapy related, unrelated to cancer or therapy, and rule-out (when an outpatient provider sent the patient to rule out medico-oncologic emergencies such as pulmonary embolism or cord compression).

If the patient’s main complaint(s) began 2 or more days before presentation, the diagnostics or therapeutics could have been provided in an outpatient setting (e.g., in clinic or urgent care), and the patient was discharged directly from the ED, the encounter was classified as potentially preventable. Among these preventable encounters, those made during business hours were also labeled unnecessary because they could have been managed through the Stanford sick call system for same-day urgent visits.
 

Leading cause is cancer

Overall, the leading cause of ED visits was NSCLC itself (54%). The patient’s cancer contributed to 61% of ED visits in the TKI group, 49% in the immunotherapy group, and 42% in the chemotherapy group.

Many ED visits were deemed unrelated to cancer or its therapies – 30% in the TKI group, 26% in the immunotherapy group, and 32% in the chemotherapy group.

Rule-out cases contributed to 7% of ED visits in the TKI group, 14% in the immunotherapy group, and 5% in the chemotherapy group.

Overall, 9% of ED visits were therapy related. The smallest proportion of these was observed in the TKI group (2%), which was significantly smaller than in the immunotherapy group (12%), a rate also significantly smaller than in the chemotherapy group (21%, P < .001).

Most unplanned ED visits did not lead to admissions (55%), were for complaints that began 2 or more days prior to presentation (53%), led to diagnostics or therapeutics that could have been administered in an outpatient setting (48%), and were during business hours (52%).

As a result, 24% of visits were classified as preventable, and 10% were deemed unnecessary.
 

Preventive strategies

“Our study suggests that TKIs lead to fewer emergency room visits than immunotherapy and chemotherapy,” Dr. Shah said in an interview.

“Overall, this may not necessarily change which therapy we prescribe,” he added, “as TKI therapy is often first line for patients with targeted mutations. However, recognizing that those on chemotherapy or immunotherapy are at higher risk for emergency room visits, we may target preventative strategies, for example, nursing phone calls, telemonitoring of symptoms, and frequent video visits toward this high-risk population.”

Dr. Shah and Dr. Neal said it’s “reassuring” that TKIs and immunotherapy are small drivers of unplanned hospital care. However, they also said efforts aimed at reducing chemotherapy-related ED visits are warranted.

The authors speculated that early intervention, extension of ambulatory care, and patient education about outpatient avenues of care could eliminate a significant proportion (at least 20%) of unplanned ED visits by NSCLC patients.

There was no specific funding for this study. Dr. Shah disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Neal disclosed relationships with many companies, including this news organization.

Nearly a quarter of ED visits were deemed preventable in a single-center study of patients with non–small cell lung cancer.

The leading cause of ED visits in the study was the cancer itself, although many visits were unrelated to non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or cancer therapy.

Less than 10% of ED visits were related to cancer therapy, but visits were much more common among patients receiving chemotherapy than among those receiving immunotherapy or tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs).

Manan P. Shah, MD, and Joel W. Neal, MD, PhD, both of Stanford (Calif. ) University, reported these results in JCO Oncology Practice.

The authors noted that, in the United States, care of patients with cancer, among all diseases, leads to the highest per-person cost. Unplanned hospital visits are among the largest drivers of increased spending in advanced cancer care, accounting for 48% of spending. However, that spending may not be indicative of better quality care, but rather of inefficiency, according to the authors.

One registry spanning 2009-2012 and including more than 400,000 newly diagnosed cancer patients found lung cancer to have the third-highest rate of unplanned hospitalizations (after hepatobiliary and pancreatic cancer). Those findings were published in JCO Oncology Practice in 2018.

While the reason for presentation to the ED is often the cancer or its therapy in this population, there is a paucity of research on the relative contribution of factors leading to unplanned hospital visits.

Common precipitants of medical emergencies in advanced stages of lung cancer include pulmonary embolism, obstructive pneumonia, spinal cord compression caused by metastasis, and tumor progression or pleural effusion leading to respiratory failure.

Lung cancer therapies, such as TKIs, immunotherapy, and cytotoxic chemotherapy, can also cause various medical emergencies arising out of skin reactions, gastrointestinal dysfunction, organ inflammatory processes, and bone marrow suppression.
 

Identifying drivers of unplanned ED visits

The primary goals of Dr. Shah and Dr. Neal’s study were to understand the drivers of unplanned ED visits and identify potential strategies to prevent them.

