MDedge Emergency Medicine

Use of mepolizumab significantly reduced the need for maintenance oral corticosteroids in adults with severe asthma, based on data from more than 800 individuals.

Many patients with severe asthma require bursts of systemic corticosteroids (SCS) or maintenance oral corticosteroids (mOCS) for disease control, but these strategies are associated with side effects that can increase the disease burden, wrote Charles Pilette, MD, of Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Brussels, and colleagues.

Previous studies have shown that the humanized, monoclonal anti-interleukin (IL)–5 antibody mepolizumab, which is approved for the treatment of severe asthma, reduced use of SCS and has shown effectiveness in less homogeneous populations, but robust, real-world data on the occurrence and magnitude of these effects are lacking, the researchers said.

In a study known as REALITI-A, the researchers enrolled 822 adults with asthma diagnoses from 82 centers in Europe, Canada, and the United States who initiated mepolizumab at a subcutaneous dose of 100 mg. The study endpoints included daily use of oral corticosteroids at baseline and 1 year, percentage reduction in oral corticosteroid use from baseline, patients discontinuing oral corticosteroids; the primary outcome was the rate of clinically significant exacerbations (CSEs). CSEs were defined as the need for OCS for at least 3 days/parenteral administration, and/or an emergency department or hospital admission before and after treatment. The mean age of the participants was 54 years, 63% were women, and 60% were never-smokers. The mean asthma duration was 19.7 years.

A total of 319 patients (39%), used mOCS at baseline, and dose information was available for 298.

Real-world outcomes

At 1 year, the median mOCS dose in the study population was reduced by 75%, and 64% reduced their mOCS dose by at least 50% from baseline.

In addition, the proportion of patients who discontinued daily mOCS increased from 29% during week 25-28 to 43% during week 53-56.

Overall, 80% of patients remained on mepolizumab at 1 year. Lack of efficacy and patient decision were the top two reasons for discontinuation (6% and 4%, respectively).

The primary outcome of rate of CSE decreased by a clinically significant rate ratio of 0.29 (P < .001).

“The requirement for SCS bursts was also reduced, as observed by a decreased rate of CSEs,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. The results were consistent for patients receiving lower (less than 10 mg/day) or higher (10 mg/day or more) mOCS doses at baseline, they said. No unexpected safety signals were noted during the study period.

“Furthermore, mepolizumab was associated with significant decreases in the rate of exacerbations requiring hospitalizations, or those requiring hospitalization or an ER visit, improved symptom control, and lower work productivity and activity impairment,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the observational design, lack of mepolizumab comparator, and open-label data capture, the researchers noted. However, the results were consistent with similar studies, and support the use of mepolizumab as part of the standard of care for clinically effective disease control in severe asthma patients, they concluded.

The study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline. Lead author Dr. Pilette disclosed fees for advisory boards, speaker meetings, and 42 research grants from GSK, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Novartis, Teva, and ALK-Abello.

Use of mepolizumab significantly reduced the need for maintenance oral corticosteroids in adults with severe asthma, based on data from more than 800 individuals.

Many patients with severe asthma require bursts of systemic corticosteroids (SCS) or maintenance oral corticosteroids (mOCS) for disease control, but these strategies are associated with side effects that can increase the disease burden, wrote Charles Pilette, MD, of Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Brussels, and colleagues.

Previous studies have shown that the humanized, monoclonal anti-interleukin (IL)–5 antibody mepolizumab, which is approved for the treatment of severe asthma, reduced use of SCS and has shown effectiveness in less homogeneous populations, but robust, real-world data on the occurrence and magnitude of these effects are lacking, the researchers said.

In a study known as REALITI-A, the researchers enrolled 822 adults with asthma diagnoses from 82 centers in Europe, Canada, and the United States who initiated mepolizumab at a subcutaneous dose of 100 mg. The study endpoints included daily use of oral corticosteroids at baseline and 1 year, percentage reduction in oral corticosteroid use from baseline, patients discontinuing oral corticosteroids; the primary outcome was the rate of clinically significant exacerbations (CSEs). CSEs were defined as the need for OCS for at least 3 days/parenteral administration, and/or an emergency department or hospital admission before and after treatment. The mean age of the participants was 54 years, 63% were women, and 60% were never-smokers. The mean asthma duration was 19.7 years.

A total of 319 patients (39%), used mOCS at baseline, and dose information was available for 298.

Real-world outcomes

At 1 year, the median mOCS dose in the study population was reduced by 75%, and 64% reduced their mOCS dose by at least 50% from baseline.

In addition, the proportion of patients who discontinued daily mOCS increased from 29% during week 25-28 to 43% during week 53-56.

Overall, 80% of patients remained on mepolizumab at 1 year. Lack of efficacy and patient decision were the top two reasons for discontinuation (6% and 4%, respectively).

The primary outcome of rate of CSE decreased by a clinically significant rate ratio of 0.29 (P < .001).

“The requirement for SCS bursts was also reduced, as observed by a decreased rate of CSEs,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. The results were consistent for patients receiving lower (less than 10 mg/day) or higher (10 mg/day or more) mOCS doses at baseline, they said. No unexpected safety signals were noted during the study period.

“Furthermore, mepolizumab was associated with significant decreases in the rate of exacerbations requiring hospitalizations, or those requiring hospitalization or an ER visit, improved symptom control, and lower work productivity and activity impairment,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the observational design, lack of mepolizumab comparator, and open-label data capture, the researchers noted. However, the results were consistent with similar studies, and support the use of mepolizumab as part of the standard of care for clinically effective disease control in severe asthma patients, they concluded.

The study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline. Lead author Dr. Pilette disclosed fees for advisory boards, speaker meetings, and 42 research grants from GSK, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Novartis, Teva, and ALK-Abello.

Use of mepolizumab significantly reduced the need for maintenance oral corticosteroids in adults with severe asthma, based on data from more than 800 individuals.

Many patients with severe asthma require bursts of systemic corticosteroids (SCS) or maintenance oral corticosteroids (mOCS) for disease control, but these strategies are associated with side effects that can increase the disease burden, wrote Charles Pilette, MD, of Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Brussels, and colleagues.

Previous studies have shown that the humanized, monoclonal anti-interleukin (IL)–5 antibody mepolizumab, which is approved for the treatment of severe asthma, reduced use of SCS and has shown effectiveness in less homogeneous populations, but robust, real-world data on the occurrence and magnitude of these effects are lacking, the researchers said.

In a study known as REALITI-A, the researchers enrolled 822 adults with asthma diagnoses from 82 centers in Europe, Canada, and the United States who initiated mepolizumab at a subcutaneous dose of 100 mg. The study endpoints included daily use of oral corticosteroids at baseline and 1 year, percentage reduction in oral corticosteroid use from baseline, patients discontinuing oral corticosteroids; the primary outcome was the rate of clinically significant exacerbations (CSEs). CSEs were defined as the need for OCS for at least 3 days/parenteral administration, and/or an emergency department or hospital admission before and after treatment. The mean age of the participants was 54 years, 63% were women, and 60% were never-smokers. The mean asthma duration was 19.7 years.

A total of 319 patients (39%), used mOCS at baseline, and dose information was available for 298.

Real-world outcomes

At 1 year, the median mOCS dose in the study population was reduced by 75%, and 64% reduced their mOCS dose by at least 50% from baseline.

In addition, the proportion of patients who discontinued daily mOCS increased from 29% during week 25-28 to 43% during week 53-56.

Overall, 80% of patients remained on mepolizumab at 1 year. Lack of efficacy and patient decision were the top two reasons for discontinuation (6% and 4%, respectively).

The primary outcome of rate of CSE decreased by a clinically significant rate ratio of 0.29 (P < .001).

“The requirement for SCS bursts was also reduced, as observed by a decreased rate of CSEs,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. The results were consistent for patients receiving lower (less than 10 mg/day) or higher (10 mg/day or more) mOCS doses at baseline, they said. No unexpected safety signals were noted during the study period.

“Furthermore, mepolizumab was associated with significant decreases in the rate of exacerbations requiring hospitalizations, or those requiring hospitalization or an ER visit, improved symptom control, and lower work productivity and activity impairment,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the observational design, lack of mepolizumab comparator, and open-label data capture, the researchers noted. However, the results were consistent with similar studies, and support the use of mepolizumab as part of the standard of care for clinically effective disease control in severe asthma patients, they concluded.

The study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline. Lead author Dr. Pilette disclosed fees for advisory boards, speaker meetings, and 42 research grants from GSK, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Novartis, Teva, and ALK-Abello.

Hospitals in low-income and rural areas of the United States are much less likely to adopt stroke certification than hospitals in high-income and urban communities, a new study shows.

Further, other results showed that, after adjustment for population and hospital size, access to stroke-certified hospitals is significantly lower in Black, racially segregated communities.

The study was published online  in JAMA Neurology.

Noting that stroke-certified hospitals provide higher-quality stroke care, the authors, led by Yu-Chu Shen, PhD, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, Calif., conclude that: “Our findings suggest that structural inequities in stroke care may be an important consideration in eliminating stroke disparities for vulnerable populations.”

©Aaron Kohr/Thinkstock.com

She said there is a tendency to think this is a result of some sort of bias on the part of health care professionals. “We wanted to look deep down in the system and whether the built environment of health care supply and geographic distribution of services contributed to access and treatment inequities.”

The study combined a dataset of hospital stroke certification from all general acute nonfederal hospitals in the continental United States from January 2009 to December 2019. National, hospital, and census data were used to identify historically underserved communities by racial and ethnic composition, income distribution, and rurality.

A total of 4,984 hospitals were assessed. Results showed that over the 11-year study period, the number of hospitals with stroke certification grew from 961 (19%) to 1,763 (36%).

Without controlling for population and hospital size, hospitals in predominantly Black, racially segregated areas were 1.67-fold more likely to adopt stroke care of any level than those in predominantly non-Black, racially segregated areas (hazard ratio, 1.67; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-1.97).

However, after adjustment for population and hospital size, the likelihood of adopting stroke care among hospitals serving Black, racially segregated communities was significantly lower than among those serving non-Black, racially segregated communities (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62-0.89).

“In other words, on a per-capita basis, a hospital serving a predominantly Black, racially segregated community was 26% less likely to adopt stroke certification of any level than a hospital in a predominantly non-Black, racially segregated community,” the authors state.

In terms of socioeconomic factors, hospitals serving low-income, economically integrated (HR, 0.23) and low-income, economically segregated (HR, 0.29) areas were far less likely to adopt any level of stroke care certification than hospitals serving high-income areas, regardless of income segregation.

Rural hospitals were also much less likely to adopt any level of stroke care than urban hospitals (HR, 0.10).

“Our results suggest that it might be necessary to incentivize hospitals operating in underserved communities to seek stroke certification or to entice hospitals with higher propensity to adopt stroke care to operate in such communities so access at the per-patient level becomes more equitable,” the authors say.

This project was supported by the Pilot Project Award from the National Bureau of Economic Research Center for Aging and Health Research, funded by the National Institute on Aging and by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health. Dr. Shen and Dr. Hsia have received grants from the National Institute of Aging and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

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

Hospitals in low-income and rural areas of the United States are much less likely to adopt stroke certification than hospitals in high-income and urban communities, a new study shows.

Further, other results showed that, after adjustment for population and hospital size, access to stroke-certified hospitals is significantly lower in Black, racially segregated communities.

The study was published online  in JAMA Neurology.

Noting that stroke-certified hospitals provide higher-quality stroke care, the authors, led by Yu-Chu Shen, PhD, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, Calif., conclude that: “Our findings suggest that structural inequities in stroke care may be an important consideration in eliminating stroke disparities for vulnerable populations.”

©Aaron Kohr/Thinkstock.com

She said there is a tendency to think this is a result of some sort of bias on the part of health care professionals. “We wanted to look deep down in the system and whether the built environment of health care supply and geographic distribution of services contributed to access and treatment inequities.”

The study combined a dataset of hospital stroke certification from all general acute nonfederal hospitals in the continental United States from January 2009 to December 2019. National, hospital, and census data were used to identify historically underserved communities by racial and ethnic composition, income distribution, and rurality.

A total of 4,984 hospitals were assessed. Results showed that over the 11-year study period, the number of hospitals with stroke certification grew from 961 (19%) to 1,763 (36%).

Without controlling for population and hospital size, hospitals in predominantly Black, racially segregated areas were 1.67-fold more likely to adopt stroke care of any level than those in predominantly non-Black, racially segregated areas (hazard ratio, 1.67; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-1.97).

However, after adjustment for population and hospital size, the likelihood of adopting stroke care among hospitals serving Black, racially segregated communities was significantly lower than among those serving non-Black, racially segregated communities (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62-0.89).

“In other words, on a per-capita basis, a hospital serving a predominantly Black, racially segregated community was 26% less likely to adopt stroke certification of any level than a hospital in a predominantly non-Black, racially segregated community,” the authors state.

In terms of socioeconomic factors, hospitals serving low-income, economically integrated (HR, 0.23) and low-income, economically segregated (HR, 0.29) areas were far less likely to adopt any level of stroke care certification than hospitals serving high-income areas, regardless of income segregation.

Rural hospitals were also much less likely to adopt any level of stroke care than urban hospitals (HR, 0.10).

“Our results suggest that it might be necessary to incentivize hospitals operating in underserved communities to seek stroke certification or to entice hospitals with higher propensity to adopt stroke care to operate in such communities so access at the per-patient level becomes more equitable,” the authors say.

This project was supported by the Pilot Project Award from the National Bureau of Economic Research Center for Aging and Health Research, funded by the National Institute on Aging and by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health. Dr. Shen and Dr. Hsia have received grants from the National Institute of Aging and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

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

Hospitals in low-income and rural areas of the United States are much less likely to adopt stroke certification than hospitals in high-income and urban communities, a new study shows.

Further, other results showed that, after adjustment for population and hospital size, access to stroke-certified hospitals is significantly lower in Black, racially segregated communities.

The study was published online  in JAMA Neurology.

Noting that stroke-certified hospitals provide higher-quality stroke care, the authors, led by Yu-Chu Shen, PhD, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, Calif., conclude that: “Our findings suggest that structural inequities in stroke care may be an important consideration in eliminating stroke disparities for vulnerable populations.”

©Aaron Kohr/Thinkstock.com

She said there is a tendency to think this is a result of some sort of bias on the part of health care professionals. “We wanted to look deep down in the system and whether the built environment of health care supply and geographic distribution of services contributed to access and treatment inequities.”

The study combined a dataset of hospital stroke certification from all general acute nonfederal hospitals in the continental United States from January 2009 to December 2019. National, hospital, and census data were used to identify historically underserved communities by racial and ethnic composition, income distribution, and rurality.

A total of 4,984 hospitals were assessed. Results showed that over the 11-year study period, the number of hospitals with stroke certification grew from 961 (19%) to 1,763 (36%).

Without controlling for population and hospital size, hospitals in predominantly Black, racially segregated areas were 1.67-fold more likely to adopt stroke care of any level than those in predominantly non-Black, racially segregated areas (hazard ratio, 1.67; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-1.97).

However, after adjustment for population and hospital size, the likelihood of adopting stroke care among hospitals serving Black, racially segregated communities was significantly lower than among those serving non-Black, racially segregated communities (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62-0.89).

“In other words, on a per-capita basis, a hospital serving a predominantly Black, racially segregated community was 26% less likely to adopt stroke certification of any level than a hospital in a predominantly non-Black, racially segregated community,” the authors state.

In terms of socioeconomic factors, hospitals serving low-income, economically integrated (HR, 0.23) and low-income, economically segregated (HR, 0.29) areas were far less likely to adopt any level of stroke care certification than hospitals serving high-income areas, regardless of income segregation.

Rural hospitals were also much less likely to adopt any level of stroke care than urban hospitals (HR, 0.10).

“Our results suggest that it might be necessary to incentivize hospitals operating in underserved communities to seek stroke certification or to entice hospitals with higher propensity to adopt stroke care to operate in such communities so access at the per-patient level becomes more equitable,” the authors say.

This project was supported by the Pilot Project Award from the National Bureau of Economic Research Center for Aging and Health Research, funded by the National Institute on Aging and by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health. Dr. Shen and Dr. Hsia have received grants from the National Institute of Aging and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

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

Air pollution levels mediated the impact of temperature on oxygen saturation in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) based on data from 117 individuals.

COPD is attributed to environmental factors including air pollution, and air pollution has been linked to increased risk of hospitalization and mortality because of acute COPD exacerbation, wrote Huan Minh Tran, PhD, of Taipei (Taiwan) Medical University and colleagues. However, the effects of air pollution on climate-associated health outcomes in COPD have not been explored, they said.

In a study published in Science of The Total Environment the researchers identified 117 adult COPD patients at a single center in Taiwan. They measured lung function, 6-minute walking distance, oxygen desaturation, white blood cell count, and percent emphysema (defined as low attenuation area [LAA]) and linked them to 0- to 1-year, 0- to 3-year, and 0- to 5-year lags in exposures to relative humidity (RH), temperature, and air pollution. The mean age of the participants was 72.9 years; 93% were men.

Pollution was defined in terms of fine particulate matter (PM2.5).

Overall, an increase in RH by 1% was associated with increases in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), eosinophils, and lymphocytes.

A 1% increase in RH also was associated with a decrease in the total-lobe LAA.

As for temperature, an increase of 1° C was associated with decreased oxygen desaturation and with decreases in right-, left-, and upper-lobe LAA values.

When the researchers examined the impact of pollution, they found that a 1 mcg/m³ increase in PM2.5 was associated with a decrease in the FEV₁ as well as with an increase in oxygen desaturation. A 1 mcg/m³ increase in PM10 and PM2.5 was associated with increases in the total-, right-, left, and upper-lobe LAA; increases in lower-lobe LAA were associated with an increase in PM2.5 only.

“This is reasonable because PM2.5 can travel and deposit in distal parts of the lung, while PM10 is preferably deposited in the larger airways of the upper lung regions,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.

A one part per billion increase in nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) was associated with decreased FEV₁ and increased upper-lobe LAA.

“We observed that NO₂ fully mediated the association between RH and FEV₁, while PM2.5 fully mediated associations of temperature with oxygen saturation and emphysema severity in COPD patients,” the researchers added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the relatively small and homogeneous male, Taiwanese population, which may limit generalizability, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the lack of control for factors such as body mass index, occupational exposure, comorbidities, medication use, and indoor air pollution, they said.

However, the results suggest that air pollution could have an effect on the established associations between climate and adverse health outcomes in COPD, and more research is needed. Climate change–related air pollution is an important public health issue, especially with regards to respiratory disease,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Air pollution levels mediated the impact of temperature on oxygen saturation in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) based on data from 117 individuals.

COPD is attributed to environmental factors including air pollution, and air pollution has been linked to increased risk of hospitalization and mortality because of acute COPD exacerbation, wrote Huan Minh Tran, PhD, of Taipei (Taiwan) Medical University and colleagues. However, the effects of air pollution on climate-associated health outcomes in COPD have not been explored, they said.

