Federal Practitioner

Adapted D-dimer thresholds based on pretest probability were effective for ruling out pulmonary embolism (PE) in subgroups of high-risk individuals without the use of imaging in a review of data.

In a patient suspected to have a PE, “diagnosis is made radiographically, usually with CT pulmonary angiogram, or V/Q scan,” Suman Pal, MD, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview.

“Validated clinical decision tools such as Wells’ score or Geneva score may be used to identify patients at low pretest probability of PE who may initially get a D-dimer level check, followed by imaging only if D-dimer level is elevated,” explained Dr. Pal, who was not involved with the new research, which was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

According to the authors of the new paper, while current diagnostic strategies in patients with suspected PE include use of a validated clinical decision rule (CDR) and D-dimer testing to rule out PE without imaging tests, the effectiveness of D-dimer tests in older patients, inpatients, cancer patients, and other high-risk groups has not been well-studied.

Lead author of the paper, Milou A.M. Stals, MD, and colleagues said their goal was to evaluate the safety and efficiency of the Wells rule and revised Geneva score in combination with D-dimer tests, and also the YEARS algorithm for D-dimer thresholds, in their paper.

Dr. Stals, of Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, and the coinvestigators conducted an international systemic review and individual patient data meta-analysis that included 16 studies and 20,553 patients, with all studies having been published between Jan. 1, 1995, and Jan. 1, 2021. Their primary outcomes were the safety and efficiency of each of these three strategies.

In the review, the researchers defined safety as the 3-month incidence of venous thromboembolism after PE was ruled out without imaging at baseline. They defined efficiency as the proportion patients for whom PE was ruled out based on D-dimer thresholds without imaging.

Overall, efficiency was highest in the subset of patients aged younger than 40 years, ranging from 47% to 68% in this group. Efficiency was lowest in patients aged 80 years and older (6.0%-23%), and in patients with cancer (9.6%-26%).

The efficiency was higher when D-dimer thresholds based on pretest probability were used, compared with when fixed or age-adjusted D-dimer thresholds were used.

The key finding was the significant variability in performance of the diagnostic strategies, the researchers said.

“The predicted failure rate was generally highest for strategies incorporating adapted D-dimer thresholds. However, at the same time, predicted overall efficiency was substantially higher with these strategies versus strategies with a fixed D-dimer threshold as well,” they said. Given that the benefits of each of the three diagnostic strategies depends on their correct application, the researchers recommended that an individual hospitalist choose one strategy for their institution.

“Whether clinicians should rely on the Wells rule, the YEARS algorithm, or the revised Geneva score becomes a matter of local preference and experience,” Dr. Stals and colleagues wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including between-study differences in scoring predictors and D-dimer assays. Another limitation was that differential verification biases for classifying fatal events and PE may have contributed to overestimation of failure rates of the adapted D-dimer thresholds.

Strengths of the study included its large sample size and original data on pretest probability, and that data support the use of any of the three strategies for ruling out PE in the identified subgroups without the need for imaging tests, the authors wrote.

“Pending the results of ongoing diagnostic randomized trials, physicians and guideline committees should balance the interlink between safety and efficiency of available diagnostic strategies,” they concluded.

Adapted D-dimer benefits some patients

“Clearly, increasing the D-dimer cutoff will lower the number of patients who require radiographic imaging (improved specificity), but this comes with a risk for missing PE (lower sensitivity). Is this risk worth taking?” Daniel J. Brotman, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, asked in an editorial accompanying the new study.

Dr. Brotman was not surprised by the study findings.

“Conditions that predispose to thrombosis through activated hemostasis – such as advanced age, cancer, inflammation, prolonged hospitalization, and trauma – drive D-dimer levels higher independent of the presence or absence of radiographically apparent thrombosis,” he said. However, these patients are unlikely to have normal D-dimer levels regardless of the cutoff used.

Adapted D-dimer cutoffs may benefit some patients, including those with contraindications or limited access to imaging, said Dr. Brotman. D-dimer may be used for risk stratification regardless of PE, since patients with marginally elevated D-dimers have better prognoses than those with higher D-dimer elevations, even if a small PE is missed.

Dr. Brotman wrote that increasing D-dimer cutoffs for high-risk patients in the subgroups analyzed may spare some patients radiographic testing, but doing so carries an increased risk for diagnostic failure. Overall, “the important work by Stals and colleagues offers reassurance that modifying D-dimer thresholds according to age or pretest probability is safe enough for widespread practice, even in high-risk groups.”
 