Drawing from the Stanford Medicine Research Data Repository, the authors identified 97 NSCLC patients with 173 ED visits at Stanford.

Patients were sorted according to which of the three therapies they had been receiving in the 3 months prior to the unplanned visit – TKIs (n = 47), immunotherapy (n = 24), or chemotherapy (n = 26). Patients receiving a combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy were classified under the immunotherapy category.

ED visits were divided into four categories: cancer related, therapy related, unrelated to cancer or therapy, and rule-out (when an outpatient provider sent the patient to rule out medico-oncologic emergencies such as pulmonary embolism or cord compression).

If the patient’s main complaint(s) began 2 or more days before presentation, the diagnostics or therapeutics could have been provided in an outpatient setting (e.g., in clinic or urgent care), and the patient was discharged directly from the ED, the encounter was classified as potentially preventable. Among these preventable encounters, those made during business hours were also labeled unnecessary because they could have been managed through the Stanford sick call system for same-day urgent visits.
 

Leading cause is cancer

Overall, the leading cause of ED visits was NSCLC itself (54%). The patient’s cancer contributed to 61% of ED visits in the TKI group, 49% in the immunotherapy group, and 42% in the chemotherapy group.

Many ED visits were deemed unrelated to cancer or its therapies – 30% in the TKI group, 26% in the immunotherapy group, and 32% in the chemotherapy group.

Rule-out cases contributed to 7% of ED visits in the TKI group, 14% in the immunotherapy group, and 5% in the chemotherapy group.

Overall, 9% of ED visits were therapy related. The smallest proportion of these was observed in the TKI group (2%), which was significantly smaller than in the immunotherapy group (12%), a rate also significantly smaller than in the chemotherapy group (21%, P < .001).

Most unplanned ED visits did not lead to admissions (55%), were for complaints that began 2 or more days prior to presentation (53%), led to diagnostics or therapeutics that could have been administered in an outpatient setting (48%), and were during business hours (52%).

As a result, 24% of visits were classified as preventable, and 10% were deemed unnecessary.
 

Preventive strategies

“Our study suggests that TKIs lead to fewer emergency room visits than immunotherapy and chemotherapy,” Dr. Shah said in an interview.

“Overall, this may not necessarily change which therapy we prescribe,” he added, “as TKI therapy is often first line for patients with targeted mutations. However, recognizing that those on chemotherapy or immunotherapy are at higher risk for emergency room visits, we may target preventative strategies, for example, nursing phone calls, telemonitoring of symptoms, and frequent video visits toward this high-risk population.”

Dr. Shah and Dr. Neal said it’s “reassuring” that TKIs and immunotherapy are small drivers of unplanned hospital care. However, they also said efforts aimed at reducing chemotherapy-related ED visits are warranted.

The authors speculated that early intervention, extension of ambulatory care, and patient education about outpatient avenues of care could eliminate a significant proportion (at least 20%) of unplanned ED visits by NSCLC patients.

There was no specific funding for this study. Dr. Shah disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Neal disclosed relationships with many companies, including this news organization.

Women treated with oral bisphosphonate drugs for osteoporosis for 5 years get no additional benefit – in terms of hip fracture risk – if the treatment is extended for another 5 years, new research shows.

Raycat/Getty Images

“We found that hip fracture risk in women did not differ if women stopped bisphosphonate use after 5 years or stayed on the medication for 10 years,” coauthor Joan C. Lo, MD, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, said in an interview.

The new study, published Dec. 7 in JAMA Network Open, did show a small benefit in continuing the treatment through 7 years vs. 5 years, but it wasn’t clear if this was significant.

“Whether there is a benefit to staying on the drug for 7 years needs to be further studied in randomized trials,” Dr. Lo stressed.

It is well established that oral bisphosphonates are effective in reducing the risk for fracture within the first 3-5 years of treatment; however, evidence on the effects of treatment beyond 5 years is lacking.

The most recent guidance from the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) on the issue, which were released in 2015, recommends continuation of bisphosphonates beyond 5 years for high-risk patients, but it recommends a “drug holiday” for low-risk patients.
 

Study adds important new evidence

However, that guidance acknowledges that data are limited regarding long-term use. This large new study adds important new evidence to the discussion, Robert A. Adler, MD, who was a member of the ASBMR Task Force for the recent guidance, said in an interview.