In a study published in Science of The Total Environment the researchers identified 117 adult COPD patients at a single center in Taiwan. They measured lung function, 6-minute walking distance, oxygen desaturation, white blood cell count, and percent emphysema (defined as low attenuation area [LAA]) and linked them to 0- to 1-year, 0- to 3-year, and 0- to 5-year lags in exposures to relative humidity (RH), temperature, and air pollution. The mean age of the participants was 72.9 years; 93% were men.

Pollution was defined in terms of fine particulate matter (PM2.5).

Overall, an increase in RH by 1% was associated with increases in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), eosinophils, and lymphocytes.

A 1% increase in RH also was associated with a decrease in the total-lobe LAA.

As for temperature, an increase of 1° C was associated with decreased oxygen desaturation and with decreases in right-, left-, and upper-lobe LAA values.

When the researchers examined the impact of pollution, they found that a 1 mcg/m³ increase in PM2.5 was associated with a decrease in the FEV₁ as well as with an increase in oxygen desaturation. A 1 mcg/m³ increase in PM10 and PM2.5 was associated with increases in the total-, right-, left, and upper-lobe LAA; increases in lower-lobe LAA were associated with an increase in PM2.5 only.

“This is reasonable because PM2.5 can travel and deposit in distal parts of the lung, while PM10 is preferably deposited in the larger airways of the upper lung regions,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.

A one part per billion increase in nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) was associated with decreased FEV₁ and increased upper-lobe LAA.

“We observed that NO₂ fully mediated the association between RH and FEV₁, while PM2.5 fully mediated associations of temperature with oxygen saturation and emphysema severity in COPD patients,” the researchers added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the relatively small and homogeneous male, Taiwanese population, which may limit generalizability, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the lack of control for factors such as body mass index, occupational exposure, comorbidities, medication use, and indoor air pollution, they said.

However, the results suggest that air pollution could have an effect on the established associations between climate and adverse health outcomes in COPD, and more research is needed. Climate change–related air pollution is an important public health issue, especially with regards to respiratory disease,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Air pollution levels mediated the impact of temperature on oxygen saturation in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) based on data from 117 individuals.

COPD is attributed to environmental factors including air pollution, and air pollution has been linked to increased risk of hospitalization and mortality because of acute COPD exacerbation, wrote Huan Minh Tran, PhD, of Taipei (Taiwan) Medical University and colleagues. However, the effects of air pollution on climate-associated health outcomes in COPD have not been explored, they said.

In a study published in Science of The Total Environment the researchers identified 117 adult COPD patients at a single center in Taiwan. They measured lung function, 6-minute walking distance, oxygen desaturation, white blood cell count, and percent emphysema (defined as low attenuation area [LAA]) and linked them to 0- to 1-year, 0- to 3-year, and 0- to 5-year lags in exposures to relative humidity (RH), temperature, and air pollution. The mean age of the participants was 72.9 years; 93% were men.

Pollution was defined in terms of fine particulate matter (PM2.5).

Overall, an increase in RH by 1% was associated with increases in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), eosinophils, and lymphocytes.

A 1% increase in RH also was associated with a decrease in the total-lobe LAA.

As for temperature, an increase of 1° C was associated with decreased oxygen desaturation and with decreases in right-, left-, and upper-lobe LAA values.

When the researchers examined the impact of pollution, they found that a 1 mcg/m³ increase in PM2.5 was associated with a decrease in the FEV₁ as well as with an increase in oxygen desaturation. A 1 mcg/m³ increase in PM10 and PM2.5 was associated with increases in the total-, right-, left, and upper-lobe LAA; increases in lower-lobe LAA were associated with an increase in PM2.5 only.

“This is reasonable because PM2.5 can travel and deposit in distal parts of the lung, while PM10 is preferably deposited in the larger airways of the upper lung regions,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.

A one part per billion increase in nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) was associated with decreased FEV₁ and increased upper-lobe LAA.

“We observed that NO₂ fully mediated the association between RH and FEV₁, while PM2.5 fully mediated associations of temperature with oxygen saturation and emphysema severity in COPD patients,” the researchers added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the relatively small and homogeneous male, Taiwanese population, which may limit generalizability, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the lack of control for factors such as body mass index, occupational exposure, comorbidities, medication use, and indoor air pollution, they said.

However, the results suggest that air pollution could have an effect on the established associations between climate and adverse health outcomes in COPD, and more research is needed. Climate change–related air pollution is an important public health issue, especially with regards to respiratory disease,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Skin manifestations of COVID-19 were among the topics presented in several sessions at the 49th Congress of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. Specialists agreed that fewer skin changes associated with this virus have been seen with the latest variants of SARS-CoV-2. They highlighted the results of the most remarkable research on this topic that were presented in this forum.

In the study, which was carried out by Spanish dermatologists with the support of the AEDV, researchers analyzed skin reactions associated with the COVID-19 vaccine.

Study author Cristina Galván, MD, a dermatologist at the University Hospital of Móstoles, Madrid, said, “This is the first study that analyzes a significant number of cases assessed by dermatologists and illustrated with clinical images of the dermatological manifestations caused as a reaction to these vaccines.”

The study was carried out during the first months of COVID-19 vaccination, Dr. Galván told this news organization. It was proposed as a continuation of a COVID skin study that was published in the British Journal of Dermatology. That study documented the first classification of skin lesions associated with COVID-19. Dr. Galván is the lead author of the latter study.

“The objectives of this study were to characterize and classify skin reactions after vaccination, identify their chronology, and analyze the associations with a series of antecedents: dermatological and allergic diseases, previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and skin reactions associated with COVID-19,” said Dr. Galván. The study was a team effort, she added.

“It was conducted between Feb. 15 and May 12, 2021, and information was gathered on 405 reactions that appeared during the 21 days after any dose of the COVID-19 vaccines approved at that time in Spain: the Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, and University of Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccines,” she added.

Dr. Galván explained that the study shows very clear patterns and investigators reached conclusions that match those of other groups that have investigated this topic. “Six reaction patterns were described according to their frequency. The first is the ‘COVID-19 arm,’ which consists of a local reaction at the injection site and occurs almost exclusively in women and in 70% of cases after inoculation with the Moderna serum. It is a manifestation that resolves well and does not always recur in subsequent doses. More than half are of delayed onset: biopsied patients show signs of a delayed hypersensitivity reaction. In line with all the publications in this regard, it was found that this reaction is not a reason to skip or delay a dose.”
 

Herpes zoster reactivation

The second pattern is urticarial, which, according to the specialist, occurs with equal frequency after the administration of all vaccines and is well controlled with antihistamines. “This is a very nonspecific pattern, which does not prevent it from still being frequent. It was not associated with drug intake.

“The morbilliform pattern is more frequent after the Pfizer/BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines. It affects the trunk and extremities, and up to a quarter of the cases required systemic corticosteroids. The papulovesicular and pityriasis rosea–like patterns are equally frequent in all vaccines. The latter is found in a younger age group. Finally, there is the purpuric pattern, more localized in the extremities and more frequent after the Pfizer/BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines. On biopsy, this pattern showed small-vessel vasculitis.”

Less frequently, reactivations or de novo onset of different dermatologic diseases were found. “Varicella-zoster virus reactivations were observed with a frequency of 13.8%, being more common after the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine,” said Dr. Galván. “Other studies have corroborated this increase in herpes zoster, although it has been seen that the absolute number is low, so the benefits of the vaccine outweigh this eventual complication. At the same time and along the same lines, vaccination against herpes zoster is recommended for those over 50 years of age.”

Another fact revealed by the study is that these reactions were not significantly more severe in people with dermatologic diseases, those with previous infection, or those with skin manifestation associated with COVID-19.

Dr. Galván highlighted that, except for the COVID-19 arm, these patterns were among those associated with the disease, “which supports [the idea] that it does not demonstrate that the host’s immune reaction to the infection was playing a role.”
 

Women and young people

“As for pseudoperniosis, it is poorly represented in our series: 0.7% compared to 2% in the American registry. Although neither the SARS-CoV-2–pseudoperniosis association nor its pathophysiology is clear, the idea is that if this manifestation is related to the host’s immune response during infection, pseudoperniosis after vaccination could also be linked to the immune response to the vaccine,” said Dr. Galván.

Many of these reactions are more intense in women. “Before starting to use these vaccines, we already knew that messenger RNA vaccines (a powerful activator of innate immunity) induce frequent reactions, that adjuvants and excipients (polyethylene glycol and polysorbate) also generate them, and that other factors influence reactogenicity, among those of us of the same age and sex, reactions being more frequent in younger people and in women,” said Dr. Galván. “This may be one of the reasons why the COVID-19 arm is so much more prevalent in the female population and that 80% of all reactions that were collected were in women.”

In relation to the fact that manifestations differed, depending on the type of inoculated serum, Dr. Galván said, “Some reactions are just as common after any of the vaccines. However, others are not, as is the case with the COVID-19 arm for the Moderna vaccine or reactivations of the herpes virus, more frequent after the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine.

“Undoubtedly, behind these differences are particularities in the immune reaction caused by each of the vaccines and their composition, including the excipients,” she said.

Regarding the fact that these reactions were the same throughout the vaccine regimen or that they varied in intensity, depending on the dose, Dr. Galván said, “In our study, as in those carried out by other groups, there were no significant differences in terms of frequency after the first and second doses. One thing to keep in mind is that, due to the temporary design of our study and the time at which it was conducted, it was not possible to collect reactions after second doses of AstraZeneca.

“Manifestations have generally been mild and well controlled. Many of them did not recur after the second dose, and the vast majority did not prevent completion of the vaccination scheme, but we must not lose sight of the fact that 20% of these manifestations were assessed by the dermatologist as serious or very serious,” Dr. Galván added.

Regarding the next steps planned for this line of research, Dr. Galván commented, “We are awaiting the evolution of the reported cases and the reactions that may arise, although for now, our group does not have any open studies. The most important thing now is to be alert and report the data observed in the pharmacovigilance systems, in open registries, and in scientific literature to generate evidence.”

Dr. Galván has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Skin manifestations of COVID-19 were among the topics presented in several sessions at the 49th Congress of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. Specialists agreed that fewer skin changes associated with this virus have been seen with the latest variants of SARS-CoV-2. They highlighted the results of the most remarkable research on this topic that were presented in this forum.

In the study, which was carried out by Spanish dermatologists with the support of the AEDV, researchers analyzed skin reactions associated with the COVID-19 vaccine.

Study author Cristina Galván, MD, a dermatologist at the University Hospital of Móstoles, Madrid, said, “This is the first study that analyzes a significant number of cases assessed by dermatologists and illustrated with clinical images of the dermatological manifestations caused as a reaction to these vaccines.”

The study was carried out during the first months of COVID-19 vaccination, Dr. Galván told this news organization. It was proposed as a continuation of a COVID skin study that was published in the British Journal of Dermatology. That study documented the first classification of skin lesions associated with COVID-19. Dr. Galván is the lead author of the latter study.

“The objectives of this study were to characterize and classify skin reactions after vaccination, identify their chronology, and analyze the associations with a series of antecedents: dermatological and allergic diseases, previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and skin reactions associated with COVID-19,” said Dr. Galván. The study was a team effort, she added.

“It was conducted between Feb. 15 and May 12, 2021, and information was gathered on 405 reactions that appeared during the 21 days after any dose of the COVID-19 vaccines approved at that time in Spain: the Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, and University of Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccines,” she added.

Dr. Galván explained that the study shows very clear patterns and investigators reached conclusions that match those of other groups that have investigated this topic. “Six reaction patterns were described according to their frequency. The first is the ‘COVID-19 arm,’ which consists of a local reaction at the injection site and occurs almost exclusively in women and in 70% of cases after inoculation with the Moderna serum. It is a manifestation that resolves well and does not always recur in subsequent doses. More than half are of delayed onset: biopsied patients show signs of a delayed hypersensitivity reaction. In line with all the publications in this regard, it was found that this reaction is not a reason to skip or delay a dose.”
 

Herpes zoster reactivation

The second pattern is urticarial, which, according to the specialist, occurs with equal frequency after the administration of all vaccines and is well controlled with antihistamines. “This is a very nonspecific pattern, which does not prevent it from still being frequent. It was not associated with drug intake.

“The morbilliform pattern is more frequent after the Pfizer/BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines. It affects the trunk and extremities, and up to a quarter of the cases required systemic corticosteroids. The papulovesicular and pityriasis rosea–like patterns are equally frequent in all vaccines. The latter is found in a younger age group. Finally, there is the purpuric pattern, more localized in the extremities and more frequent after the Pfizer/BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines. On biopsy, this pattern showed small-vessel vasculitis.”

Less frequently, reactivations or de novo onset of different dermatologic diseases were found. “Varicella-zoster virus reactivations were observed with a frequency of 13.8%, being more common after the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine,” said Dr. Galván. “Other studies have corroborated this increase in herpes zoster, although it has been seen that the absolute number is low, so the benefits of the vaccine outweigh this eventual complication. At the same time and along the same lines, vaccination against herpes zoster is recommended for those over 50 years of age.”

Another fact revealed by the study is that these reactions were not significantly more severe in people with dermatologic diseases, those with previous infection, or those with skin manifestation associated with COVID-19.

Dr. Galván highlighted that, except for the COVID-19 arm, these patterns were among those associated with the disease, “which supports [the idea] that it does not demonstrate that the host’s immune reaction to the infection was playing a role.”
 

Women and young people

“As for pseudoperniosis, it is poorly represented in our series: 0.7% compared to 2% in the American registry. Although neither the SARS-CoV-2–pseudoperniosis association nor its pathophysiology is clear, the idea is that if this manifestation is related to the host’s immune response during infection, pseudoperniosis after vaccination could also be linked to the immune response to the vaccine,” said Dr. Galván.

Many of these reactions are more intense in women. “Before starting to use these vaccines, we already knew that messenger RNA vaccines (a powerful activator of innate immunity) induce frequent reactions, that adjuvants and excipients (polyethylene glycol and polysorbate) also generate them, and that other factors influence reactogenicity, among those of us of the same age and sex, reactions being more frequent in younger people and in women,” said Dr. Galván. “This may be one of the reasons why the COVID-19 arm is so much more prevalent in the female population and that 80% of all reactions that were collected were in women.”

In relation to the fact that manifestations differed, depending on the type of inoculated serum, Dr. Galván said, “Some reactions are just as common after any of the vaccines. However, others are not, as is the case with the COVID-19 arm for the Moderna vaccine or reactivations of the herpes virus, more frequent after the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine.

“Undoubtedly, behind these differences are particularities in the immune reaction caused by each of the vaccines and their composition, including the excipients,” she said.

Regarding the fact that these reactions were the same throughout the vaccine regimen or that they varied in intensity, depending on the dose, Dr. Galván said, “In our study, as in those carried out by other groups, there were no significant differences in terms of frequency after the first and second doses. One thing to keep in mind is that, due to the temporary design of our study and the time at which it was conducted, it was not possible to collect reactions after second doses of AstraZeneca.

“Manifestations have generally been mild and well controlled. Many of them did not recur after the second dose, and the vast majority did not prevent completion of the vaccination scheme, but we must not lose sight of the fact that 20% of these manifestations were assessed by the dermatologist as serious or very serious,” Dr. Galván added.

Regarding the next steps planned for this line of research, Dr. Galván commented, “We are awaiting the evolution of the reported cases and the reactions that may arise, although for now, our group does not have any open studies. The most important thing now is to be alert and report the data observed in the pharmacovigilance systems, in open registries, and in scientific literature to generate evidence.”

Dr. Galván has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Skin manifestations of COVID-19 were among the topics presented in several sessions at the 49th Congress of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. Specialists agreed that fewer skin changes associated with this virus have been seen with the latest variants of SARS-CoV-2. They highlighted the results of the most remarkable research on this topic that were presented in this forum.

In the study, which was carried out by Spanish dermatologists with the support of the AEDV, researchers analyzed skin reactions associated with the COVID-19 vaccine.

Study author Cristina Galván, MD, a dermatologist at the University Hospital of Móstoles, Madrid, said, “This is the first study that analyzes a significant number of cases assessed by dermatologists and illustrated with clinical images of the dermatological manifestations caused as a reaction to these vaccines.”

The study was carried out during the first months of COVID-19 vaccination, Dr. Galván told this news organization. It was proposed as a continuation of a COVID skin study that was published in the British Journal of Dermatology. That study documented the first classification of skin lesions associated with COVID-19. Dr. Galván is the lead author of the latter study.

“The objectives of this study were to characterize and classify skin reactions after vaccination, identify their chronology, and analyze the associations with a series of antecedents: dermatological and allergic diseases, previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and skin reactions associated with COVID-19,” said Dr. Galván. The study was a team effort, she added.

“It was conducted between Feb. 15 and May 12, 2021, and information was gathered on 405 reactions that appeared during the 21 days after any dose of the COVID-19 vaccines approved at that time in Spain: the Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, and University of Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccines,” she added.

Dr. Galván explained that the study shows very clear patterns and investigators reached conclusions that match those of other groups that have investigated this topic. “Six reaction patterns were described according to their frequency. The first is the ‘COVID-19 arm,’ which consists of a local reaction at the injection site and occurs almost exclusively in women and in 70% of cases after inoculation with the Moderna serum. It is a manifestation that resolves well and does not always recur in subsequent doses. More than half are of delayed onset: biopsied patients show signs of a delayed hypersensitivity reaction. In line with all the publications in this regard, it was found that this reaction is not a reason to skip or delay a dose.”
 

Herpes zoster reactivation

The second pattern is urticarial, which, according to the specialist, occurs with equal frequency after the administration of all vaccines and is well controlled with antihistamines. “This is a very nonspecific pattern, which does not prevent it from still being frequent. It was not associated with drug intake.

“The morbilliform pattern is more frequent after the Pfizer/BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines. It affects the trunk and extremities, and up to a quarter of the cases required systemic corticosteroids. The papulovesicular and pityriasis rosea–like patterns are equally frequent in all vaccines. The latter is found in a younger age group. Finally, there is the purpuric pattern, more localized in the extremities and more frequent after the Pfizer/BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines. On biopsy, this pattern showed small-vessel vasculitis.”

Less frequently, reactivations or de novo onset of different dermatologic diseases were found. “Varicella-zoster virus reactivations were observed with a frequency of 13.8%, being more common after the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine,” said Dr. Galván. “Other studies have corroborated this increase in herpes zoster, although it has been seen that the absolute number is low, so the benefits of the vaccine outweigh this eventual complication. At the same time and along the same lines, vaccination against herpes zoster is recommended for those over 50 years of age.”

Another fact revealed by the study is that these reactions were not significantly more severe in people with dermatologic diseases, those with previous infection, or those with skin manifestation associated with COVID-19.