Focus on single strategy ‘based on local needs’

“Several validated clinical decision tools, along with age or pretest probability adjusted D-dimer threshold are currently in use as diagnostic strategies for ruling out pulmonary embolism,” Dr. Pal said in an interview.

The current study is important because of limited data on the performance of these strategies in specific subgroups of patients whose risk of PE may differ from the overall patient population, he noted.

“Different diagnostic strategies for PE have a variable performance in patients with differences of age, active cancer, and history of VTE,” said Dr. Pal. “However, in this study, no clear preference for one strategy over others could be established for these subgroups, and clinicians should continue to follow institution-specific guidance.

“A single strategy should be adopted at each institution based on local needs and used as the standard of care until further data are available,” he said.

“The use of D-dimer to rule out PE, either with fixed threshold or age-adjusted thresholds, can be confounded in clinical settings by other comorbid conditions such as sepsis, recent surgery, and more recently, COVID-19,” he said.

“Since the findings of this study do not show a clear benefit of one diagnostic strategy over others in the analyzed subgroups of patients, further prospective head-to-head comparison among the subgroups of interest would be helpful to guide clinical decision making,” Dr. Pal added.
 

YEARS-specific study supports D-dimer safety and value

A recent paper published in JAMA supported the results of the meta-analysis. In that study, Yonathan Freund, MD, of Sorbonne Université, Paris, and colleagues focused on the YEARS strategy combined with age-adjusted D-dimer thresholds as a way to rule out PE in PERC-positive ED patients.

The authors of this paper randomized 18 EDs to either a protocol of intervention followed by control, or control followed by intervention. The study population included 726 patients in the intervention group and 688 in the control group.

The intervention strategy to rule out PE consisted of assessing the YEARS criteria and D-dimer testing. PE was ruled out in patients with no YEARS criteria and a D-dimer level below 1,000 ng/mL and in patients with one or more YEARS criteria and D-dimers below an age-adjusted threshold (defined as age times 10 ng/mL in patients aged 50 years and older).

The control strategy consisted of D-dimer testing for all patients with the threshold at age-adjusted levels; D-dimers about these levels prompted chest imaging.

Overall, the risk of a missed VTE at 3 months was noninferior between the groups (0.15% in the intervention group and 0.80% in the controls).

“The intervention was associated with a statistically significant reduction in chest imaging use,” the researchers wrote.

This study’s findings were limited by randomization at the center level, rather than the patient level, and the use of imaging on some patients despite negative D-dimer tests, the researchers wrote. However, their findings support those of previous studies and especially support the safety of the intervention, in an emergency medicine setting, as no PEs occurred in patients with a YEARS score of zero who underwent the intervention.
 

Downsides to applying algorithms to every patient explained

In an editorial accompanying the JAMA study, Marcel Levi, MD, and Nick van Es, MD, of Amsterdam University Medical Center, emphasized the challenges of diagnosing PE given that many patients present with nonspecific clinical manifestations and without typical signs and symptoms. High-resolution CT pulmonary angiography allows for a fast and easy diagnosis in an emergency setting. However, efforts are ongoing to develop alternative strategies that avoid unnecessary scanning for potential PE patients, many of whom have alternative diagnoses such as pulmonary infections, cardiac conditions, pleural disease, or musculoskeletal problems.

On review of the JAMA study using the YEARS rule with adjusted D-dimer thresholds, the editorialists noted that the data were robust and indicated a 10% reduction in chest imaging. They also emphasized the potential to overwhelm busy clinicians with more algorithms.

“Blindly applying algorithms to every patient may be less appropriate or even undesirable in specific situations in which deviation from the rules on clinical grounds is indicated,” but a complex imaging approach may be time consuming and challenging in the acute setting, and a simple algorithm may be safe and efficient in many cases, they wrote. “From a patient perspective, a negative diagnostic algorithm for pulmonary embolism does not diminish the physician’s obligation to consider other diagnoses that explain the symptoms, for which chest CT scans may still be needed and helpful.”

The Annals of Internal Medicine study was supported by the Dutch Research Council. The JAMA study was supported by the French Health Ministry. Dr. Stals, Dr. Freund, Dr. Pal, Dr. Levi, and Dr. van Es had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Adapted D-dimer thresholds based on pretest probability were effective for ruling out pulmonary embolism (PE) in subgroups of high-risk individuals without the use of imaging in a review of data.