“[With the lack of recent research,] this new study from Kaiser Permanente is of great interest,” said Dr. Adler, chief of endocrinology and metabolism at Central Virginia Veterans Affairs Health Care System and professor of internal medicine and of epidemiology at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

“It is new data and suggests we might temper our enthusiasm for long-term treatment with bisphosphonates,” he said.

“Importantly, it is the first large observational trial and is closer to a real-world setting than a randomized controlled trial,” he said.

But, Dr. Adler emphasized: “The take-home message is that while this suggests that patients can probably be given a drug holiday for a couple of years ... they should be retested, and if they appear to be at an increased risk of fracture, they probably should restart again.

“Osteoporosis is a chronic disorder,” he emphasized. “It isn’t cured by any of our treatments, and as people get older, they are at a higher fracture risk.

“So we really need to follow our patients for a lifetime and reassess their fracture risk every couple of years – whether they are still on therapy or on a drug holiday.”
 

Possible that 7 years is better than 5 but remains to be proven

The new study involved data from Kaiser Permanente Northern and Southern California on 29,685 women who had completed 5 years of treatment with oral bisphosphonates, including alendronate, risedronate, or ibandronate, between 2002 and 2014.

Among the women, 11,105 (37%) continued taking the drugs beyond 5 years to 7 years, and 2,725 (9.2%) completed a total of 10 years of treatment.

Their median age was 71. Among those for whom bone mineral density data were available, 37% had osteoporosis after the first 5 years of treatment.

During these 5 years of treatment, 507 hip fractures occurred.

The cumulative incidence of hip fracture among for those who discontinued study therapy at entry, i.e., those who underwent treatment for 5 years, was 23.0 per 1,000 individuals.

After 7 years of treatment, the rate was 20.8 per 1000. For those who continued therapy for 10 years, the rate was 26.8 per 1000 individuals.

The rate in the 7-year treatment group was based on patients taking a 6-month drug holiday after the initial 5 years, but the results are hard to interpret, Dr. Lo said.

“It’s possible that 7 years is better than 5, but this is not a randomized trial, and some of the data analyses done in the study suggest more research should be done to look at a benefit after 7 years.

“At the end of the day, doctors and women need to decide at 5 years what an individual woman’s risk fracture risk is and determine if she should stay on the drug longer,” Dr. Lo emphasized.
 

Limitations: Subgroups not identified, adherence hard to assess

The uncertainty of any benefit of treatment with bisphosphonates beyond 5 years is further reflected in U.S. recommendations – the Food and Drug Administration has concluded on the basis of pooled data from the extension phase of major clinical trials that any advantages of treatment beyond 3-5 years are unclear.

Key limitations of the current study include the fact that the incidence of hip fracture was not evaluated in low-risk vs. high-risk subgroups; therefore, “these findings may not be applicable to older women at higher risk of osteoporotic fracture,” the authors wrote.

Furthermore, the study did not assess outcomes of fractures other than hip fractures, such as vertebral fractures, they noted.

Dr. Adler pointed out that another limitation is that adherence in the trial was defined as taking 60% of prescribed pills.

“I think this is the biggest weakness with the study,” he said. “Particularly with medications like oral bisphosphonates that don’t really make patients feel any different, it’s a real challenge to make sure patients continue to take these drugs properly.”

The findings should give some reassurance for patients who take a break from the drugs after 5 years. However, reassessment of their risk is critical, Dr. Adler reiterated.

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging and the National Institute of Arthritis, Musculoskeletal, and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. The authors and Adler have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women treated with oral bisphosphonate drugs for osteoporosis for 5 years get no additional benefit – in terms of hip fracture risk – if the treatment is extended for another 5 years, new research shows.

Raycat/Getty Images

“We found that hip fracture risk in women did not differ if women stopped bisphosphonate use after 5 years or stayed on the medication for 10 years,” coauthor Joan C. Lo, MD, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, said in an interview.

The new study, published Dec. 7 in JAMA Network Open, did show a small benefit in continuing the treatment through 7 years vs. 5 years, but it wasn’t clear if this was significant.

“Whether there is a benefit to staying on the drug for 7 years needs to be further studied in randomized trials,” Dr. Lo stressed.

It is well established that oral bisphosphonates are effective in reducing the risk for fracture within the first 3-5 years of treatment; however, evidence on the effects of treatment beyond 5 years is lacking.