Dr. Galván highlighted that, except for the COVID-19 arm, these patterns were among those associated with the disease, “which supports [the idea] that it does not demonstrate that the host’s immune reaction to the infection was playing a role.”
 

Women and young people

“As for pseudoperniosis, it is poorly represented in our series: 0.7% compared to 2% in the American registry. Although neither the SARS-CoV-2–pseudoperniosis association nor its pathophysiology is clear, the idea is that if this manifestation is related to the host’s immune response during infection, pseudoperniosis after vaccination could also be linked to the immune response to the vaccine,” said Dr. Galván.

Many of these reactions are more intense in women. “Before starting to use these vaccines, we already knew that messenger RNA vaccines (a powerful activator of innate immunity) induce frequent reactions, that adjuvants and excipients (polyethylene glycol and polysorbate) also generate them, and that other factors influence reactogenicity, among those of us of the same age and sex, reactions being more frequent in younger people and in women,” said Dr. Galván. “This may be one of the reasons why the COVID-19 arm is so much more prevalent in the female population and that 80% of all reactions that were collected were in women.”

In relation to the fact that manifestations differed, depending on the type of inoculated serum, Dr. Galván said, “Some reactions are just as common after any of the vaccines. However, others are not, as is the case with the COVID-19 arm for the Moderna vaccine or reactivations of the herpes virus, more frequent after the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine.

“Undoubtedly, behind these differences are particularities in the immune reaction caused by each of the vaccines and their composition, including the excipients,” she said.

Regarding the fact that these reactions were the same throughout the vaccine regimen or that they varied in intensity, depending on the dose, Dr. Galván said, “In our study, as in those carried out by other groups, there were no significant differences in terms of frequency after the first and second doses. One thing to keep in mind is that, due to the temporary design of our study and the time at which it was conducted, it was not possible to collect reactions after second doses of AstraZeneca.

“Manifestations have generally been mild and well controlled. Many of them did not recur after the second dose, and the vast majority did not prevent completion of the vaccination scheme, but we must not lose sight of the fact that 20% of these manifestations were assessed by the dermatologist as serious or very serious,” Dr. Galván added.

Regarding the next steps planned for this line of research, Dr. Galván commented, “We are awaiting the evolution of the reported cases and the reactions that may arise, although for now, our group does not have any open studies. The most important thing now is to be alert and report the data observed in the pharmacovigilance systems, in open registries, and in scientific literature to generate evidence.”

Dr. Galván has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The monkeypox virus is evolving 6-12 times faster than would be expected, according to a new study.

The virus is thought to have a single origin, the genetic data suggests, and is a likely descendant of the strain involved in the 2017-2018 monkeypox outbreak in Nigeria. It’s not clear if these mutations have aided the transmissibility of the virus among people or have any other clinical implications, João Paulo Gomes, PhD, from Portugal’s National Institute of Health, Lisbon, said in an email.

Since the monkeypox outbreak began in May, nearly 7,000 cases of monkeypox have been reported across 52 countries and territories. As of July 5, there were 560 cases in the United States. So far, there have been no deaths.

Orthopoxviruses – the genus to which monkeypox belongs – are large DNA viruses that usually only gain one or two mutations every year. (For comparison, SARS-CoV-2 gains around two mutations every month.) One would expect 5 to 10 mutations in the 2022 monkeypox virus, compared with the 2017 strain, Dr. Gomes said.

In the study, Dr. Gomes and colleagues analyzed 15 monkeypox DNA sequences made available by Portugal and the National Center for Biotechnology Information, Bethesda, Md., between May 20 and May 27, 2022. The analysis revealed that this most recent strain differed by 50 single-nucleotide polymorphisms, compared with previous strains of the virus in 2017-2018.

“This is far beyond what we would expect, specifically for orthopoxvirus,” Andrew Lover, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst School of Public Health & Health Sciences, told this news organization. He was not involved with the research. “That suggests [the virus] is trying to figure out the best way to deal with a new host species,” he added.

Rodents are thought to be the natural hosts of the monkeypox virus, he explained, and, in 2022, the infection transferred to humans. “Moving into a new species can ‘turbocharge’ mutations as the virus adapts to a new biological environment,” he explained, though it is not clear if the new mutations Dr. Gomes’s team detected help the 2022 virus spread more easily among people.

Researchers also found that the 2022 virus belonged in clade 3 of the virus, which is part of the less-lethal West-African clade. While the West-African clade has a fatality rate of less than 1%, the Central African clade has a fatality rate of over 10%.

The rapid changes in the viral genome could be driven by a family of proteins thought to play a role in antiviral immunity: apolipoprotein B mRNA editing enzyme, catalytic polypeptide-like 3 (APOBEC3). These enzymes can make changes to a viral genome, Dr. Gomes explained, “but sometimes the system is not ‘well regulated,’ and the changes in the genome are not detrimental to the virus.” These APOBEC3-driven mutations have a signature pattern, he said, which was also detected in most of the 50 new mutations Dr. Gomes’s team identified.

However, it is not known if these mutations have clinical implications, Dr. Lover said.

The 2022 monkeypox virus does appear to behave differently than previous strains of the virus, he noted. In the current outbreak, sexual transmission appears to be very common, which is not the case for previous outbreaks, he said. Also, while monkeypox traditionally presents with a rash that can spread to all parts of the body, there have been several instances of patients presenting with just a few “very innocuous lesions,” he added.

Dr. Gomes hopes that specialized lab groups will now be able to tease out whether there is a connection between these identified mutations and changes in the behavior of the virus, including transmissibility.

While none of the findings in this analysis raises any serious concerns, the study “suggests there [are] definitely gaps in our knowledge about monkeypox,” Dr. Lover said. As for the global health response, he said, “We probably should err on the side of caution. ... There are clearly things that we absolutely don’t understand here, in terms of how quickly mutations are popping up.”

Dr. Gomes and Dr. Lover report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The monkeypox virus is evolving 6-12 times faster than would be expected, according to a new study.

The virus is thought to have a single origin, the genetic data suggests, and is a likely descendant of the strain involved in the 2017-2018 monkeypox outbreak in Nigeria. It’s not clear if these mutations have aided the transmissibility of the virus among people or have any other clinical implications, João Paulo Gomes, PhD, from Portugal’s National Institute of Health, Lisbon, said in an email.

Since the monkeypox outbreak began in May, nearly 7,000 cases of monkeypox have been reported across 52 countries and territories. As of July 5, there were 560 cases in the United States. So far, there have been no deaths.

Orthopoxviruses – the genus to which monkeypox belongs – are large DNA viruses that usually only gain one or two mutations every year. (For comparison, SARS-CoV-2 gains around two mutations every month.) One would expect 5 to 10 mutations in the 2022 monkeypox virus, compared with the 2017 strain, Dr. Gomes said.

In the study, Dr. Gomes and colleagues analyzed 15 monkeypox DNA sequences made available by Portugal and the National Center for Biotechnology Information, Bethesda, Md., between May 20 and May 27, 2022. The analysis revealed that this most recent strain differed by 50 single-nucleotide polymorphisms, compared with previous strains of the virus in 2017-2018.

“This is far beyond what we would expect, specifically for orthopoxvirus,” Andrew Lover, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst School of Public Health & Health Sciences, told this news organization. He was not involved with the research. “That suggests [the virus] is trying to figure out the best way to deal with a new host species,” he added.

Rodents are thought to be the natural hosts of the monkeypox virus, he explained, and, in 2022, the infection transferred to humans. “Moving into a new species can ‘turbocharge’ mutations as the virus adapts to a new biological environment,” he explained, though it is not clear if the new mutations Dr. Gomes’s team detected help the 2022 virus spread more easily among people.

Researchers also found that the 2022 virus belonged in clade 3 of the virus, which is part of the less-lethal West-African clade. While the West-African clade has a fatality rate of less than 1%, the Central African clade has a fatality rate of over 10%.

The rapid changes in the viral genome could be driven by a family of proteins thought to play a role in antiviral immunity: apolipoprotein B mRNA editing enzyme, catalytic polypeptide-like 3 (APOBEC3). These enzymes can make changes to a viral genome, Dr. Gomes explained, “but sometimes the system is not ‘well regulated,’ and the changes in the genome are not detrimental to the virus.” These APOBEC3-driven mutations have a signature pattern, he said, which was also detected in most of the 50 new mutations Dr. Gomes’s team identified.

However, it is not known if these mutations have clinical implications, Dr. Lover said.

The 2022 monkeypox virus does appear to behave differently than previous strains of the virus, he noted. In the current outbreak, sexual transmission appears to be very common, which is not the case for previous outbreaks, he said. Also, while monkeypox traditionally presents with a rash that can spread to all parts of the body, there have been several instances of patients presenting with just a few “very innocuous lesions,” he added.

Dr. Gomes hopes that specialized lab groups will now be able to tease out whether there is a connection between these identified mutations and changes in the behavior of the virus, including transmissibility.

While none of the findings in this analysis raises any serious concerns, the study “suggests there [are] definitely gaps in our knowledge about monkeypox,” Dr. Lover said. As for the global health response, he said, “We probably should err on the side of caution. ... There are clearly things that we absolutely don’t understand here, in terms of how quickly mutations are popping up.”

Dr. Gomes and Dr. Lover report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The monkeypox virus is evolving 6-12 times faster than would be expected, according to a new study.

The virus is thought to have a single origin, the genetic data suggests, and is a likely descendant of the strain involved in the 2017-2018 monkeypox outbreak in Nigeria. It’s not clear if these mutations have aided the transmissibility of the virus among people or have any other clinical implications, João Paulo Gomes, PhD, from Portugal’s National Institute of Health, Lisbon, said in an email.

Since the monkeypox outbreak began in May, nearly 7,000 cases of monkeypox have been reported across 52 countries and territories. As of July 5, there were 560 cases in the United States. So far, there have been no deaths.

Orthopoxviruses – the genus to which monkeypox belongs – are large DNA viruses that usually only gain one or two mutations every year. (For comparison, SARS-CoV-2 gains around two mutations every month.) One would expect 5 to 10 mutations in the 2022 monkeypox virus, compared with the 2017 strain, Dr. Gomes said.

In the study, Dr. Gomes and colleagues analyzed 15 monkeypox DNA sequences made available by Portugal and the National Center for Biotechnology Information, Bethesda, Md., between May 20 and May 27, 2022. The analysis revealed that this most recent strain differed by 50 single-nucleotide polymorphisms, compared with previous strains of the virus in 2017-2018.

“This is far beyond what we would expect, specifically for orthopoxvirus,” Andrew Lover, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst School of Public Health & Health Sciences, told this news organization. He was not involved with the research. “That suggests [the virus] is trying to figure out the best way to deal with a new host species,” he added.

Rodents are thought to be the natural hosts of the monkeypox virus, he explained, and, in 2022, the infection transferred to humans. “Moving into a new species can ‘turbocharge’ mutations as the virus adapts to a new biological environment,” he explained, though it is not clear if the new mutations Dr. Gomes’s team detected help the 2022 virus spread more easily among people.

Researchers also found that the 2022 virus belonged in clade 3 of the virus, which is part of the less-lethal West-African clade. While the West-African clade has a fatality rate of less than 1%, the Central African clade has a fatality rate of over 10%.

The rapid changes in the viral genome could be driven by a family of proteins thought to play a role in antiviral immunity: apolipoprotein B mRNA editing enzyme, catalytic polypeptide-like 3 (APOBEC3). These enzymes can make changes to a viral genome, Dr. Gomes explained, “but sometimes the system is not ‘well regulated,’ and the changes in the genome are not detrimental to the virus.” These APOBEC3-driven mutations have a signature pattern, he said, which was also detected in most of the 50 new mutations Dr. Gomes’s team identified.

However, it is not known if these mutations have clinical implications, Dr. Lover said.

The 2022 monkeypox virus does appear to behave differently than previous strains of the virus, he noted. In the current outbreak, sexual transmission appears to be very common, which is not the case for previous outbreaks, he said. Also, while monkeypox traditionally presents with a rash that can spread to all parts of the body, there have been several instances of patients presenting with just a few “very innocuous lesions,” he added.

Dr. Gomes hopes that specialized lab groups will now be able to tease out whether there is a connection between these identified mutations and changes in the behavior of the virus, including transmissibility.

While none of the findings in this analysis raises any serious concerns, the study “suggests there [are] definitely gaps in our knowledge about monkeypox,” Dr. Lover said. As for the global health response, he said, “We probably should err on the side of caution. ... There are clearly things that we absolutely don’t understand here, in terms of how quickly mutations are popping up.”

Dr. Gomes and Dr. Lover report no relevant financial relationships.

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

About 80% of American adults have low to moderate cardiovascular (CV) health based on the American Heart Association checklist for optimal heart health, which now includes healthy sleep as an essential component for heart health.

With the addition of sleep, “Life’s Essential 8” replaces the AHA’s “Life’s Simple 7” checklist.

“The new metric of sleep duration reflects the latest research findings: Sleep impacts overall health, and people who have healthier sleep patterns manage health factors such as weight, blood pressure, or risk for type 2 diabetes more effectively,” AHA President Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD, said in a news release.

“In addition, advances in ways to measure sleep, such as with wearable devices, now offer people the ability to reliably and routinely monitor their sleep habits at home,” said Dr. Lloyd-Jones, chair of the department of preventive medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago.

The AHA Presidential Advisory – Life’s Essential 8: Updating and Enhancing the American Heart Association’s Construct on Cardiovascular Health – was published online in the journal Circulation.

A companion paper published simultaneously in Circulation reports the first study using Life’s Essential 8.

Overall, the results show that CV health of the U.S. population is “suboptimal, and we see important differences across age and sociodemographic groups,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said.
 

Refining Life’s Simple 7

The AHA first defined the seven metrics for optimal CV health in 2010. After 12 years and more than 2,400 scientific papers on the topic, new discoveries in CV health and ways to measure it provided an opportunity to revisit each health component in more detail and provide updates as needed, the AHA explains.

“We felt it was the right time to conduct a comprehensive review of the latest research to refine the existing metrics and consider any new metrics that add value to assessing cardiovascular health for all people,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said.

Four of the original metrics have been redefined for consistency with newer clinical guidelines or compatibility with new measurement tools, and the scoring system can now also be applied to anyone ages 2 and older. Here is a snapshot of Life’s Essential 8 metrics, including updates.

1. Diet (updated) 

The tool includes a new guide to assess diet quality for adults and children at the individual and population level. At the population level, dietary assessment is based on daily intake of elements in the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) eating pattern. For individuals, the Mediterranean Eating Pattern for Americans (MEPA) is used to assess and monitor cardiovascular health.

2. Physical activity (no changes)

Physical activity continues to be measured by the total number of minutes of moderate or vigorous physical activity per week, as defined by the U.S. Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans (2nd edition). The optimal level is 150 minutes (2.5 hours) of moderate physical activity or more per week or 75 minutes per week of vigorous-intensity physical activity for adults; 420 minutes (7 hours) or more per week for children ages 6 and older; and age-specific modifications for younger children.

3. Nicotine exposure (updated)

Use of inhaled nicotine-delivery systems, which includes e-cigarettes or vaping devices, has been added since the previous metric monitored only traditional, combustible cigarettes. This reflects use by adults and youth and their implications on long-term health. Second-hand smoke exposure for children and adults has also been added.

4. Sleep duration (new)

Sleep duration is associated with CV health. Measured by average hours of sleep per night, the ideal level is 7-9 hours daily for adults. Ideal daily sleep ranges for children are 10-16 hours per 24 hours for ages 5 and younger; 9-12 hours for ages 6-12 years; and 8-10 hours for ages 13-18 years.

5. Body mass index (no changes)

The AHA acknowledges that body mass index (BMI) is an imperfect metric. Yet, because it’s easily calculated and widely available, BMI continues as a “reasonable” gauge to assess weight categories that may lead to health problems. BMI of 18.5-24.9 is associated with the highest levels of CV health. The AHA notes that BMI ranges and the subsequent health risks associated with them may differ among people from diverse racial or ethnic backgrounds or ancestry. This aligns with the World Health Organization recommendations to adjust BMI ranges for people of Asian or Pacific Islander ancestry because recent evidence indicates their risk of conditions such as CVD or type 2 diabetes is higher at a lower BMI.

6. Blood lipids (updated)

The metric for blood lipids (cholesterol and triglycerides) is updated to use non-HDL cholesterol as the preferred number to monitor, rather than total cholesterol. This shift is made because non-HDL cholesterol can be measured without fasting beforehand (thereby increasing its availability at any time of day and implementation at more appointments) and reliably calculated among all people.

7. Blood glucose (updated)

This metric is expanded to include the option of hemoglobin A1c readings or blood glucose levels for people with or without type 1 or 2 diabetes or prediabetes.

8. Blood pressure (no changes)

Blood pressure criteria remain unchanged from 2017 guidance that established levels less than 120/80 mm Hg as optimal, and defined hypertension as 130-139 mm Hg systolic pressure or 80-89 mm Hg diastolic pressure.

‘Concerning’ new data

Results of the first study using Life’s Essential 8 show that the overall CV health of the U.S. population is “well below ideal,” with 80% of adults scoring at a low or moderate level, the researchers report.

Data for the analysis came from 2013-2018 U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination surveys (NHANES) of more than 13,500 adults aged 20-79 years and nearly 9,900 children aged 2-19 years. Among the key findings:

• The average CV health score based on Life’s Essential 8 was 64.7 for adults and 65.5 for children – in the moderate range on the 0-100 scale.
• Only 0.45% of adults had a perfect score of 100; 20% had high CV health (score of 80 or higher), 63% moderate (score of 50-79), and 18% had low CV health (score of less than 50).
• Adult women had higher average CV health scores (67) compared with men (62.5).
• In general, adults scored lowest in the areas of diet, physical activity, and BMI.
• CV health scores were generally lower at older ages.
• Non-Hispanic Asian Americans had a higher average CV health score than other racial/ethnic groups. Non-Hispanic Whites had the second highest average CV health score, followed, in order, by Hispanic (other than Mexican), Mexican, and non-Hispanic Blacks.
• Children’s diet scores were low, at an average of 40.6.
• Adult sociodemographic groups varied notably in CV health scores for diet, nicotine exposure, blood glucose, and blood pressure.

“These data represent the first look at the cardiovascular health of the U.S. population using the AHA’s new Life’s Essential 8 scoring algorithm,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said.

“Life’s Essential 8 is a major step forward in our ability to identify when cardiovascular health can be preserved and when it is suboptimal. It should energize efforts to improve cardiovascular health for all people and at every life stage,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones added.

“Analyses like this can help policymakers, communities, clinicians, and the public to understand the opportunities to intervene to improve and maintain optimal cardiovascular health across the life course,” he said.

This research had no commercial funding. The authors have no reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

About 80% of American adults have low to moderate cardiovascular (CV) health based on the American Heart Association checklist for optimal heart health, which now includes healthy sleep as an essential component for heart health.