In a patient suspected to have a PE, “diagnosis is made radiographically, usually with CT pulmonary angiogram, or V/Q scan,” Suman Pal, MD, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview.

“Validated clinical decision tools such as Wells’ score or Geneva score may be used to identify patients at low pretest probability of PE who may initially get a D-dimer level check, followed by imaging only if D-dimer level is elevated,” explained Dr. Pal, who was not involved with the new research, which was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

According to the authors of the new paper, while current diagnostic strategies in patients with suspected PE include use of a validated clinical decision rule (CDR) and D-dimer testing to rule out PE without imaging tests, the effectiveness of D-dimer tests in older patients, inpatients, cancer patients, and other high-risk groups has not been well-studied.

Lead author of the paper, Milou A.M. Stals, MD, and colleagues said their goal was to evaluate the safety and efficiency of the Wells rule and revised Geneva score in combination with D-dimer tests, and also the YEARS algorithm for D-dimer thresholds, in their paper.

Dr. Stals, of Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, and the coinvestigators conducted an international systemic review and individual patient data meta-analysis that included 16 studies and 20,553 patients, with all studies having been published between Jan. 1, 1995, and Jan. 1, 2021. Their primary outcomes were the safety and efficiency of each of these three strategies.

In the review, the researchers defined safety as the 3-month incidence of venous thromboembolism after PE was ruled out without imaging at baseline. They defined efficiency as the proportion patients for whom PE was ruled out based on D-dimer thresholds without imaging.

Overall, efficiency was highest in the subset of patients aged younger than 40 years, ranging from 47% to 68% in this group. Efficiency was lowest in patients aged 80 years and older (6.0%-23%), and in patients with cancer (9.6%-26%).

The efficiency was higher when D-dimer thresholds based on pretest probability were used, compared with when fixed or age-adjusted D-dimer thresholds were used.

The key finding was the significant variability in performance of the diagnostic strategies, the researchers said.

“The predicted failure rate was generally highest for strategies incorporating adapted D-dimer thresholds. However, at the same time, predicted overall efficiency was substantially higher with these strategies versus strategies with a fixed D-dimer threshold as well,” they said. Given that the benefits of each of the three diagnostic strategies depends on their correct application, the researchers recommended that an individual hospitalist choose one strategy for their institution.

“Whether clinicians should rely on the Wells rule, the YEARS algorithm, or the revised Geneva score becomes a matter of local preference and experience,” Dr. Stals and colleagues wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including between-study differences in scoring predictors and D-dimer assays. Another limitation was that differential verification biases for classifying fatal events and PE may have contributed to overestimation of failure rates of the adapted D-dimer thresholds.

Strengths of the study included its large sample size and original data on pretest probability, and that data support the use of any of the three strategies for ruling out PE in the identified subgroups without the need for imaging tests, the authors wrote.

“Pending the results of ongoing diagnostic randomized trials, physicians and guideline committees should balance the interlink between safety and efficiency of available diagnostic strategies,” they concluded.

Adapted D-dimer benefits some patients

“Clearly, increasing the D-dimer cutoff will lower the number of patients who require radiographic imaging (improved specificity), but this comes with a risk for missing PE (lower sensitivity). Is this risk worth taking?” Daniel J. Brotman, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, asked in an editorial accompanying the new study.

Dr. Brotman was not surprised by the study findings.

“Conditions that predispose to thrombosis through activated hemostasis – such as advanced age, cancer, inflammation, prolonged hospitalization, and trauma – drive D-dimer levels higher independent of the presence or absence of radiographically apparent thrombosis,” he said. However, these patients are unlikely to have normal D-dimer levels regardless of the cutoff used.

Adapted D-dimer cutoffs may benefit some patients, including those with contraindications or limited access to imaging, said Dr. Brotman. D-dimer may be used for risk stratification regardless of PE, since patients with marginally elevated D-dimers have better prognoses than those with higher D-dimer elevations, even if a small PE is missed.

Dr. Brotman wrote that increasing D-dimer cutoffs for high-risk patients in the subgroups analyzed may spare some patients radiographic testing, but doing so carries an increased risk for diagnostic failure. Overall, “the important work by Stals and colleagues offers reassurance that modifying D-dimer thresholds according to age or pretest probability is safe enough for widespread practice, even in high-risk groups.”
 