The most recent guidance from the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) on the issue, which were released in 2015, recommends continuation of bisphosphonates beyond 5 years for high-risk patients, but it recommends a “drug holiday” for low-risk patients.
 

Study adds important new evidence

However, that guidance acknowledges that data are limited regarding long-term use. This large new study adds important new evidence to the discussion, Robert A. Adler, MD, who was a member of the ASBMR Task Force for the recent guidance, said in an interview.

“[With the lack of recent research,] this new study from Kaiser Permanente is of great interest,” said Dr. Adler, chief of endocrinology and metabolism at Central Virginia Veterans Affairs Health Care System and professor of internal medicine and of epidemiology at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

“It is new data and suggests we might temper our enthusiasm for long-term treatment with bisphosphonates,” he said.

“Importantly, it is the first large observational trial and is closer to a real-world setting than a randomized controlled trial,” he said.

But, Dr. Adler emphasized: “The take-home message is that while this suggests that patients can probably be given a drug holiday for a couple of years ... they should be retested, and if they appear to be at an increased risk of fracture, they probably should restart again.

“Osteoporosis is a chronic disorder,” he emphasized. “It isn’t cured by any of our treatments, and as people get older, they are at a higher fracture risk.

“So we really need to follow our patients for a lifetime and reassess their fracture risk every couple of years – whether they are still on therapy or on a drug holiday.”
 

Possible that 7 years is better than 5 but remains to be proven

The new study involved data from Kaiser Permanente Northern and Southern California on 29,685 women who had completed 5 years of treatment with oral bisphosphonates, including alendronate, risedronate, or ibandronate, between 2002 and 2014.

Among the women, 11,105 (37%) continued taking the drugs beyond 5 years to 7 years, and 2,725 (9.2%) completed a total of 10 years of treatment.

Their median age was 71. Among those for whom bone mineral density data were available, 37% had osteoporosis after the first 5 years of treatment.

During these 5 years of treatment, 507 hip fractures occurred.

The cumulative incidence of hip fracture among for those who discontinued study therapy at entry, i.e., those who underwent treatment for 5 years, was 23.0 per 1,000 individuals.

After 7 years of treatment, the rate was 20.8 per 1000. For those who continued therapy for 10 years, the rate was 26.8 per 1000 individuals.

The rate in the 7-year treatment group was based on patients taking a 6-month drug holiday after the initial 5 years, but the results are hard to interpret, Dr. Lo said.

“It’s possible that 7 years is better than 5, but this is not a randomized trial, and some of the data analyses done in the study suggest more research should be done to look at a benefit after 7 years.

“At the end of the day, doctors and women need to decide at 5 years what an individual woman’s risk fracture risk is and determine if she should stay on the drug longer,” Dr. Lo emphasized.
 

Limitations: Subgroups not identified, adherence hard to assess

The uncertainty of any benefit of treatment with bisphosphonates beyond 5 years is further reflected in U.S. recommendations – the Food and Drug Administration has concluded on the basis of pooled data from the extension phase of major clinical trials that any advantages of treatment beyond 3-5 years are unclear.

Key limitations of the current study include the fact that the incidence of hip fracture was not evaluated in low-risk vs. high-risk subgroups; therefore, “these findings may not be applicable to older women at higher risk of osteoporotic fracture,” the authors wrote.

Furthermore, the study did not assess outcomes of fractures other than hip fractures, such as vertebral fractures, they noted.

Dr. Adler pointed out that another limitation is that adherence in the trial was defined as taking 60% of prescribed pills.

“I think this is the biggest weakness with the study,” he said. “Particularly with medications like oral bisphosphonates that don’t really make patients feel any different, it’s a real challenge to make sure patients continue to take these drugs properly.”

The findings should give some reassurance for patients who take a break from the drugs after 5 years. However, reassessment of their risk is critical, Dr. Adler reiterated.

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging and the National Institute of Arthritis, Musculoskeletal, and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. The authors and Adler have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women treated with oral bisphosphonate drugs for osteoporosis for 5 years get no additional benefit – in terms of hip fracture risk – if the treatment is extended for another 5 years, new research shows.

Raycat/Getty Images

“We found that hip fracture risk in women did not differ if women stopped bisphosphonate use after 5 years or stayed on the medication for 10 years,” coauthor Joan C. Lo, MD, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, said in an interview.