With the addition of sleep, “Life’s Essential 8” replaces the AHA’s “Life’s Simple 7” checklist.

“The new metric of sleep duration reflects the latest research findings: Sleep impacts overall health, and people who have healthier sleep patterns manage health factors such as weight, blood pressure, or risk for type 2 diabetes more effectively,” AHA President Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD, said in a news release.

“In addition, advances in ways to measure sleep, such as with wearable devices, now offer people the ability to reliably and routinely monitor their sleep habits at home,” said Dr. Lloyd-Jones, chair of the department of preventive medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago.

The AHA Presidential Advisory – Life’s Essential 8: Updating and Enhancing the American Heart Association’s Construct on Cardiovascular Health – was published online in the journal Circulation.

A companion paper published simultaneously in Circulation reports the first study using Life’s Essential 8.

Overall, the results show that CV health of the U.S. population is “suboptimal, and we see important differences across age and sociodemographic groups,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said.
 

Refining Life’s Simple 7

The AHA first defined the seven metrics for optimal CV health in 2010. After 12 years and more than 2,400 scientific papers on the topic, new discoveries in CV health and ways to measure it provided an opportunity to revisit each health component in more detail and provide updates as needed, the AHA explains.

“We felt it was the right time to conduct a comprehensive review of the latest research to refine the existing metrics and consider any new metrics that add value to assessing cardiovascular health for all people,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said.

Four of the original metrics have been redefined for consistency with newer clinical guidelines or compatibility with new measurement tools, and the scoring system can now also be applied to anyone ages 2 and older. Here is a snapshot of Life’s Essential 8 metrics, including updates.

1. Diet (updated) 

The tool includes a new guide to assess diet quality for adults and children at the individual and population level. At the population level, dietary assessment is based on daily intake of elements in the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) eating pattern. For individuals, the Mediterranean Eating Pattern for Americans (MEPA) is used to assess and monitor cardiovascular health.

2. Physical activity (no changes)

Physical activity continues to be measured by the total number of minutes of moderate or vigorous physical activity per week, as defined by the U.S. Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans (2nd edition). The optimal level is 150 minutes (2.5 hours) of moderate physical activity or more per week or 75 minutes per week of vigorous-intensity physical activity for adults; 420 minutes (7 hours) or more per week for children ages 6 and older; and age-specific modifications for younger children.

3. Nicotine exposure (updated)

Use of inhaled nicotine-delivery systems, which includes e-cigarettes or vaping devices, has been added since the previous metric monitored only traditional, combustible cigarettes. This reflects use by adults and youth and their implications on long-term health. Second-hand smoke exposure for children and adults has also been added.

4. Sleep duration (new)

Sleep duration is associated with CV health. Measured by average hours of sleep per night, the ideal level is 7-9 hours daily for adults. Ideal daily sleep ranges for children are 10-16 hours per 24 hours for ages 5 and younger; 9-12 hours for ages 6-12 years; and 8-10 hours for ages 13-18 years.

5. Body mass index (no changes)

The AHA acknowledges that body mass index (BMI) is an imperfect metric. Yet, because it’s easily calculated and widely available, BMI continues as a “reasonable” gauge to assess weight categories that may lead to health problems. BMI of 18.5-24.9 is associated with the highest levels of CV health. The AHA notes that BMI ranges and the subsequent health risks associated with them may differ among people from diverse racial or ethnic backgrounds or ancestry. This aligns with the World Health Organization recommendations to adjust BMI ranges for people of Asian or Pacific Islander ancestry because recent evidence indicates their risk of conditions such as CVD or type 2 diabetes is higher at a lower BMI.

6. Blood lipids (updated)

The metric for blood lipids (cholesterol and triglycerides) is updated to use non-HDL cholesterol as the preferred number to monitor, rather than total cholesterol. This shift is made because non-HDL cholesterol can be measured without fasting beforehand (thereby increasing its availability at any time of day and implementation at more appointments) and reliably calculated among all people.

7. Blood glucose (updated)

This metric is expanded to include the option of hemoglobin A1c readings or blood glucose levels for people with or without type 1 or 2 diabetes or prediabetes.

8. Blood pressure (no changes)

Blood pressure criteria remain unchanged from 2017 guidance that established levels less than 120/80 mm Hg as optimal, and defined hypertension as 130-139 mm Hg systolic pressure or 80-89 mm Hg diastolic pressure.

‘Concerning’ new data

Results of the first study using Life’s Essential 8 show that the overall CV health of the U.S. population is “well below ideal,” with 80% of adults scoring at a low or moderate level, the researchers report.

Data for the analysis came from 2013-2018 U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination surveys (NHANES) of more than 13,500 adults aged 20-79 years and nearly 9,900 children aged 2-19 years. Among the key findings:

• The average CV health score based on Life’s Essential 8 was 64.7 for adults and 65.5 for children – in the moderate range on the 0-100 scale.
• Only 0.45% of adults had a perfect score of 100; 20% had high CV health (score of 80 or higher), 63% moderate (score of 50-79), and 18% had low CV health (score of less than 50).
• Adult women had higher average CV health scores (67) compared with men (62.5).
• In general, adults scored lowest in the areas of diet, physical activity, and BMI.
• CV health scores were generally lower at older ages.
• Non-Hispanic Asian Americans had a higher average CV health score than other racial/ethnic groups. Non-Hispanic Whites had the second highest average CV health score, followed, in order, by Hispanic (other than Mexican), Mexican, and non-Hispanic Blacks.
• Children’s diet scores were low, at an average of 40.6.
• Adult sociodemographic groups varied notably in CV health scores for diet, nicotine exposure, blood glucose, and blood pressure.

“These data represent the first look at the cardiovascular health of the U.S. population using the AHA’s new Life’s Essential 8 scoring algorithm,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said.

“Life’s Essential 8 is a major step forward in our ability to identify when cardiovascular health can be preserved and when it is suboptimal. It should energize efforts to improve cardiovascular health for all people and at every life stage,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones added.

“Analyses like this can help policymakers, communities, clinicians, and the public to understand the opportunities to intervene to improve and maintain optimal cardiovascular health across the life course,” he said.

This research had no commercial funding. The authors have no reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

About 80% of American adults have low to moderate cardiovascular (CV) health based on the American Heart Association checklist for optimal heart health, which now includes healthy sleep as an essential component for heart health.

With the addition of sleep, “Life’s Essential 8” replaces the AHA’s “Life’s Simple 7” checklist.

“The new metric of sleep duration reflects the latest research findings: Sleep impacts overall health, and people who have healthier sleep patterns manage health factors such as weight, blood pressure, or risk for type 2 diabetes more effectively,” AHA President Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD, said in a news release.

“In addition, advances in ways to measure sleep, such as with wearable devices, now offer people the ability to reliably and routinely monitor their sleep habits at home,” said Dr. Lloyd-Jones, chair of the department of preventive medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago.

The AHA Presidential Advisory – Life’s Essential 8: Updating and Enhancing the American Heart Association’s Construct on Cardiovascular Health – was published online in the journal Circulation.

A companion paper published simultaneously in Circulation reports the first study using Life’s Essential 8.

Overall, the results show that CV health of the U.S. population is “suboptimal, and we see important differences across age and sociodemographic groups,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said.
 

Refining Life’s Simple 7

The AHA first defined the seven metrics for optimal CV health in 2010. After 12 years and more than 2,400 scientific papers on the topic, new discoveries in CV health and ways to measure it provided an opportunity to revisit each health component in more detail and provide updates as needed, the AHA explains.

“We felt it was the right time to conduct a comprehensive review of the latest research to refine the existing metrics and consider any new metrics that add value to assessing cardiovascular health for all people,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said.

Four of the original metrics have been redefined for consistency with newer clinical guidelines or compatibility with new measurement tools, and the scoring system can now also be applied to anyone ages 2 and older. Here is a snapshot of Life’s Essential 8 metrics, including updates.

1. Diet (updated) 

The tool includes a new guide to assess diet quality for adults and children at the individual and population level. At the population level, dietary assessment is based on daily intake of elements in the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) eating pattern. For individuals, the Mediterranean Eating Pattern for Americans (MEPA) is used to assess and monitor cardiovascular health.

2. Physical activity (no changes)

Physical activity continues to be measured by the total number of minutes of moderate or vigorous physical activity per week, as defined by the U.S. Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans (2nd edition). The optimal level is 150 minutes (2.5 hours) of moderate physical activity or more per week or 75 minutes per week of vigorous-intensity physical activity for adults; 420 minutes (7 hours) or more per week for children ages 6 and older; and age-specific modifications for younger children.

3. Nicotine exposure (updated)

Use of inhaled nicotine-delivery systems, which includes e-cigarettes or vaping devices, has been added since the previous metric monitored only traditional, combustible cigarettes. This reflects use by adults and youth and their implications on long-term health. Second-hand smoke exposure for children and adults has also been added.

4. Sleep duration (new)

Sleep duration is associated with CV health. Measured by average hours of sleep per night, the ideal level is 7-9 hours daily for adults. Ideal daily sleep ranges for children are 10-16 hours per 24 hours for ages 5 and younger; 9-12 hours for ages 6-12 years; and 8-10 hours for ages 13-18 years.

5. Body mass index (no changes)

The AHA acknowledges that body mass index (BMI) is an imperfect metric. Yet, because it’s easily calculated and widely available, BMI continues as a “reasonable” gauge to assess weight categories that may lead to health problems. BMI of 18.5-24.9 is associated with the highest levels of CV health. The AHA notes that BMI ranges and the subsequent health risks associated with them may differ among people from diverse racial or ethnic backgrounds or ancestry. This aligns with the World Health Organization recommendations to adjust BMI ranges for people of Asian or Pacific Islander ancestry because recent evidence indicates their risk of conditions such as CVD or type 2 diabetes is higher at a lower BMI.

6. Blood lipids (updated)

The metric for blood lipids (cholesterol and triglycerides) is updated to use non-HDL cholesterol as the preferred number to monitor, rather than total cholesterol. This shift is made because non-HDL cholesterol can be measured without fasting beforehand (thereby increasing its availability at any time of day and implementation at more appointments) and reliably calculated among all people.

7. Blood glucose (updated)

This metric is expanded to include the option of hemoglobin A1c readings or blood glucose levels for people with or without type 1 or 2 diabetes or prediabetes.

8. Blood pressure (no changes)

Blood pressure criteria remain unchanged from 2017 guidance that established levels less than 120/80 mm Hg as optimal, and defined hypertension as 130-139 mm Hg systolic pressure or 80-89 mm Hg diastolic pressure.

‘Concerning’ new data

Results of the first study using Life’s Essential 8 show that the overall CV health of the U.S. population is “well below ideal,” with 80% of adults scoring at a low or moderate level, the researchers report.

Data for the analysis came from 2013-2018 U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination surveys (NHANES) of more than 13,500 adults aged 20-79 years and nearly 9,900 children aged 2-19 years. Among the key findings:

• The average CV health score based on Life’s Essential 8 was 64.7 for adults and 65.5 for children – in the moderate range on the 0-100 scale.
• Only 0.45% of adults had a perfect score of 100; 20% had high CV health (score of 80 or higher), 63% moderate (score of 50-79), and 18% had low CV health (score of less than 50).
• Adult women had higher average CV health scores (67) compared with men (62.5).
• In general, adults scored lowest in the areas of diet, physical activity, and BMI.
• CV health scores were generally lower at older ages.
• Non-Hispanic Asian Americans had a higher average CV health score than other racial/ethnic groups. Non-Hispanic Whites had the second highest average CV health score, followed, in order, by Hispanic (other than Mexican), Mexican, and non-Hispanic Blacks.
• Children’s diet scores were low, at an average of 40.6.
• Adult sociodemographic groups varied notably in CV health scores for diet, nicotine exposure, blood glucose, and blood pressure.

“These data represent the first look at the cardiovascular health of the U.S. population using the AHA’s new Life’s Essential 8 scoring algorithm,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said.

“Life’s Essential 8 is a major step forward in our ability to identify when cardiovascular health can be preserved and when it is suboptimal. It should energize efforts to improve cardiovascular health for all people and at every life stage,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones added.

“Analyses like this can help policymakers, communities, clinicians, and the public to understand the opportunities to intervene to improve and maintain optimal cardiovascular health across the life course,” he said.

This research had no commercial funding. The authors have no reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

When asthma patients are having frequent clinical deteriorations, clinicians need to evaluate them for the presence and severity of bronchiectasis, according to the authors of a retrospective study in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice. While bronchiectasis is known to worsen the clinical and functional outcomes in patients with asthma, data regarding the long-term effects of bronchiectasis on the clinical course of asthma have been limited, stated corresponding author Jung-Kyu Lee, MD, division of pulmonary and critical care medicine, Seoul (Republic of Korea) Metropolitan Government – Seoul National University.

Moderate to severe acute clinical deterioration risks were increased among the 251 patients (mean age 66.6 years, 77.2% men) with bronchiectasis out of 667 asthma patients included in the study. All studied patients underwent chest computed tomography and pulmonary function tests from 2013 to 2019 at two tertiary hospitals in Seoul. The primary outcome, annual incidence of moderate to severe acute exacerbations requiring additional treatment (systemic steroids, antibiotics, or both), was significantly higher in patients with bronchiectasis after a mean follow-up period of 3.96 years. Compared with patients who did not exhibit bronchiectasis, the annual rates of severe exacerbations (0.15 ± 0.43 vs. 0.08 ± 0.27; P = .010), moderate to severe (0.47 ± 0.79 vs. 0.34 ± 0.63; P = .018), and acute exacerbations during the follow-up period (49.8% vs. 39.4%; P = .009) were all significantly higher. There was no difference in the proportion of frequent exacerbators between the two groups, however. Severe acute exacerbations leading to hospitalizations, also, were more frequent in the group with bronchiectasis.
 

Risk factors explored

Significant factors conferring greater risk of severe and moderate to severe acute exacerbations in multivariable analysis included low body mass index, low baseline forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), high use of inhaled corticosteroids, high medication possession, and high neutrophil/lymphocyte ratios. The existence of bronchiectasis remained an independent risk factor for severe and moderate to severe acute exacerbations despite adjustment for all other factors. While bronchiectasis score showed no association with annual rate of acute exacerbation, progression of bronchiectasis confirmed on follow-up CT was associated with increased risks of severe and moderate to severe acute exacerbation.

Included patients had a diagnosis of asthma confirmed by variable expiratory airflow limitation with pulmonary function tests (that is, positive bronchodilator response, positive bronchial provocation test, or excessive variation in lung function between visits). Past histories of tuberculosis and nontuberculous mycobacterial lung disease, lower absolute and predicted values of both baseline FEV₁ and forced vital capacity were more common among patients with bronchiectasis.

Dividing the study population into a group that had at least one moderate to severe acute exacerbation during the follow-up period and a group that did not, the researchers identified characteristics shared by exacerbators: a greater proportion were women, they had lower forced vital capacity and lung-diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide, higher blood FVC and blood neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, and more medication use (inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting antimuscarinic agent, leukotriene-receptor antagonist, and methylxanthine), compared with the nonexacerbators. More bronchiectasis, more severe bronchiectasis (higher bronchiectasis score), and more progression of bronchiectasis were common among the exacerbators.

Higher acute exacerbation risks accompanied bronchiectasis, at 1.47-fold for moderate, 1.72-fold for severe, and 1.50-fold for moderate to severe exacerbations. Higher risk for severe and moderate to severe exacerbations was conferred by bronchiectasis progression, also.

The researchers pointed to contradictory effects of inhaled corticosteroid use, noting both corticosteroids’ essential role in controlling airway inflammation and hyperresponsiveness, exacerbations, and lung-function decline in asthma patients and that longer or greater inhaled corticosteroid use is associated with both clinical deterioration in asthma and bronchiectasis, and exacerbation history. For bronchiectasis, however, inhaled corticosteroid use offers no benefit while increasing susceptibility to infection and its risks through partial immunosuppression.

“Considering these contradictory effects of inhaled corticosteroid use, further research is needed regarding its risks and benefits in asthma patients with bronchiectasis, including differences in the benefit of inhaled corticosteroid use according to patient phenotype,” Dr. Kim and his colleagues concluded.
 

The role of corticosteroids

“One of the more important points discussed in this observational cohort study is the role of inhaled corticosteroid use in bronchiectasis,” said Mary Jo Farmer, MD, PhD, director of pulmonary hypertension services, Baystate Health, and assistant professor of medicine, University of Massachusetts – Baystate, both in Springfield, in an interview with this news organization. She cited a review finding no significant benefit versus placebo in spirometry, exacerbation rate, or sputum volume in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and another suggesting that quality of life was improved with inhaled corticosteroid use in individuals with blood eosinophils greater than 3%, compared with those not using inhaled corticosteroids or having lower eosinophil counts in the European Respiratory Journal. She cited also higher percentages (48% versus 23%) of adrenal insufficiency in bronchiectasis patients among those taking inhaled corticosteroids versus those not taking them.

Dr. Farmer added, “According to the 2018 Cochrane review of inhaled corticosteroid treatment for non–cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis, results from most randomized, placebo-controlled trials have been disappointing in terms of effects on most endpoints such as pulmonary function and exacerbation frequency. As such, the European Respiratory Society guidelines for the management of adult bronchiectasis advise against prescribing inhaled corticosteroids to patients with bronchiectasis, unless otherwise indicated by either an asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease diagnosis. Also, inhaled corticosteroid treatment in asthma and COPD is associated with common side effects such as oral candidiasis, dysphonia and, in some cases, systemic corticosteroid effects. The rate of adverse events from inhaled corticosteroid treatment of bronchiectasis, however, is largely unknown.Dr. Lee and Dr. Farmer reported no relevant financial relationships. The study was independently supported.

When asthma patients are having frequent clinical deteriorations, clinicians need to evaluate them for the presence and severity of bronchiectasis, according to the authors of a retrospective study in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice. While bronchiectasis is known to worsen the clinical and functional outcomes in patients with asthma, data regarding the long-term effects of bronchiectasis on the clinical course of asthma have been limited, stated corresponding author Jung-Kyu Lee, MD, division of pulmonary and critical care medicine, Seoul (Republic of Korea) Metropolitan Government – Seoul National University.

Moderate to severe acute clinical deterioration risks were increased among the 251 patients (mean age 66.6 years, 77.2% men) with bronchiectasis out of 667 asthma patients included in the study. All studied patients underwent chest computed tomography and pulmonary function tests from 2013 to 2019 at two tertiary hospitals in Seoul. The primary outcome, annual incidence of moderate to severe acute exacerbations requiring additional treatment (systemic steroids, antibiotics, or both), was significantly higher in patients with bronchiectasis after a mean follow-up period of 3.96 years. Compared with patients who did not exhibit bronchiectasis, the annual rates of severe exacerbations (0.15 ± 0.43 vs. 0.08 ± 0.27; P = .010), moderate to severe (0.47 ± 0.79 vs. 0.34 ± 0.63; P = .018), and acute exacerbations during the follow-up period (49.8% vs. 39.4%; P = .009) were all significantly higher. There was no difference in the proportion of frequent exacerbators between the two groups, however. Severe acute exacerbations leading to hospitalizations, also, were more frequent in the group with bronchiectasis.
 