Focus on single strategy ‘based on local needs’

“Several validated clinical decision tools, along with age or pretest probability adjusted D-dimer threshold are currently in use as diagnostic strategies for ruling out pulmonary embolism,” Dr. Pal said in an interview.

The current study is important because of limited data on the performance of these strategies in specific subgroups of patients whose risk of PE may differ from the overall patient population, he noted.

“Different diagnostic strategies for PE have a variable performance in patients with differences of age, active cancer, and history of VTE,” said Dr. Pal. “However, in this study, no clear preference for one strategy over others could be established for these subgroups, and clinicians should continue to follow institution-specific guidance.

“A single strategy should be adopted at each institution based on local needs and used as the standard of care until further data are available,” he said.

“The use of D-dimer to rule out PE, either with fixed threshold or age-adjusted thresholds, can be confounded in clinical settings by other comorbid conditions such as sepsis, recent surgery, and more recently, COVID-19,” he said.

“Since the findings of this study do not show a clear benefit of one diagnostic strategy over others in the analyzed subgroups of patients, further prospective head-to-head comparison among the subgroups of interest would be helpful to guide clinical decision making,” Dr. Pal added.
 

YEARS-specific study supports D-dimer safety and value

A recent paper published in JAMA supported the results of the meta-analysis. In that study, Yonathan Freund, MD, of Sorbonne Université, Paris, and colleagues focused on the YEARS strategy combined with age-adjusted D-dimer thresholds as a way to rule out PE in PERC-positive ED patients.

The authors of this paper randomized 18 EDs to either a protocol of intervention followed by control, or control followed by intervention. The study population included 726 patients in the intervention group and 688 in the control group.

The intervention strategy to rule out PE consisted of assessing the YEARS criteria and D-dimer testing. PE was ruled out in patients with no YEARS criteria and a D-dimer level below 1,000 ng/mL and in patients with one or more YEARS criteria and D-dimers below an age-adjusted threshold (defined as age times 10 ng/mL in patients aged 50 years and older).

The control strategy consisted of D-dimer testing for all patients with the threshold at age-adjusted levels; D-dimers about these levels prompted chest imaging.

Overall, the risk of a missed VTE at 3 months was noninferior between the groups (0.15% in the intervention group and 0.80% in the controls).

“The intervention was associated with a statistically significant reduction in chest imaging use,” the researchers wrote.

This study’s findings were limited by randomization at the center level, rather than the patient level, and the use of imaging on some patients despite negative D-dimer tests, the researchers wrote. However, their findings support those of previous studies and especially support the safety of the intervention, in an emergency medicine setting, as no PEs occurred in patients with a YEARS score of zero who underwent the intervention.
 

Downsides to applying algorithms to every patient explained

In an editorial accompanying the JAMA study, Marcel Levi, MD, and Nick van Es, MD, of Amsterdam University Medical Center, emphasized the challenges of diagnosing PE given that many patients present with nonspecific clinical manifestations and without typical signs and symptoms. High-resolution CT pulmonary angiography allows for a fast and easy diagnosis in an emergency setting. However, efforts are ongoing to develop alternative strategies that avoid unnecessary scanning for potential PE patients, many of whom have alternative diagnoses such as pulmonary infections, cardiac conditions, pleural disease, or musculoskeletal problems.

On review of the JAMA study using the YEARS rule with adjusted D-dimer thresholds, the editorialists noted that the data were robust and indicated a 10% reduction in chest imaging. They also emphasized the potential to overwhelm busy clinicians with more algorithms.

“Blindly applying algorithms to every patient may be less appropriate or even undesirable in specific situations in which deviation from the rules on clinical grounds is indicated,” but a complex imaging approach may be time consuming and challenging in the acute setting, and a simple algorithm may be safe and efficient in many cases, they wrote. “From a patient perspective, a negative diagnostic algorithm for pulmonary embolism does not diminish the physician’s obligation to consider other diagnoses that explain the symptoms, for which chest CT scans may still be needed and helpful.”

The Annals of Internal Medicine study was supported by the Dutch Research Council. The JAMA study was supported by the French Health Ministry. Dr. Stals, Dr. Freund, Dr. Pal, Dr. Levi, and Dr. van Es had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Adapted D-dimer thresholds based on pretest probability were effective for ruling out pulmonary embolism (PE) in subgroups of high-risk individuals without the use of imaging in a review of data.