The new study, published Dec. 7 in JAMA Network Open, did show a small benefit in continuing the treatment through 7 years vs. 5 years, but it wasn’t clear if this was significant.

“Whether there is a benefit to staying on the drug for 7 years needs to be further studied in randomized trials,” Dr. Lo stressed.

It is well established that oral bisphosphonates are effective in reducing the risk for fracture within the first 3-5 years of treatment; however, evidence on the effects of treatment beyond 5 years is lacking.

The most recent guidance from the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) on the issue, which were released in 2015, recommends continuation of bisphosphonates beyond 5 years for high-risk patients, but it recommends a “drug holiday” for low-risk patients.
 

Study adds important new evidence

However, that guidance acknowledges that data are limited regarding long-term use. This large new study adds important new evidence to the discussion, Robert A. Adler, MD, who was a member of the ASBMR Task Force for the recent guidance, said in an interview.

“[With the lack of recent research,] this new study from Kaiser Permanente is of great interest,” said Dr. Adler, chief of endocrinology and metabolism at Central Virginia Veterans Affairs Health Care System and professor of internal medicine and of epidemiology at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.

“It is new data and suggests we might temper our enthusiasm for long-term treatment with bisphosphonates,” he said.

“Importantly, it is the first large observational trial and is closer to a real-world setting than a randomized controlled trial,” he said.

But, Dr. Adler emphasized: “The take-home message is that while this suggests that patients can probably be given a drug holiday for a couple of years ... they should be retested, and if they appear to be at an increased risk of fracture, they probably should restart again.

“Osteoporosis is a chronic disorder,” he emphasized. “It isn’t cured by any of our treatments, and as people get older, they are at a higher fracture risk.

“So we really need to follow our patients for a lifetime and reassess their fracture risk every couple of years – whether they are still on therapy or on a drug holiday.”
 

Possible that 7 years is better than 5 but remains to be proven

The new study involved data from Kaiser Permanente Northern and Southern California on 29,685 women who had completed 5 years of treatment with oral bisphosphonates, including alendronate, risedronate, or ibandronate, between 2002 and 2014.

Among the women, 11,105 (37%) continued taking the drugs beyond 5 years to 7 years, and 2,725 (9.2%) completed a total of 10 years of treatment.

Their median age was 71. Among those for whom bone mineral density data were available, 37% had osteoporosis after the first 5 years of treatment.

During these 5 years of treatment, 507 hip fractures occurred.

The cumulative incidence of hip fracture among for those who discontinued study therapy at entry, i.e., those who underwent treatment for 5 years, was 23.0 per 1,000 individuals.

After 7 years of treatment, the rate was 20.8 per 1000. For those who continued therapy for 10 years, the rate was 26.8 per 1000 individuals.

The rate in the 7-year treatment group was based on patients taking a 6-month drug holiday after the initial 5 years, but the results are hard to interpret, Dr. Lo said.

“It’s possible that 7 years is better than 5, but this is not a randomized trial, and some of the data analyses done in the study suggest more research should be done to look at a benefit after 7 years.

“At the end of the day, doctors and women need to decide at 5 years what an individual woman’s risk fracture risk is and determine if she should stay on the drug longer,” Dr. Lo emphasized.
 

Limitations: Subgroups not identified, adherence hard to assess

The uncertainty of any benefit of treatment with bisphosphonates beyond 5 years is further reflected in U.S. recommendations – the Food and Drug Administration has concluded on the basis of pooled data from the extension phase of major clinical trials that any advantages of treatment beyond 3-5 years are unclear.

Key limitations of the current study include the fact that the incidence of hip fracture was not evaluated in low-risk vs. high-risk subgroups; therefore, “these findings may not be applicable to older women at higher risk of osteoporotic fracture,” the authors wrote.

Furthermore, the study did not assess outcomes of fractures other than hip fractures, such as vertebral fractures, they noted.

Dr. Adler pointed out that another limitation is that adherence in the trial was defined as taking 60% of prescribed pills.

“I think this is the biggest weakness with the study,” he said. “Particularly with medications like oral bisphosphonates that don’t really make patients feel any different, it’s a real challenge to make sure patients continue to take these drugs properly.”

The findings should give some reassurance for patients who take a break from the drugs after 5 years. However, reassessment of their risk is critical, Dr. Adler reiterated.

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging and the National Institute of Arthritis, Musculoskeletal, and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. The authors and Adler have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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