Risk factors explored

Significant factors conferring greater risk of severe and moderate to severe acute exacerbations in multivariable analysis included low body mass index, low baseline forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), high use of inhaled corticosteroids, high medication possession, and high neutrophil/lymphocyte ratios. The existence of bronchiectasis remained an independent risk factor for severe and moderate to severe acute exacerbations despite adjustment for all other factors. While bronchiectasis score showed no association with annual rate of acute exacerbation, progression of bronchiectasis confirmed on follow-up CT was associated with increased risks of severe and moderate to severe acute exacerbation.

Included patients had a diagnosis of asthma confirmed by variable expiratory airflow limitation with pulmonary function tests (that is, positive bronchodilator response, positive bronchial provocation test, or excessive variation in lung function between visits). Past histories of tuberculosis and nontuberculous mycobacterial lung disease, lower absolute and predicted values of both baseline FEV₁ and forced vital capacity were more common among patients with bronchiectasis.

Dividing the study population into a group that had at least one moderate to severe acute exacerbation during the follow-up period and a group that did not, the researchers identified characteristics shared by exacerbators: a greater proportion were women, they had lower forced vital capacity and lung-diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide, higher blood FVC and blood neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, and more medication use (inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting antimuscarinic agent, leukotriene-receptor antagonist, and methylxanthine), compared with the nonexacerbators. More bronchiectasis, more severe bronchiectasis (higher bronchiectasis score), and more progression of bronchiectasis were common among the exacerbators.

Higher acute exacerbation risks accompanied bronchiectasis, at 1.47-fold for moderate, 1.72-fold for severe, and 1.50-fold for moderate to severe exacerbations. Higher risk for severe and moderate to severe exacerbations was conferred by bronchiectasis progression, also.

The researchers pointed to contradictory effects of inhaled corticosteroid use, noting both corticosteroids’ essential role in controlling airway inflammation and hyperresponsiveness, exacerbations, and lung-function decline in asthma patients and that longer or greater inhaled corticosteroid use is associated with both clinical deterioration in asthma and bronchiectasis, and exacerbation history. For bronchiectasis, however, inhaled corticosteroid use offers no benefit while increasing susceptibility to infection and its risks through partial immunosuppression.

“Considering these contradictory effects of inhaled corticosteroid use, further research is needed regarding its risks and benefits in asthma patients with bronchiectasis, including differences in the benefit of inhaled corticosteroid use according to patient phenotype,” Dr. Kim and his colleagues concluded.
 

The role of corticosteroids

“One of the more important points discussed in this observational cohort study is the role of inhaled corticosteroid use in bronchiectasis,” said Mary Jo Farmer, MD, PhD, director of pulmonary hypertension services, Baystate Health, and assistant professor of medicine, University of Massachusetts – Baystate, both in Springfield, in an interview with this news organization. She cited a review finding no significant benefit versus placebo in spirometry, exacerbation rate, or sputum volume in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and another suggesting that quality of life was improved with inhaled corticosteroid use in individuals with blood eosinophils greater than 3%, compared with those not using inhaled corticosteroids or having lower eosinophil counts in the European Respiratory Journal. She cited also higher percentages (48% versus 23%) of adrenal insufficiency in bronchiectasis patients among those taking inhaled corticosteroids versus those not taking them.

Dr. Farmer added, “According to the 2018 Cochrane review of inhaled corticosteroid treatment for non–cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis, results from most randomized, placebo-controlled trials have been disappointing in terms of effects on most endpoints such as pulmonary function and exacerbation frequency. As such, the European Respiratory Society guidelines for the management of adult bronchiectasis advise against prescribing inhaled corticosteroids to patients with bronchiectasis, unless otherwise indicated by either an asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease diagnosis. Also, inhaled corticosteroid treatment in asthma and COPD is associated with common side effects such as oral candidiasis, dysphonia and, in some cases, systemic corticosteroid effects. The rate of adverse events from inhaled corticosteroid treatment of bronchiectasis, however, is largely unknown.Dr. Lee and Dr. Farmer reported no relevant financial relationships. The study was independently supported.

When asthma patients are having frequent clinical deteriorations, clinicians need to evaluate them for the presence and severity of bronchiectasis, according to the authors of a retrospective study in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice. While bronchiectasis is known to worsen the clinical and functional outcomes in patients with asthma, data regarding the long-term effects of bronchiectasis on the clinical course of asthma have been limited, stated corresponding author Jung-Kyu Lee, MD, division of pulmonary and critical care medicine, Seoul (Republic of Korea) Metropolitan Government – Seoul National University.

Moderate to severe acute clinical deterioration risks were increased among the 251 patients (mean age 66.6 years, 77.2% men) with bronchiectasis out of 667 asthma patients included in the study. All studied patients underwent chest computed tomography and pulmonary function tests from 2013 to 2019 at two tertiary hospitals in Seoul. The primary outcome, annual incidence of moderate to severe acute exacerbations requiring additional treatment (systemic steroids, antibiotics, or both), was significantly higher in patients with bronchiectasis after a mean follow-up period of 3.96 years. Compared with patients who did not exhibit bronchiectasis, the annual rates of severe exacerbations (0.15 ± 0.43 vs. 0.08 ± 0.27; P = .010), moderate to severe (0.47 ± 0.79 vs. 0.34 ± 0.63; P = .018), and acute exacerbations during the follow-up period (49.8% vs. 39.4%; P = .009) were all significantly higher. There was no difference in the proportion of frequent exacerbators between the two groups, however. Severe acute exacerbations leading to hospitalizations, also, were more frequent in the group with bronchiectasis.
 

Risk factors explored

Significant factors conferring greater risk of severe and moderate to severe acute exacerbations in multivariable analysis included low body mass index, low baseline forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), high use of inhaled corticosteroids, high medication possession, and high neutrophil/lymphocyte ratios. The existence of bronchiectasis remained an independent risk factor for severe and moderate to severe acute exacerbations despite adjustment for all other factors. While bronchiectasis score showed no association with annual rate of acute exacerbation, progression of bronchiectasis confirmed on follow-up CT was associated with increased risks of severe and moderate to severe acute exacerbation.

Included patients had a diagnosis of asthma confirmed by variable expiratory airflow limitation with pulmonary function tests (that is, positive bronchodilator response, positive bronchial provocation test, or excessive variation in lung function between visits). Past histories of tuberculosis and nontuberculous mycobacterial lung disease, lower absolute and predicted values of both baseline FEV₁ and forced vital capacity were more common among patients with bronchiectasis.

Dividing the study population into a group that had at least one moderate to severe acute exacerbation during the follow-up period and a group that did not, the researchers identified characteristics shared by exacerbators: a greater proportion were women, they had lower forced vital capacity and lung-diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide, higher blood FVC and blood neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, and more medication use (inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting antimuscarinic agent, leukotriene-receptor antagonist, and methylxanthine), compared with the nonexacerbators. More bronchiectasis, more severe bronchiectasis (higher bronchiectasis score), and more progression of bronchiectasis were common among the exacerbators.

Higher acute exacerbation risks accompanied bronchiectasis, at 1.47-fold for moderate, 1.72-fold for severe, and 1.50-fold for moderate to severe exacerbations. Higher risk for severe and moderate to severe exacerbations was conferred by bronchiectasis progression, also.

The researchers pointed to contradictory effects of inhaled corticosteroid use, noting both corticosteroids’ essential role in controlling airway inflammation and hyperresponsiveness, exacerbations, and lung-function decline in asthma patients and that longer or greater inhaled corticosteroid use is associated with both clinical deterioration in asthma and bronchiectasis, and exacerbation history. For bronchiectasis, however, inhaled corticosteroid use offers no benefit while increasing susceptibility to infection and its risks through partial immunosuppression.

“Considering these contradictory effects of inhaled corticosteroid use, further research is needed regarding its risks and benefits in asthma patients with bronchiectasis, including differences in the benefit of inhaled corticosteroid use according to patient phenotype,” Dr. Kim and his colleagues concluded.
 

The role of corticosteroids

“One of the more important points discussed in this observational cohort study is the role of inhaled corticosteroid use in bronchiectasis,” said Mary Jo Farmer, MD, PhD, director of pulmonary hypertension services, Baystate Health, and assistant professor of medicine, University of Massachusetts – Baystate, both in Springfield, in an interview with this news organization. She cited a review finding no significant benefit versus placebo in spirometry, exacerbation rate, or sputum volume in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and another suggesting that quality of life was improved with inhaled corticosteroid use in individuals with blood eosinophils greater than 3%, compared with those not using inhaled corticosteroids or having lower eosinophil counts in the European Respiratory Journal. She cited also higher percentages (48% versus 23%) of adrenal insufficiency in bronchiectasis patients among those taking inhaled corticosteroids versus those not taking them.

Dr. Farmer added, “According to the 2018 Cochrane review of inhaled corticosteroid treatment for non–cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis, results from most randomized, placebo-controlled trials have been disappointing in terms of effects on most endpoints such as pulmonary function and exacerbation frequency. As such, the European Respiratory Society guidelines for the management of adult bronchiectasis advise against prescribing inhaled corticosteroids to patients with bronchiectasis, unless otherwise indicated by either an asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease diagnosis. Also, inhaled corticosteroid treatment in asthma and COPD is associated with common side effects such as oral candidiasis, dysphonia and, in some cases, systemic corticosteroid effects. The rate of adverse events from inhaled corticosteroid treatment of bronchiectasis, however, is largely unknown.Dr. Lee and Dr. Farmer reported no relevant financial relationships. The study was independently supported.

When Amy Moser had a simple urinary tract infection in her late 20s, her doctor prescribed Cipro, a powerful antibiotic used to treat anthrax and some of the most fearsome bacterial infections.

Nearly 2 weeks after she finished her treatment, her left kneecap dislocated while she was trying on a swimsuit at a retail store. Shortly afterward, she had painful ligament ruptures in her wrists, then her shoulder dislocated, followed by three Achilles tendon tears.

“That’s when I fell apart,” says Ms. Moser, a Phoenix health blogger and book author. “From that moment on, for almost the next 2.5 years consistently, I had new tendon tears every few weeks.”

Ms. Moser’s doctors had no answer for what was causing her injuries, all of which required surgical fixes. A married mother of three, she was otherwise healthy and fit. So, after her third Achilles tear, she turned to the FDA’s website for answers. There, she found many warnings about side effects of Cipro, Levaquin, and other so-called fluoroquinolones, including risks for tendon and ligament injuries.

“When all the ruptures started to happen, my doctor kept asking me if I’d ever taken Levaquin, and every time I was like, ‘No.’ So I did what all doctors don’t want you to do: I Googled ‘Levaquin,’ ” she recalls.

Her search led to FDA warnings and articles about the possibility of tendon and ligament ruptures with fluroquinolones.

“That was the first time I’d ever even heard that word ‘fluroquinolones,’ and I found Cipro on that list ... and I realized that I’d just been prescribed that before everything started,” she says.

That was 12 years ago. Since then, the FDA has issued more warnings about fluoroquinolone risks. In that time, Ms. Moser, now 40, has had more than 30 surgeries to correct tendon ruptures and injuries, including a double-knee replacement this year.

“I am in chronic pain all the time,” she says. “I am chronically injured. I have a lot of tears that I’ve not fixed because they’re very complicated, and I don’t know if the rest of my body can handle the strain of recovering from those surgeries.”

Ms. Moser’s is hardly an isolated case. Since the 1980s, more than 60,000 patients have reported hundreds of thousands of serious events linked to fluoroquinolones to the FDA, including 6,575 reports of deaths.

The most common side effects were tendon rupture, as well as neurological and psychiatric symptoms. But experts estimate only 1%-10% of such events are reported to the FDA. That suggests that fluoroquinolones might have harmed hundreds of thousands of people in the United States alone, says Charles Bennett, MD, a hematologist at the University of South Carolina’s College of Pharmacy, Columbia.

Yet despite the many patient reports and FDA warnings on dangerous side effects, many doctors continue to wrongly prescribe fluoroquinolones for simple urinary tract infections, sinus infections, and respiratory issues better treated with less risky antibiotics.

“There probably is overprescription by primary care doctors for urinary tract infections and respiratory infections, when there could be alternatives that are safer to use,” says Amesh Adalja, MD, an infectious disease specialist and senior scholar with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.

“I would say that’s probably the case in the outpatient setting, not necessarily in the hospital setting or among infectious disease doctors ... but I think it’s important to say there are still some judicious uses of fluoroquinolones,” he says. “However, there probably is a lot of injudicious use of fluoroquinolones along with many other antibiotics in the primary care setting.”
 

FDA warnings on fluoroquinolones

Fluoroquinolones are a class of broad-spectrum antibiotics used for decades to treat certain bacterial infections.

FDA-approved fluoroquinolones include ciprofloxacin (Cipro), ciprofloxacin extended-release tablets, delafloxacin (Baxdela), gemifloxacin (Factive) levofloxacin (Levaquin), moxifloxacin (Avelox), and ofloxacin (Floxin). More than 60 generic versions of these brand-name medicines are also on the market, making them among the most prescribed antibiotics in the U.S.

Over the past 2 decades, a wide range of physical and mental health side effects have been tied to fluoroquinolones. As a result of these “adverse event reports” and research published in medical literature, the FDA has required an escalating series of warnings and safety labeling changes for doctors who prescribe these drugs.

• In 2008, the FDA first added a “black box” warning to fluoroquinolones, citing an increased risk of tendinitis and tendon rupture in patients prescribed these meds.
• In 2011, the agency required the warning label to include risks of worsening symptoms for those with myasthenia gravis, a chronic autoimmune disease that causes muscle weakness, vision problems, and speech problems.
• In 2013, regulators required updated labels noting the potential for irreversible peripheral neuropathy (serious nerve damage).
• In 2016, the FDA issued its strongest warning against the use of such antibiotics for simple bacterial infections – such as uncomplicated urinary tract infections (UTIs), acute sinusitis, and acute bronchitis – saying the “association of fluoroquinolones with disabling and potentially permanent side effects involving tendons, muscles, joints, nerves and the central nervous system ... outweighs the benefits for patients.”
• And in 2018, regulators required safety labeling changes to include warnings about the risks of aortic aneurysm – a life-threatening enlargement of the main vessel that delivers blood to the body – as well as mental health side effects and serious blood sugar disturbances.

But FDA regulators have stopped short of barring fluoroquinolone use in the treatment of bacterial infections, citing the benefits for certain conditions.

“For some patients, the benefits of fluoroquinolones may continue to outweigh the risks for treatment of serious bacterial infections, such as pneumonia or intra-abdominal infections,” said former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, “but there are other serious, known risks associated with these strong antibiotics that must be carefully weighed when considering their use.”

In December 2021, a study published in the journal JAMA Network Open found the FDA’s warnings may have helped lower prescribing of the drugs in Medicare patients. But not all doctors have been responsive to those warnings, researchers found.

“An overall decline in change over time and an immediate change in fluoroquinolone prescribing was observed after the 2016 FDA warning,” the authors concluded. “Certain physicians, such as primary care physicians, were more responsive to FDA warnings than others. ... Findings of this study suggest that identifying the association of physician and organizational characteristics with fluoroquinolone prescribing practices could help in developing mechanisms for improving de-adoption.”

Some critics say the FDA should do more to spotlight the dangers of fluoroquinolones and require doctors and patients to sign checklist consent forms to show they are aware of the potential side effects of these drugs.

Rachel Brummert, a patient advocate who sits on an FDA consumer advisory board, believes the FDA needs to improve its communication to doctors on fluoroquinolone risks and get tougher with those who continue to inappropriately prescribe the drugs.

“I think there needs to be a system in place, where if something comes down from the FDA about a drug, the physician has to sign off on it, the patient has to sign off on it and mark that they understand that there are these ‘black box’ warnings,” says Ms. Brummert, 52, a representative on the FDA’s Medical Devices Advisory Committee.

As an example, she points to Australia’s medical laws requiring doctors and patients to sign a checklist before any fluoroquinolone prescription is approved.

“When a physician prescribes a fluoroquinolone antibiotic, there’s a checklist – does the patient have an infection, is it a simple infection, do they have allergies?” she notes. “And you can’t even get the prescription out – it won’t even print out, it won’t go into the system – unless you check all of the boxes. But we don’t do that here. We don’t have that type of system right now.”

Ms. Brummert says such a system might have prevented the harm from taking Levaquin her doctor prescribed for a suspected sinus infection in 2006.

Soon after she began taking the antibiotic, she ruptured her Achilles tendon, requiring surgery. By 2009, she’d had three ruptures, each needing surgical fixes. To date, she’s had more than 30 surgeries to correct tendon ruptures. She’s also had seizures, blood pressure issues, depression, chronic pain, and memory problems she attributes to taking Levaquin.

As it turns out, her doctor misdiagnosed her condition – a misstep that would have been averted with a system like Australia’s, which requires doctors to verify the presence of a bacterial infection through a simple test before prescribing a fluoroquinolone.

“When I got the Levaquin, it was for a suspected sinus infection that it turned out I didn’t even have in the first place,” she notes. “So, I took the Levaquin basically for nothing. But what I would have asked my doctor had I known is: ‘Why should I take something so strong for so simple an infection?’

“It seems common sense to me now that you don’t prescribe something that can kill anthrax for a simple sinus infection. It’s like an atom bomb killing a mosquito. I agree that there are uses for these drugs, but they are being overprescribed. And so, here I am 16 years later – I’m still rupturing, I’m still having surgery, and I’m still in pain – all for something I didn’t even need medicine for in the first place.”
 

Should guidelines be stronger?

So, why are so many doctors continuing to prescribe fluoroquinolones for simple infections? Dr. Adalja and other experts say several things are at work.

For one thing, Dr. Adalja notes, fluoroquinolones are broad-spectrum antibiotics that are effective against dangerous germs, including “gram-negative” bacterial infections, and are “100% bioavailable.” That means they are as effective when given in pill form as they are if put directly into a vein. So they can be used in an outpatient setting or to allow a patient to be discharged from a hospital sooner because they don’t need an IV to receive treatment.

“There are still some uses for these drugs because they are so bioavailable, and I think that drives some of the use, and those are legitimate uses, knowing that there are risks when you do it,” he says. “But no drug is without risks, and you have to weigh risks and benefits – that’s what medicine is about: deciding what the best drug is for a patient.”

But Dr. Adalja says the overprescription of fluoroquinolones is part of the larger trend of antibiotic overuse. That is driving up antibiotic resistance, which in turn is another thing leading doctors to turn to Cipro and other fluoroquinolones after other drugs have proven ineffective.

“You can’t separate this from the fact that 80% of antibiotic prescriptions in the outpatient setting are probably illegitimate or not warranted,” he notes. “And because fluoroquinolones are highly effective drugs against certain pathogens, they are the go-to [drug] for many people who are prescribing antibiotics.”

That’s why patients should be wary whenever a doctor prescribes a fluoroquinolone, or any drug to treat a suspected infection, he says.

“Any time a patient is getting prescribed an antibiotic by a physician, they should ask: ‘Do I really need this antibiotic?’ That should be the first question they ask,” he advises. “And if they’re getting a fluoroquinolone, they may want to ask: ‘Is this the best antibiotic for me?’ ”
 

What you can do

Ms. Brummert and Ms. Moser say they are sharing their stories to raise awareness of the dangers of fluoroquinolones.

Ms. Moser has published a book on her experiences, “The Magnificent Story of a Lame Author,” and provides a wealth of consumer resources on her blog: Mountains and Mustard Seeds.

“As much as I hate what has happened to me, it has put me in a place where I am glad that I can inform other patients,” she says.

Ms. Brummert supplements her advocacy work as an FDA adviser with useful materials she provides on her website: Drugwatch.com.

“Pain into purpose – that’s what I call it,” she says. “I can’t change what happened to me, but I can warn others.”

The upshot for patients?

• the FDA’s Drug Safety Communication on Fluoroquinolones online to learn more about the risks and benefits of these powerful antibiotics.
• If you believe you’ve been harmed by fluoroquinolones, MedWatch website to report your experiences.

Ms. Brummert also advises patients to ask 12 critical questions of any doctor who wants to prescribe a fluoroquinolone, including the following listed on her website:

• For what condition is this medication prescribed, and is there another drug specific to my condition?
• What are the risks associated with this medication, and do the benefits outweigh them?
• Will this medication interact with my other drugs and/or other health conditions?
• What are the “boxed” warnings for this medication, and where can I report adverse events?

“I would also do my own research,” she says. “I wouldn’t just take a prescription from a physician and just say, ‘OK, doctor knows best.’ ”

Ms. Moser agrees that you have to be your own patient advocate and not simply take a doctor’s advice on any medical issue without having a deeper conversation.

“I’ve had arguments with doctors who legitimately did not believe me when I told them what happened to me,” she says. “And I actually told them, ‘Go get your Physicians’ Desk Reference [for prescription drugs]’ and they opened the book in front of me and read the warnings. Obviously, they had not been keeping up with the added warnings. So, I do think that doctors do need to be better informed.”

“So, yes, it’s the FDA’s responsibility, but it is also the doctors’ responsibility to make sure that they’re watching out for the side effects and they’re reporting them when their patients come up with them and making those connections.”

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

When Amy Moser had a simple urinary tract infection in her late 20s, her doctor prescribed Cipro, a powerful antibiotic used to treat anthrax and some of the most fearsome bacterial infections.

Nearly 2 weeks after she finished her treatment, her left kneecap dislocated while she was trying on a swimsuit at a retail store. Shortly afterward, she had painful ligament ruptures in her wrists, then her shoulder dislocated, followed by three Achilles tendon tears.

“That’s when I fell apart,” says Ms. Moser, a Phoenix health blogger and book author. “From that moment on, for almost the next 2.5 years consistently, I had new tendon tears every few weeks.”

Ms. Moser’s doctors had no answer for what was causing her injuries, all of which required surgical fixes. A married mother of three, she was otherwise healthy and fit. So, after her third Achilles tear, she turned to the FDA’s website for answers. There, she found many warnings about side effects of Cipro, Levaquin, and other so-called fluoroquinolones, including risks for tendon and ligament injuries.

“When all the ruptures started to happen, my doctor kept asking me if I’d ever taken Levaquin, and every time I was like, ‘No.’ So I did what all doctors don’t want you to do: I Googled ‘Levaquin,’ ” she recalls.

Her search led to FDA warnings and articles about the possibility of tendon and ligament ruptures with fluroquinolones.

“That was the first time I’d ever even heard that word ‘fluroquinolones,’ and I found Cipro on that list ... and I realized that I’d just been prescribed that before everything started,” she says.

That was 12 years ago. Since then, the FDA has issued more warnings about fluoroquinolone risks. In that time, Ms. Moser, now 40, has had more than 30 surgeries to correct tendon ruptures and injuries, including a double-knee replacement this year.

“I am in chronic pain all the time,” she says. “I am chronically injured. I have a lot of tears that I’ve not fixed because they’re very complicated, and I don’t know if the rest of my body can handle the strain of recovering from those surgeries.”

Ms. Moser’s is hardly an isolated case. Since the 1980s, more than 60,000 patients have reported hundreds of thousands of serious events linked to fluoroquinolones to the FDA, including 6,575 reports of deaths.

The most common side effects were tendon rupture, as well as neurological and psychiatric symptoms. But experts estimate only 1%-10% of such events are reported to the FDA. That suggests that fluoroquinolones might have harmed hundreds of thousands of people in the United States alone, says Charles Bennett, MD, a hematologist at the University of South Carolina’s College of Pharmacy, Columbia.

Yet despite the many patient reports and FDA warnings on dangerous side effects, many doctors continue to wrongly prescribe fluoroquinolones for simple urinary tract infections, sinus infections, and respiratory issues better treated with less risky antibiotics.

“There probably is overprescription by primary care doctors for urinary tract infections and respiratory infections, when there could be alternatives that are safer to use,” says Amesh Adalja, MD, an infectious disease specialist and senior scholar with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.

“I would say that’s probably the case in the outpatient setting, not necessarily in the hospital setting or among infectious disease doctors ... but I think it’s important to say there are still some judicious uses of fluoroquinolones,” he says. “However, there probably is a lot of injudicious use of fluoroquinolones along with many other antibiotics in the primary care setting.”
 

FDA warnings on fluoroquinolones

Fluoroquinolones are a class of broad-spectrum antibiotics used for decades to treat certain bacterial infections.

FDA-approved fluoroquinolones include ciprofloxacin (Cipro), ciprofloxacin extended-release tablets, delafloxacin (Baxdela), gemifloxacin (Factive) levofloxacin (Levaquin), moxifloxacin (Avelox), and ofloxacin (Floxin). More than 60 generic versions of these brand-name medicines are also on the market, making them among the most prescribed antibiotics in the U.S.

Over the past 2 decades, a wide range of physical and mental health side effects have been tied to fluoroquinolones. As a result of these “adverse event reports” and research published in medical literature, the FDA has required an escalating series of warnings and safety labeling changes for doctors who prescribe these drugs.

• In 2008, the FDA first added a “black box” warning to fluoroquinolones, citing an increased risk of tendinitis and tendon rupture in patients prescribed these meds.
• In 2011, the agency required the warning label to include risks of worsening symptoms for those with myasthenia gravis, a chronic autoimmune disease that causes muscle weakness, vision problems, and speech problems.
• In 2013, regulators required updated labels noting the potential for irreversible peripheral neuropathy (serious nerve damage).
• In 2016, the FDA issued its strongest warning against the use of such antibiotics for simple bacterial infections – such as uncomplicated urinary tract infections (UTIs), acute sinusitis, and acute bronchitis – saying the “association of fluoroquinolones with disabling and potentially permanent side effects involving tendons, muscles, joints, nerves and the central nervous system ... outweighs the benefits for patients.”
• And in 2018, regulators required safety labeling changes to include warnings about the risks of aortic aneurysm – a life-threatening enlargement of the main vessel that delivers blood to the body – as well as mental health side effects and serious blood sugar disturbances.

But FDA regulators have stopped short of barring fluoroquinolone use in the treatment of bacterial infections, citing the benefits for certain conditions.

“For some patients, the benefits of fluoroquinolones may continue to outweigh the risks for treatment of serious bacterial infections, such as pneumonia or intra-abdominal infections,” said former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, “but there are other serious, known risks associated with these strong antibiotics that must be carefully weighed when considering their use.”

In December 2021, a study published in the journal JAMA Network Open found the FDA’s warnings may have helped lower prescribing of the drugs in Medicare patients. But not all doctors have been responsive to those warnings, researchers found.

“An overall decline in change over time and an immediate change in fluoroquinolone prescribing was observed after the 2016 FDA warning,” the authors concluded. “Certain physicians, such as primary care physicians, were more responsive to FDA warnings than others. ... Findings of this study suggest that identifying the association of physician and organizational characteristics with fluoroquinolone prescribing practices could help in developing mechanisms for improving de-adoption.”

Some critics say the FDA should do more to spotlight the dangers of fluoroquinolones and require doctors and patients to sign checklist consent forms to show they are aware of the potential side effects of these drugs.

Rachel Brummert, a patient advocate who sits on an FDA consumer advisory board, believes the FDA needs to improve its communication to doctors on fluoroquinolone risks and get tougher with those who continue to inappropriately prescribe the drugs.

“I think there needs to be a system in place, where if something comes down from the FDA about a drug, the physician has to sign off on it, the patient has to sign off on it and mark that they understand that there are these ‘black box’ warnings,” says Ms. Brummert, 52, a representative on the FDA’s Medical Devices Advisory Committee.

As an example, she points to Australia’s medical laws requiring doctors and patients to sign a checklist before any fluoroquinolone prescription is approved.

“When a physician prescribes a fluoroquinolone antibiotic, there’s a checklist – does the patient have an infection, is it a simple infection, do they have allergies?” she notes. “And you can’t even get the prescription out – it won’t even print out, it won’t go into the system – unless you check all of the boxes. But we don’t do that here. We don’t have that type of system right now.”

Ms. Brummert says such a system might have prevented the harm from taking Levaquin her doctor prescribed for a suspected sinus infection in 2006.

Soon after she began taking the antibiotic, she ruptured her Achilles tendon, requiring surgery. By 2009, she’d had three ruptures, each needing surgical fixes. To date, she’s had more than 30 surgeries to correct tendon ruptures. She’s also had seizures, blood pressure issues, depression, chronic pain, and memory problems she attributes to taking Levaquin.

As it turns out, her doctor misdiagnosed her condition – a misstep that would have been averted with a system like Australia’s, which requires doctors to verify the presence of a bacterial infection through a simple test before prescribing a fluoroquinolone.

“When I got the Levaquin, it was for a suspected sinus infection that it turned out I didn’t even have in the first place,” she notes. “So, I took the Levaquin basically for nothing. But what I would have asked my doctor had I known is: ‘Why should I take something so strong for so simple an infection?’

“It seems common sense to me now that you don’t prescribe something that can kill anthrax for a simple sinus infection. It’s like an atom bomb killing a mosquito. I agree that there are uses for these drugs, but they are being overprescribed. And so, here I am 16 years later – I’m still rupturing, I’m still having surgery, and I’m still in pain – all for something I didn’t even need medicine for in the first place.”
 

Should guidelines be stronger?

So, why are so many doctors continuing to prescribe fluoroquinolones for simple infections? Dr. Adalja and other experts say several things are at work.

For one thing, Dr. Adalja notes, fluoroquinolones are broad-spectrum antibiotics that are effective against dangerous germs, including “gram-negative” bacterial infections, and are “100% bioavailable.” That means they are as effective when given in pill form as they are if put directly into a vein. So they can be used in an outpatient setting or to allow a patient to be discharged from a hospital sooner because they don’t need an IV to receive treatment.

“There are still some uses for these drugs because they are so bioavailable, and I think that drives some of the use, and those are legitimate uses, knowing that there are risks when you do it,” he says. “But no drug is without risks, and you have to weigh risks and benefits – that’s what medicine is about: deciding what the best drug is for a patient.”

But Dr. Adalja says the overprescription of fluoroquinolones is part of the larger trend of antibiotic overuse. That is driving up antibiotic resistance, which in turn is another thing leading doctors to turn to Cipro and other fluoroquinolones after other drugs have proven ineffective.

“You can’t separate this from the fact that 80% of antibiotic prescriptions in the outpatient setting are probably illegitimate or not warranted,” he notes. “And because fluoroquinolones are highly effective drugs against certain pathogens, they are the go-to [drug] for many people who are prescribing antibiotics.”

That’s why patients should be wary whenever a doctor prescribes a fluoroquinolone, or any drug to treat a suspected infection, he says.

“Any time a patient is getting prescribed an antibiotic by a physician, they should ask: ‘Do I really need this antibiotic?’ That should be the first question they ask,” he advises. “And if they’re getting a fluoroquinolone, they may want to ask: ‘Is this the best antibiotic for me?’ ”
 

What you can do

Ms. Brummert and Ms. Moser say they are sharing their stories to raise awareness of the dangers of fluoroquinolones.

Ms. Moser has published a book on her experiences, “The Magnificent Story of a Lame Author,” and provides a wealth of consumer resources on her blog: Mountains and Mustard Seeds.

“As much as I hate what has happened to me, it has put me in a place where I am glad that I can inform other patients,” she says.

Ms. Brummert supplements her advocacy work as an FDA adviser with useful materials she provides on her website: Drugwatch.com.

“Pain into purpose – that’s what I call it,” she says. “I can’t change what happened to me, but I can warn others.”

The upshot for patients?

• the FDA’s Drug Safety Communication on Fluoroquinolones online to learn more about the risks and benefits of these powerful antibiotics.
• If you believe you’ve been harmed by fluoroquinolones, MedWatch website to report your experiences.

Ms. Brummert also advises patients to ask 12 critical questions of any doctor who wants to prescribe a fluoroquinolone, including the following listed on her website:

• For what condition is this medication prescribed, and is there another drug specific to my condition?
• What are the risks associated with this medication, and do the benefits outweigh them?
• Will this medication interact with my other drugs and/or other health conditions?
• What are the “boxed” warnings for this medication, and where can I report adverse events?

“I would also do my own research,” she says. “I wouldn’t just take a prescription from a physician and just say, ‘OK, doctor knows best.’ ”

Ms. Moser agrees that you have to be your own patient advocate and not simply take a doctor’s advice on any medical issue without having a deeper conversation.

“I’ve had arguments with doctors who legitimately did not believe me when I told them what happened to me,” she says. “And I actually told them, ‘Go get your Physicians’ Desk Reference [for prescription drugs]’ and they opened the book in front of me and read the warnings. Obviously, they had not been keeping up with the added warnings. So, I do think that doctors do need to be better informed.”

“So, yes, it’s the FDA’s responsibility, but it is also the doctors’ responsibility to make sure that they’re watching out for the side effects and they’re reporting them when their patients come up with them and making those connections.”

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

When Amy Moser had a simple urinary tract infection in her late 20s, her doctor prescribed Cipro, a powerful antibiotic used to treat anthrax and some of the most fearsome bacterial infections.

Nearly 2 weeks after she finished her treatment, her left kneecap dislocated while she was trying on a swimsuit at a retail store. Shortly afterward, she had painful ligament ruptures in her wrists, then her shoulder dislocated, followed by three Achilles tendon tears.

“That’s when I fell apart,” says Ms. Moser, a Phoenix health blogger and book author. “From that moment on, for almost the next 2.5 years consistently, I had new tendon tears every few weeks.”

Ms. Moser’s doctors had no answer for what was causing her injuries, all of which required surgical fixes. A married mother of three, she was otherwise healthy and fit. So, after her third Achilles tear, she turned to the FDA’s website for answers. There, she found many warnings about side effects of Cipro, Levaquin, and other so-called fluoroquinolones, including risks for tendon and ligament injuries.

“When all the ruptures started to happen, my doctor kept asking me if I’d ever taken Levaquin, and every time I was like, ‘No.’ So I did what all doctors don’t want you to do: I Googled ‘Levaquin,’ ” she recalls.

Her search led to FDA warnings and articles about the possibility of tendon and ligament ruptures with fluroquinolones.

“That was the first time I’d ever even heard that word ‘fluroquinolones,’ and I found Cipro on that list ... and I realized that I’d just been prescribed that before everything started,” she says.

That was 12 years ago. Since then, the FDA has issued more warnings about fluoroquinolone risks. In that time, Ms. Moser, now 40, has had more than 30 surgeries to correct tendon ruptures and injuries, including a double-knee replacement this year.

“I am in chronic pain all the time,” she says. “I am chronically injured. I have a lot of tears that I’ve not fixed because they’re very complicated, and I don’t know if the rest of my body can handle the strain of recovering from those surgeries.”

Ms. Moser’s is hardly an isolated case. Since the 1980s, more than 60,000 patients have reported hundreds of thousands of serious events linked to fluoroquinolones to the FDA, including 6,575 reports of deaths.

The most common side effects were tendon rupture, as well as neurological and psychiatric symptoms. But experts estimate only 1%-10% of such events are reported to the FDA. That suggests that fluoroquinolones might have harmed hundreds of thousands of people in the United States alone, says Charles Bennett, MD, a hematologist at the University of South Carolina’s College of Pharmacy, Columbia.

Yet despite the many patient reports and FDA warnings on dangerous side effects, many doctors continue to wrongly prescribe fluoroquinolones for simple urinary tract infections, sinus infections, and respiratory issues better treated with less risky antibiotics.

“There probably is overprescription by primary care doctors for urinary tract infections and respiratory infections, when there could be alternatives that are safer to use,” says Amesh Adalja, MD, an infectious disease specialist and senior scholar with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.

“I would say that’s probably the case in the outpatient setting, not necessarily in the hospital setting or among infectious disease doctors ... but I think it’s important to say there are still some judicious uses of fluoroquinolones,” he says. “However, there probably is a lot of injudicious use of fluoroquinolones along with many other antibiotics in the primary care setting.”
 

FDA warnings on fluoroquinolones

Fluoroquinolones are a class of broad-spectrum antibiotics used for decades to treat certain bacterial infections.

FDA-approved fluoroquinolones include ciprofloxacin (Cipro), ciprofloxacin extended-release tablets, delafloxacin (Baxdela), gemifloxacin (Factive) levofloxacin (Levaquin), moxifloxacin (Avelox), and ofloxacin (Floxin). More than 60 generic versions of these brand-name medicines are also on the market, making them among the most prescribed antibiotics in the U.S.

Over the past 2 decades, a wide range of physical and mental health side effects have been tied to fluoroquinolones. As a result of these “adverse event reports” and research published in medical literature, the FDA has required an escalating series of warnings and safety labeling changes for doctors who prescribe these drugs.

• In 2008, the FDA first added a “black box” warning to fluoroquinolones, citing an increased risk of tendinitis and tendon rupture in patients prescribed these meds.
• In 2011, the agency required the warning label to include risks of worsening symptoms for those with myasthenia gravis, a chronic autoimmune disease that causes muscle weakness, vision problems, and speech problems.
• In 2013, regulators required updated labels noting the potential for irreversible peripheral neuropathy (serious nerve damage).
• In 2016, the FDA issued its strongest warning against the use of such antibiotics for simple bacterial infections – such as uncomplicated urinary tract infections (UTIs), acute sinusitis, and acute bronchitis – saying the “association of fluoroquinolones with disabling and potentially permanent side effects involving tendons, muscles, joints, nerves and the central nervous system ... outweighs the benefits for patients.”
• And in 2018, regulators required safety labeling changes to include warnings about the risks of aortic aneurysm – a life-threatening enlargement of the main vessel that delivers blood to the body – as well as mental health side effects and serious blood sugar disturbances.

But FDA regulators have stopped short of barring fluoroquinolone use in the treatment of bacterial infections, citing the benefits for certain conditions.

“For some patients, the benefits of fluoroquinolones may continue to outweigh the risks for treatment of serious bacterial infections, such as pneumonia or intra-abdominal infections,” said former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, “but there are other serious, known risks associated with these strong antibiotics that must be carefully weighed when considering their use.”

In December 2021, a study published in the journal JAMA Network Open found the FDA’s warnings may have helped lower prescribing of the drugs in Medicare patients. But not all doctors have been responsive to those warnings, researchers found.

“An overall decline in change over time and an immediate change in fluoroquinolone prescribing was observed after the 2016 FDA warning,” the authors concluded. “Certain physicians, such as primary care physicians, were more responsive to FDA warnings than others. ... Findings of this study suggest that identifying the association of physician and organizational characteristics with fluoroquinolone prescribing practices could help in developing mechanisms for improving de-adoption.”

Some critics say the FDA should do more to spotlight the dangers of fluoroquinolones and require doctors and patients to sign checklist consent forms to show they are aware of the potential side effects of these drugs.

Rachel Brummert, a patient advocate who sits on an FDA consumer advisory board, believes the FDA needs to improve its communication to doctors on fluoroquinolone risks and get tougher with those who continue to inappropriately prescribe the drugs.

“I think there needs to be a system in place, where if something comes down from the FDA about a drug, the physician has to sign off on it, the patient has to sign off on it and mark that they understand that there are these ‘black box’ warnings,” says Ms. Brummert, 52, a representative on the FDA’s Medical Devices Advisory Committee.

As an example, she points to Australia’s medical laws requiring doctors and patients to sign a checklist before any fluoroquinolone prescription is approved.

“When a physician prescribes a fluoroquinolone antibiotic, there’s a checklist – does the patient have an infection, is it a simple infection, do they have allergies?” she notes. “And you can’t even get the prescription out – it won’t even print out, it won’t go into the system – unless you check all of the boxes. But we don’t do that here. We don’t have that type of system right now.”

Ms. Brummert says such a system might have prevented the harm from taking Levaquin her doctor prescribed for a suspected sinus infection in 2006.

Soon after she began taking the antibiotic, she ruptured her Achilles tendon, requiring surgery. By 2009, she’d had three ruptures, each needing surgical fixes. To date, she’s had more than 30 surgeries to correct tendon ruptures. She’s also had seizures, blood pressure issues, depression, chronic pain, and memory problems she attributes to taking Levaquin.

As it turns out, her doctor misdiagnosed her condition – a misstep that would have been averted with a system like Australia’s, which requires doctors to verify the presence of a bacterial infection through a simple test before prescribing a fluoroquinolone.

“When I got the Levaquin, it was for a suspected sinus infection that it turned out I didn’t even have in the first place,” she notes. “So, I took the Levaquin basically for nothing. But what I would have asked my doctor had I known is: ‘Why should I take something so strong for so simple an infection?’

“It seems common sense to me now that you don’t prescribe something that can kill anthrax for a simple sinus infection. It’s like an atom bomb killing a mosquito. I agree that there are uses for these drugs, but they are being overprescribed. And so, here I am 16 years later – I’m still rupturing, I’m still having surgery, and I’m still in pain – all for something I didn’t even need medicine for in the first place.”
 

Should guidelines be stronger?

So, why are so many doctors continuing to prescribe fluoroquinolones for simple infections? Dr. Adalja and other experts say several things are at work.

For one thing, Dr. Adalja notes, fluoroquinolones are broad-spectrum antibiotics that are effective against dangerous germs, including “gram-negative” bacterial infections, and are “100% bioavailable.” That means they are as effective when given in pill form as they are if put directly into a vein. So they can be used in an outpatient setting or to allow a patient to be discharged from a hospital sooner because they don’t need an IV to receive treatment.

“There are still some uses for these drugs because they are so bioavailable, and I think that drives some of the use, and those are legitimate uses, knowing that there are risks when you do it,” he says. “But no drug is without risks, and you have to weigh risks and benefits – that’s what medicine is about: deciding what the best drug is for a patient.”

But Dr. Adalja says the overprescription of fluoroquinolones is part of the larger trend of antibiotic overuse. That is driving up antibiotic resistance, which in turn is another thing leading doctors to turn to Cipro and other fluoroquinolones after other drugs have proven ineffective.

“You can’t separate this from the fact that 80% of antibiotic prescriptions in the outpatient setting are probably illegitimate or not warranted,” he notes. “And because fluoroquinolones are highly effective drugs against certain pathogens, they are the go-to [drug] for many people who are prescribing antibiotics.”

That’s why patients should be wary whenever a doctor prescribes a fluoroquinolone, or any drug to treat a suspected infection, he says.

“Any time a patient is getting prescribed an antibiotic by a physician, they should ask: ‘Do I really need this antibiotic?’ That should be the first question they ask,” he advises. “And if they’re getting a fluoroquinolone, they may want to ask: ‘Is this the best antibiotic for me?’ ”
 

What you can do

Ms. Brummert and Ms. Moser say they are sharing their stories to raise awareness of the dangers of fluoroquinolones.

Ms. Moser has published a book on her experiences, “The Magnificent Story of a Lame Author,” and provides a wealth of consumer resources on her blog: Mountains and Mustard Seeds.

“As much as I hate what has happened to me, it has put me in a place where I am glad that I can inform other patients,” she says.

Ms. Brummert supplements her advocacy work as an FDA adviser with useful materials she provides on her website: Drugwatch.com.

“Pain into purpose – that’s what I call it,” she says. “I can’t change what happened to me, but I can warn others.”

The upshot for patients?

• the FDA’s Drug Safety Communication on Fluoroquinolones online to learn more about the risks and benefits of these powerful antibiotics.
• If you believe you’ve been harmed by fluoroquinolones, MedWatch website to report your experiences.

Ms. Brummert also advises patients to ask 12 critical questions of any doctor who wants to prescribe a fluoroquinolone, including the following listed on her website:

• For what condition is this medication prescribed, and is there another drug specific to my condition?
• What are the risks associated with this medication, and do the benefits outweigh them?
• Will this medication interact with my other drugs and/or other health conditions?
• What are the “boxed” warnings for this medication, and where can I report adverse events?

“I would also do my own research,” she says. “I wouldn’t just take a prescription from a physician and just say, ‘OK, doctor knows best.’ ”

Ms. Moser agrees that you have to be your own patient advocate and not simply take a doctor’s advice on any medical issue without having a deeper conversation.

“I’ve had arguments with doctors who legitimately did not believe me when I told them what happened to me,” she says. “And I actually told them, ‘Go get your Physicians’ Desk Reference [for prescription drugs]’ and they opened the book in front of me and read the warnings. Obviously, they had not been keeping up with the added warnings. So, I do think that doctors do need to be better informed.”

“So, yes, it’s the FDA’s responsibility, but it is also the doctors’ responsibility to make sure that they’re watching out for the side effects and they’re reporting them when their patients come up with them and making those connections.”

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

How satisfied are physicians that they are fairly compensated for their dedication, skills, and time? That’s a subject that seems to steer many physicians to heated emotions and to a variety of issues with today’s medical field – not all of which directly affect their pay.

Medscape’s Physician Compensation Report 2022: “Incomes Gain, Pay Gaps Remain” generally shows encouraging trends. Physician income rose from a year earlier, when it stagnated as COVID-19 restrictions led patients to stay home and medical practices to cut hours or close. And for the first time in Medscape’s 11 years of reporting on physician compensation, average income rose for every medical specialty surveyed.

Heartening findings, right? Yet the tone of comments to the report was anything but peppy. Many commenters were highly distressed or even angry about their compensation. One physician even complained his plumber earns more than he does.

A family physician lamented that he has “made less in the past 3 years, with more hassles and work” and he “can’t wait to retire next year.” Meanwhile, he complained, the U.S. health system is “the costliest, yet wasteful, with worse outcomes; reactive, not preventative; and has the costliest drugs and social issues.”
 

Do NPs and PAs encroach on your income?

The conversation about fair compensation launched some commenters into a discussion about competition from nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). Some physicians expressed wariness at best, and anger at worst, about NPs and PAs evolving beyond traditional doctor support roles into certain direct patient support.

One-fourth of respondents in the compensation report said their income was negatively affected by competition from NPs, PAs, and other nonphysician providers. For example, with states like Arkansas expanding independent practice for certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs), one commenter complained, “we are no longer needed.”

Added another physician, “primary care, especially internal medicine, is just going away for doctors. We wasted, by all accounts, 4 full years of our working lives because NPs are ‘just as good.’ ”

Greater independence for NPs and PAs strengthens the hands of health insurers and “will end up hastening the demise of primary care as we have known it,” another reader predicted. Other physicians’ takes: “For the institution, it’s much cheaper to hire NPs than to hire doctors” and “overall, physician negotiating power will decrease in the future.”
 

Medicare reimbursement rates grate

Although 7 in 10 respondents in the compensation report said they would continue to accept new Medicare or Medicaid patients, comments reveal resentment about the practical need to work with Medicare and its resentment rates.

“An open question to Medicare: Are you doing the dumbest thing possible by paying low wages and giving huge administrative burdens for internal medicine on purpose?” one physician wrote. “Or are you really that short-sighted?”

Another reader cited an analysis from the American College of Surgeons of Medicare’s 1998 surgical CPT codes. If Medicare had left those codes alone beyond annual inflation adjustments, the study found, reimbursement rates by 2019 would be half of what they became.

Another way of looking at the code reimbursement increases is a 50% pay cut over 20 years for doctors and medical practices, that reader insisted. “The rising cost of employee wages, particularly of the last two-and-a-half years of COVID-19, combined with the effective pay cuts over the last 20 years, equals time to quit!”

Another commenter concurred. “In the 1990s, most full-time docs were making almost double what you see [in the report], and everything cost almost half of what it does now. So, MD purchasing power is between half and one-quarter of what it was in the early 1990s.”
 

Are self-pay models better?

Do physicians have a better chance at consistently fair income under a self-pay practice that avoids dealing with insurance companies?

One commenter hypothesized that psychiatrists once trailed internists in income but today earn more because many “quit working for insurance and went to a cash business 15 years ago.” Many family physicians did something similar by switching to a direct primary care model, he said.

This physician said he has done the same “with great results” for patients as well: shorter office visits, faster booking of appointments, no deductibles owed. Best of all, “I love practicing medicine again, and my patients love the great health care they receive.”

Another commenter agreed. “Two words: cash practice.” But another objected, “I guess only the very rich can afford to cover your business costs.”

Regardless of the payment model, another physician argued for private practice over employed positions. “Save on the bureaucratic expenses. Go back to private practice and get rid of electronic records.”

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

How satisfied are physicians that they are fairly compensated for their dedication, skills, and time? That’s a subject that seems to steer many physicians to heated emotions and to a variety of issues with today’s medical field – not all of which directly affect their pay.

Medscape’s Physician Compensation Report 2022: “Incomes Gain, Pay Gaps Remain” generally shows encouraging trends. Physician income rose from a year earlier, when it stagnated as COVID-19 restrictions led patients to stay home and medical practices to cut hours or close. And for the first time in Medscape’s 11 years of reporting on physician compensation, average income rose for every medical specialty surveyed.

Heartening findings, right? Yet the tone of comments to the report was anything but peppy. Many commenters were highly distressed or even angry about their compensation. One physician even complained his plumber earns more than he does.

A family physician lamented that he has “made less in the past 3 years, with more hassles and work” and he “can’t wait to retire next year.” Meanwhile, he complained, the U.S. health system is “the costliest, yet wasteful, with worse outcomes; reactive, not preventative; and has the costliest drugs and social issues.”
 

Do NPs and PAs encroach on your income?

The conversation about fair compensation launched some commenters into a discussion about competition from nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). Some physicians expressed wariness at best, and anger at worst, about NPs and PAs evolving beyond traditional doctor support roles into certain direct patient support.

One-fourth of respondents in the compensation report said their income was negatively affected by competition from NPs, PAs, and other nonphysician providers. For example, with states like Arkansas expanding independent practice for certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs), one commenter complained, “we are no longer needed.”

Added another physician, “primary care, especially internal medicine, is just going away for doctors. We wasted, by all accounts, 4 full years of our working lives because NPs are ‘just as good.’ ”

Greater independence for NPs and PAs strengthens the hands of health insurers and “will end up hastening the demise of primary care as we have known it,” another reader predicted. Other physicians’ takes: “For the institution, it’s much cheaper to hire NPs than to hire doctors” and “overall, physician negotiating power will decrease in the future.”
 

Medicare reimbursement rates grate

Although 7 in 10 respondents in the compensation report said they would continue to accept new Medicare or Medicaid patients, comments reveal resentment about the practical need to work with Medicare and its resentment rates.

“An open question to Medicare: Are you doing the dumbest thing possible by paying low wages and giving huge administrative burdens for internal medicine on purpose?” one physician wrote. “Or are you really that short-sighted?”

Another reader cited an analysis from the American College of Surgeons of Medicare’s 1998 surgical CPT codes. If Medicare had left those codes alone beyond annual inflation adjustments, the study found, reimbursement rates by 2019 would be half of what they became.

Another way of looking at the code reimbursement increases is a 50% pay cut over 20 years for doctors and medical practices, that reader insisted. “The rising cost of employee wages, particularly of the last two-and-a-half years of COVID-19, combined with the effective pay cuts over the last 20 years, equals time to quit!”

Another commenter concurred. “In the 1990s, most full-time docs were making almost double what you see [in the report], and everything cost almost half of what it does now. So, MD purchasing power is between half and one-quarter of what it was in the early 1990s.”
 

Are self-pay models better?

Do physicians have a better chance at consistently fair income under a self-pay practice that avoids dealing with insurance companies?

One commenter hypothesized that psychiatrists once trailed internists in income but today earn more because many “quit working for insurance and went to a cash business 15 years ago.” Many family physicians did something similar by switching to a direct primary care model, he said.

This physician said he has done the same “with great results” for patients as well: shorter office visits, faster booking of appointments, no deductibles owed. Best of all, “I love practicing medicine again, and my patients love the great health care they receive.”

Another commenter agreed. “Two words: cash practice.” But another objected, “I guess only the very rich can afford to cover your business costs.”

Regardless of the payment model, another physician argued for private practice over employed positions. “Save on the bureaucratic expenses. Go back to private practice and get rid of electronic records.”

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

How satisfied are physicians that they are fairly compensated for their dedication, skills, and time? That’s a subject that seems to steer many physicians to heated emotions and to a variety of issues with today’s medical field – not all of which directly affect their pay.

Medscape’s Physician Compensation Report 2022: “Incomes Gain, Pay Gaps Remain” generally shows encouraging trends. Physician income rose from a year earlier, when it stagnated as COVID-19 restrictions led patients to stay home and medical practices to cut hours or close. And for the first time in Medscape’s 11 years of reporting on physician compensation, average income rose for every medical specialty surveyed.

Heartening findings, right? Yet the tone of comments to the report was anything but peppy. Many commenters were highly distressed or even angry about their compensation. One physician even complained his plumber earns more than he does.

A family physician lamented that he has “made less in the past 3 years, with more hassles and work” and he “can’t wait to retire next year.” Meanwhile, he complained, the U.S. health system is “the costliest, yet wasteful, with worse outcomes; reactive, not preventative; and has the costliest drugs and social issues.”
 

Do NPs and PAs encroach on your income?

The conversation about fair compensation launched some commenters into a discussion about competition from nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). Some physicians expressed wariness at best, and anger at worst, about NPs and PAs evolving beyond traditional doctor support roles into certain direct patient support.

One-fourth of respondents in the compensation report said their income was negatively affected by competition from NPs, PAs, and other nonphysician providers. For example, with states like Arkansas expanding independent practice for certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs), one commenter complained, “we are no longer needed.”

Added another physician, “primary care, especially internal medicine, is just going away for doctors. We wasted, by all accounts, 4 full years of our working lives because NPs are ‘just as good.’ ”

Greater independence for NPs and PAs strengthens the hands of health insurers and “will end up hastening the demise of primary care as we have known it,” another reader predicted. Other physicians’ takes: “For the institution, it’s much cheaper to hire NPs than to hire doctors” and “overall, physician negotiating power will decrease in the future.”
 

Medicare reimbursement rates grate

Although 7 in 10 respondents in the compensation report said they would continue to accept new Medicare or Medicaid patients, comments reveal resentment about the practical need to work with Medicare and its resentment rates.

“An open question to Medicare: Are you doing the dumbest thing possible by paying low wages and giving huge administrative burdens for internal medicine on purpose?” one physician wrote. “Or are you really that short-sighted?”

Another reader cited an analysis from the American College of Surgeons of Medicare’s 1998 surgical CPT codes. If Medicare had left those codes alone beyond annual inflation adjustments, the study found, reimbursement rates by 2019 would be half of what they became.

Another way of looking at the code reimbursement increases is a 50% pay cut over 20 years for doctors and medical practices, that reader insisted. “The rising cost of employee wages, particularly of the last two-and-a-half years of COVID-19, combined with the effective pay cuts over the last 20 years, equals time to quit!”

Another commenter concurred. “In the 1990s, most full-time docs were making almost double what you see [in the report], and everything cost almost half of what it does now. So, MD purchasing power is between half and one-quarter of what it was in the early 1990s.”
 

Are self-pay models better?

Do physicians have a better chance at consistently fair income under a self-pay practice that avoids dealing with insurance companies?

One commenter hypothesized that psychiatrists once trailed internists in income but today earn more because many “quit working for insurance and went to a cash business 15 years ago.” Many family physicians did something similar by switching to a direct primary care model, he said.

This physician said he has done the same “with great results” for patients as well: shorter office visits, faster booking of appointments, no deductibles owed. Best of all, “I love practicing medicine again, and my patients love the great health care they receive.”

Another commenter agreed. “Two words: cash practice.” But another objected, “I guess only the very rich can afford to cover your business costs.”

Regardless of the payment model, another physician argued for private practice over employed positions. “Save on the bureaucratic expenses. Go back to private practice and get rid of electronic records.”

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

Every time Nathan Chomilo, MD, uses a clinical decision support tool, he tells his patients they have a choice: He can input their race or keep that field blank.

Until recently, many clinicians didn’t question the use of race as a datapoint in tools used to make decisions about diagnosis and care. But that is changing.

“I’ve almost universally had patients appreciate that someone actually told them that their kidney function was being scored differently because of the color of their skin or how they were identified in the medical chart along lines of race,” Dr. Chomilo, an adjunct assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, said.

Dr. Chomilo is referring to the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), which combines results from a blood test with factors such as age, sex, and race to calculate kidney function.

The eGFR weighed an input of “African American” as automatically indicating a higher concentration of serum creatinine than a non African American patient on the basis of the unsubstantiated idea that Black people have more creatinine in their blood at baseline.

The calculator creates a picture of a Black patient who is not as sick as a White patient with the same levels of kidney failure. But race is based on the color of a patient’s skin, not on genetics or other clinical datapoints.

“I often use my own example of being a biracial Black man: My father’s family is from Cameroon, my mother’s family is from Norway. Are you going to assign my kidneys or my lungs to my mom’s side or my dad’s side? That’s not clear at all in the way we use race in medicine,” Dr. Chomilo, an executive committee member on the section on minority health equity and inclusion at the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), said.

Long before the COVID-19 pandemic so publicly exposed the depths of inequality in morbidity and mortality in the United States, health advocates had been pointing out these disparities in tools used by medical professionals. But efforts to recognize that race is a poor proxy for genetics is in its infancy.

In May, the AAP published a policy statement that kicked off its examination of clinical guidelines and policies that include race as a biological proxy. A committee for the society is combing through each guideline or calculator, evaluating the scientific basis for the use of race, and examining whether a stronger datapoint could be used instead.

The eGFR is perhaps the best example of a calculator that’s gone through the process: Health care stakeholders questioned the use of race, and investigators went back to study whether race was really a good datapoint. It wasn’t, and Dr. Chamilo’s hospital joined many others in retiring the calculator.

But the eGFR is one of countless clinical tools – from rudimentary algorithms to sophisticated machine-learning instruments – that change the course of care in part on the basis of race in the same way datapoints such as weight, age, and height are used to inform decisions about patient management. But unlike race, height, weight, and age can be objectively measured. A physician either makes a guess, or a patient enters their race on a form. And while that can be useful on a population level, race does not equal genetics or any other measurable datapoint.

In a study published in JAMA Pediatrics, researchers reviewed 414 clinical practice guidelines from sources such as PubMed and MetaLib.gov. Almost 1 in 6 guidelines included race in an inappropriate way, such as by conflating race as a biological risk factor or establishing testing or treatment thresholds using race.
 

Waiting for alternatives

The University of Maryland Medical System last year embarked on a project similar to the AAP initiative but within its own system. The first use of race to be eliminated was in the eGFR. The health system also recently removed the variable from a tool for diagnosing urinary tract infections (UTIs) in children younger than 2 years.

Part of that tool includes deciding to perform a catheterized urine test. If a doctor chose “White” as the race, the tool would recommend the test. If the doctor chose “Black,” the tool would recommend to not test. Joseph Wright, MD, MPH, chief health equity officer at University of Maryland Medical System, said this step in the tool is based on the unproven assumption that young Black children had a lower likelihood of UTIs than their White peers.

“We simply want folks to not by default lob race in as a decisionmaking point when we have, with a little bit more scientific diligence, the ability to include better clinical variables,” Dr. Wright, who is also an adjunct professor of health policy and management at the University of Maryland School of Public Health, College Park, said.

The developers of the UTI tool recently released a revised version that removes race in favor of two new medical datapoints: whether the patient has had a fever for over 48 hours, and whether the patient has previously had a UTI.

The process of re-examining tools, coming up with new datapoints, and implementing changes is not simple, according to Dr. Wright.

“This is just the baby step to fix the algorithms, because we’re all going to have to examine our own house, where these calculators live, whether it’s in a textbook, whether it’s in an electronic health record, and that’s the heavy lift,” he said. “All sources of clinical guidance have to be scrutinized, and it’s going to literally take years to unroot.”

Electronic medical record vendor Cerner said it generally revises its algorithms after medical societies make changes, then communicates those fixes to providers.

Rebecca C. Winokur, MD, MPH, lead physician executive and health equity service line leader at Cerner, explained that if doctors ordered an eGFR a year ago and then another today, the results might be different because of the new code that eliminates race.

“The numbers are so different, how do you know that the patient may or may not have the same function?” Dr. Winokur said.

Dr. Winokur said the company is trying to determine at which point a message should pop up in the records workflow that would inform clinicians that they may be comparing apples to cherries. The company also is reconsidering the use of race in tools that estimate the probability of a successful vaginal birth after prior cesarean delivery, a calculator that predicts the risk of urethral stones in patients with flank pain, and another that measures lung function to help diagnose pulmonary disease.

In addition to managing the logistics of removing race, health institutions also need buy-in from clinicians. At Mass General Brigham, Boston, Thomas Sequist, MD, MPH, chief medical officer, is leading a project to examine how the system uses race in calculators.

“People struggle mainly with, well, if we shouldn’t use this calculator, what should we use, because we need a calculator. And that’s a legitimate question,” Dr. Sequist said in an interview. “If we’re going to stop using this race-based calculator, I still need to know what dose of medication I give my patient. We’re not going to pull any of these calculators until we have a safe and reliable alternative.”

For each calculator, relevant specialty chiefs come to the table with Dr. Sequist and his team; current projects include examining bone density screenings and cardiac risk scores. A large part of the work is communicating the lack of science behind the inclusion of race as a variable.

“It’s hard because these tools have been in existence for decades, and people are used to using them,” Dr. Sequist said. “So this is a big-change management project.”

Some clinicians also have difficulty discerning why their health system may stratify patient outcomes by race while providers are being told that race is being removed from the calculators they use every day. The key difference is that stratifying outcomes by race illuminates systemic problems that can be targeted by a health system.

For instance, if readmission rates are higher for Black patients overall after surgery, the reason might be that nurses are not delivering the same level of care to them as they are to non-Black patients, possibly because of hidden bias. Or, perhaps Black patients at a hospital have less access to transportation for follow-up appointments after surgery. The potential reasons can be investigated, and solutions can be created.

“If you look at a population level, what you’re looking for is not for the evidence of race as a biological construct,” Dr. Chomilo said. “You’re looking for the impact of racism on populations, and that’s the difference: It’s racism, not race.”

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

Every time Nathan Chomilo, MD, uses a clinical decision support tool, he tells his patients they have a choice: He can input their race or keep that field blank.

Until recently, many clinicians didn’t question the use of race as a datapoint in tools used to make decisions about diagnosis and care. But that is changing.

“I’ve almost universally had patients appreciate that someone actually told them that their kidney function was being scored differently because of the color of their skin or how they were identified in the medical chart along lines of race,” Dr. Chomilo, an adjunct assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, said.

Dr. Chomilo is referring to the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), which combines results from a blood test with factors such as age, sex, and race to calculate kidney function.

The eGFR weighed an input of “African American” as automatically indicating a higher concentration of serum creatinine than a non African American patient on the basis of the unsubstantiated idea that Black people have more creatinine in their blood at baseline.

The calculator creates a picture of a Black patient who is not as sick as a White patient with the same levels of kidney failure. But race is based on the color of a patient’s skin, not on genetics or other clinical datapoints.

“I often use my own example of being a biracial Black man: My father’s family is from Cameroon, my mother’s family is from Norway. Are you going to assign my kidneys or my lungs to my mom’s side or my dad’s side? That’s not clear at all in the way we use race in medicine,” Dr. Chomilo, an executive committee member on the section on minority health equity and inclusion at the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), said.

Long before the COVID-19 pandemic so publicly exposed the depths of inequality in morbidity and mortality in the United States, health advocates had been pointing out these disparities in tools used by medical professionals. But efforts to recognize that race is a poor proxy for genetics is in its infancy.

In May, the AAP published a policy statement that kicked off its examination of clinical guidelines and policies that include race as a biological proxy. A committee for the society is combing through each guideline or calculator, evaluating the scientific basis for the use of race, and examining whether a stronger datapoint could be used instead.

The eGFR is perhaps the best example of a calculator that’s gone through the process: Health care stakeholders questioned the use of race, and investigators went back to study whether race was really a good datapoint. It wasn’t, and Dr. Chamilo’s hospital joined many others in retiring the calculator.

But the eGFR is one of countless clinical tools – from rudimentary algorithms to sophisticated machine-learning instruments – that change the course of care in part on the basis of race in the same way datapoints such as weight, age, and height are used to inform decisions about patient management. But unlike race, height, weight, and age can be objectively measured. A physician either makes a guess, or a patient enters their race on a form. And while that can be useful on a population level, race does not equal genetics or any other measurable datapoint.

In a study published in JAMA Pediatrics, researchers reviewed 414 clinical practice guidelines from sources such as PubMed and MetaLib.gov. Almost 1 in 6 guidelines included race in an inappropriate way, such as by conflating race as a biological risk factor or establishing testing or treatment thresholds using race.
 

Waiting for alternatives

The University of Maryland Medical System last year embarked on a project similar to the AAP initiative but within its own system. The first use of race to be eliminated was in the eGFR. The health system also recently removed the variable from a tool for diagnosing urinary tract infections (UTIs) in children younger than 2 years.

Part of that tool includes deciding to perform a catheterized urine test. If a doctor chose “White” as the race, the tool would recommend the test. If the doctor chose “Black,” the tool would recommend to not test. Joseph Wright, MD, MPH, chief health equity officer at University of Maryland Medical System, said this step in the tool is based on the unproven assumption that young Black children had a lower likelihood of UTIs than their White peers.

“We simply want folks to not by default lob race in as a decisionmaking point when we have, with a little bit more scientific diligence, the ability to include better clinical variables,” Dr. Wright, who is also an adjunct professor of health policy and management at the University of Maryland School of Public Health, College Park, said.

The developers of the UTI tool recently released a revised version that removes race in favor of two new medical datapoints: whether the patient has had a fever for over 48 hours, and whether the patient has previously had a UTI.

The process of re-examining tools, coming up with new datapoints, and implementing changes is not simple, according to Dr. Wright.

“This is just the baby step to fix the algorithms, because we’re all going to have to examine our own house, where these calculators live, whether it’s in a textbook, whether it’s in an electronic health record, and that’s the heavy lift,” he said. “All sources of clinical guidance have to be scrutinized, and it’s going to literally take years to unroot.”

Electronic medical record vendor Cerner said it generally revises its algorithms after medical societies make changes, then communicates those fixes to providers.

Rebecca C. Winokur, MD, MPH, lead physician executive and health equity service line leader at Cerner, explained that if doctors ordered an eGFR a year ago and then another today, the results might be different because of the new code that eliminates race.

“The numbers are so different, how do you know that the patient may or may not have the same function?” Dr. Winokur said.

Dr. Winokur said the company is trying to determine at which point a message should pop up in the records workflow that would inform clinicians that they may be comparing apples to cherries. The company also is reconsidering the use of race in tools that estimate the probability of a successful vaginal birth after prior cesarean delivery, a calculator that predicts the risk of urethral stones in patients with flank pain, and another that measures lung function to help diagnose pulmonary disease.

In addition to managing the logistics of removing race, health institutions also need buy-in from clinicians. At Mass General Brigham, Boston, Thomas Sequist, MD, MPH, chief medical officer, is leading a project to examine how the system uses race in calculators.

“People struggle mainly with, well, if we shouldn’t use this calculator, what should we use, because we need a calculator. And that’s a legitimate question,” Dr. Sequist said in an interview. “If we’re going to stop using this race-based calculator, I still need to know what dose of medication I give my patient. We’re not going to pull any of these calculators until we have a safe and reliable alternative.”

For each calculator, relevant specialty chiefs come to the table with Dr. Sequist and his team; current projects include examining bone density screenings and cardiac risk scores. A large part of the work is communicating the lack of science behind the inclusion of race as a variable.

“It’s hard because these tools have been in existence for decades, and people are used to using them,” Dr. Sequist said. “So this is a big-change management project.”

Some clinicians also have difficulty discerning why their health system may stratify patient outcomes by race while providers are being told that race is being removed from the calculators they use every day. The key difference is that stratifying outcomes by race illuminates systemic problems that can be targeted by a health system.

For instance, if readmission rates are higher for Black patients overall after surgery, the reason might be that nurses are not delivering the same level of care to them as they are to non-Black patients, possibly because of hidden bias. Or, perhaps Black patients at a hospital have less access to transportation for follow-up appointments after surgery. The potential reasons can be investigated, and solutions can be created.

“If you look at a population level, what you’re looking for is not for the evidence of race as a biological construct,” Dr. Chomilo said. “You’re looking for the impact of racism on populations, and that’s the difference: It’s racism, not race.”

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

Every time Nathan Chomilo, MD, uses a clinical decision support tool, he tells his patients they have a choice: He can input their race or keep that field blank.

Until recently, many clinicians didn’t question the use of race as a datapoint in tools used to make decisions about diagnosis and care. But that is changing.

“I’ve almost universally had patients appreciate that someone actually told them that their kidney function was being scored differently because of the color of their skin or how they were identified in the medical chart along lines of race,” Dr. Chomilo, an adjunct assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, said.

Dr. Chomilo is referring to the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), which combines results from a blood test with factors such as age, sex, and race to calculate kidney function.

The eGFR weighed an input of “African American” as automatically indicating a higher concentration of serum creatinine than a non African American patient on the basis of the unsubstantiated idea that Black people have more creatinine in their blood at baseline.

The calculator creates a picture of a Black patient who is not as sick as a White patient with the same levels of kidney failure. But race is based on the color of a patient’s skin, not on genetics or other clinical datapoints.

“I often use my own example of being a biracial Black man: My father’s family is from Cameroon, my mother’s family is from Norway. Are you going to assign my kidneys or my lungs to my mom’s side or my dad’s side? That’s not clear at all in the way we use race in medicine,” Dr. Chomilo, an executive committee member on the section on minority health equity and inclusion at the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), said.

Long before the COVID-19 pandemic so publicly exposed the depths of inequality in morbidity and mortality in the United States, health advocates had been pointing out these disparities in tools used by medical professionals. But efforts to recognize that race is a poor proxy for genetics is in its infancy.

In May, the AAP published a policy statement that kicked off its examination of clinical guidelines and policies that include race as a biological proxy. A committee for the society is combing through each guideline or calculator, evaluating the scientific basis for the use of race, and examining whether a stronger datapoint could be used instead.

The eGFR is perhaps the best example of a calculator that’s gone through the process: Health care stakeholders questioned the use of race, and investigators went back to study whether race was really a good datapoint. It wasn’t, and Dr. Chamilo’s hospital joined many others in retiring the calculator.

But the eGFR is one of countless clinical tools – from rudimentary algorithms to sophisticated machine-learning instruments – that change the course of care in part on the basis of race in the same way datapoints such as weight, age, and height are used to inform decisions about patient management. But unlike race, height, weight, and age can be objectively measured. A physician either makes a guess, or a patient enters their race on a form. And while that can be useful on a population level, race does not equal genetics or any other measurable datapoint.

In a study published in JAMA Pediatrics, researchers reviewed 414 clinical practice guidelines from sources such as PubMed and MetaLib.gov. Almost 1 in 6 guidelines included race in an inappropriate way, such as by conflating race as a biological risk factor or establishing testing or treatment thresholds using race.
 

Waiting for alternatives

The University of Maryland Medical System last year embarked on a project similar to the AAP initiative but within its own system. The first use of race to be eliminated was in the eGFR. The health system also recently removed the variable from a tool for diagnosing urinary tract infections (UTIs) in children younger than 2 years.

Part of that tool includes deciding to perform a catheterized urine test. If a doctor chose “White” as the race, the tool would recommend the test. If the doctor chose “Black,” the tool would recommend to not test. Joseph Wright, MD, MPH, chief health equity officer at University of Maryland Medical System, said this step in the tool is based on the unproven assumption that young Black children had a lower likelihood of UTIs than their White peers.

“We simply want folks to not by default lob race in as a decisionmaking point when we have, with a little bit more scientific diligence, the ability to include better clinical variables,” Dr. Wright, who is also an adjunct professor of health policy and management at the University of Maryland School of Public Health, College Park, said.

The developers of the UTI tool recently released a revised version that removes race in favor of two new medical datapoints: whether the patient has had a fever for over 48 hours, and whether the patient has previously had a UTI.

The process of re-examining tools, coming up with new datapoints, and implementing changes is not simple, according to Dr. Wright.

“This is just the baby step to fix the algorithms, because we’re all going to have to examine our own house, where these calculators live, whether it’s in a textbook, whether it’s in an electronic health record, and that’s the heavy lift,” he said. “All sources of clinical guidance have to be scrutinized, and it’s going to literally take years to unroot.”

Electronic medical record vendor Cerner said it generally revises its algorithms after medical societies make changes, then communicates those fixes to providers.

Rebecca C. Winokur, MD, MPH, lead physician executive and health equity service line leader at Cerner, explained that if doctors ordered an eGFR a year ago and then another today, the results might be different because of the new code that eliminates race.

“The numbers are so different, how do you know that the patient may or may not have the same function?” Dr. Winokur said.

Dr. Winokur said the company is trying to determine at which point a message should pop up in the records workflow that would inform clinicians that they may be comparing apples to cherries. The company also is reconsidering the use of race in tools that estimate the probability of a successful vaginal birth after prior cesarean delivery, a calculator that predicts the risk of urethral stones in patients with flank pain, and another that measures lung function to help diagnose pulmonary disease.

In addition to managing the logistics of removing race, health institutions also need buy-in from clinicians. At Mass General Brigham, Boston, Thomas Sequist, MD, MPH, chief medical officer, is leading a project to examine how the system uses race in calculators.

“People struggle mainly with, well, if we shouldn’t use this calculator, what should we use, because we need a calculator. And that’s a legitimate question,” Dr. Sequist said in an interview. “If we’re going to stop using this race-based calculator, I still need to know what dose of medication I give my patient. We’re not going to pull any of these calculators until we have a safe and reliable alternative.”

For each calculator, relevant specialty chiefs come to the table with Dr. Sequist and his team; current projects include examining bone density screenings and cardiac risk scores. A large part of the work is communicating the lack of science behind the inclusion of race as a variable.

“It’s hard because these tools have been in existence for decades, and people are used to using them,” Dr. Sequist said. “So this is a big-change management project.”

Some clinicians also have difficulty discerning why their health system may stratify patient outcomes by race while providers are being told that race is being removed from the calculators they use every day. The key difference is that stratifying outcomes by race illuminates systemic problems that can be targeted by a health system.

For instance, if readmission rates are higher for Black patients overall after surgery, the reason might be that nurses are not delivering the same level of care to them as they are to non-Black patients, possibly because of hidden bias. Or, perhaps Black patients at a hospital have less access to transportation for follow-up appointments after surgery. The potential reasons can be investigated, and solutions can be created.

“If you look at a population level, what you’re looking for is not for the evidence of race as a biological construct,” Dr. Chomilo said. “You’re looking for the impact of racism on populations, and that’s the difference: It’s racism, not race.”

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