In a patient suspected to have a PE, “diagnosis is made radiographically, usually with CT pulmonary angiogram, or V/Q scan,” Suman Pal, MD, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview.

“Validated clinical decision tools such as Wells’ score or Geneva score may be used to identify patients at low pretest probability of PE who may initially get a D-dimer level check, followed by imaging only if D-dimer level is elevated,” explained Dr. Pal, who was not involved with the new research, which was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

According to the authors of the new paper, while current diagnostic strategies in patients with suspected PE include use of a validated clinical decision rule (CDR) and D-dimer testing to rule out PE without imaging tests, the effectiveness of D-dimer tests in older patients, inpatients, cancer patients, and other high-risk groups has not been well-studied.

Lead author of the paper, Milou A.M. Stals, MD, and colleagues said their goal was to evaluate the safety and efficiency of the Wells rule and revised Geneva score in combination with D-dimer tests, and also the YEARS algorithm for D-dimer thresholds, in their paper.

Dr. Stals, of Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, and the coinvestigators conducted an international systemic review and individual patient data meta-analysis that included 16 studies and 20,553 patients, with all studies having been published between Jan. 1, 1995, and Jan. 1, 2021. Their primary outcomes were the safety and efficiency of each of these three strategies.

In the review, the researchers defined safety as the 3-month incidence of venous thromboembolism after PE was ruled out without imaging at baseline. They defined efficiency as the proportion patients for whom PE was ruled out based on D-dimer thresholds without imaging.

Overall, efficiency was highest in the subset of patients aged younger than 40 years, ranging from 47% to 68% in this group. Efficiency was lowest in patients aged 80 years and older (6.0%-23%), and in patients with cancer (9.6%-26%).

The efficiency was higher when D-dimer thresholds based on pretest probability were used, compared with when fixed or age-adjusted D-dimer thresholds were used.

The key finding was the significant variability in performance of the diagnostic strategies, the researchers said.

“The predicted failure rate was generally highest for strategies incorporating adapted D-dimer thresholds. However, at the same time, predicted overall efficiency was substantially higher with these strategies versus strategies with a fixed D-dimer threshold as well,” they said. Given that the benefits of each of the three diagnostic strategies depends on their correct application, the researchers recommended that an individual hospitalist choose one strategy for their institution.

“Whether clinicians should rely on the Wells rule, the YEARS algorithm, or the revised Geneva score becomes a matter of local preference and experience,” Dr. Stals and colleagues wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including between-study differences in scoring predictors and D-dimer assays. Another limitation was that differential verification biases for classifying fatal events and PE may have contributed to overestimation of failure rates of the adapted D-dimer thresholds.

Strengths of the study included its large sample size and original data on pretest probability, and that data support the use of any of the three strategies for ruling out PE in the identified subgroups without the need for imaging tests, the authors wrote.

“Pending the results of ongoing diagnostic randomized trials, physicians and guideline committees should balance the interlink between safety and efficiency of available diagnostic strategies,” they concluded.

Adapted D-dimer benefits some patients

“Clearly, increasing the D-dimer cutoff will lower the number of patients who require radiographic imaging (improved specificity), but this comes with a risk for missing PE (lower sensitivity). Is this risk worth taking?” Daniel J. Brotman, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, asked in an editorial accompanying the new study.

Dr. Brotman was not surprised by the study findings.

“Conditions that predispose to thrombosis through activated hemostasis – such as advanced age, cancer, inflammation, prolonged hospitalization, and trauma – drive D-dimer levels higher independent of the presence or absence of radiographically apparent thrombosis,” he said. However, these patients are unlikely to have normal D-dimer levels regardless of the cutoff used.

Adapted D-dimer cutoffs may benefit some patients, including those with contraindications or limited access to imaging, said Dr. Brotman. D-dimer may be used for risk stratification regardless of PE, since patients with marginally elevated D-dimers have better prognoses than those with higher D-dimer elevations, even if a small PE is missed.

Dr. Brotman wrote that increasing D-dimer cutoffs for high-risk patients in the subgroups analyzed may spare some patients radiographic testing, but doing so carries an increased risk for diagnostic failure. Overall, “the important work by Stals and colleagues offers reassurance that modifying D-dimer thresholds according to age or pretest probability is safe enough for widespread practice, even in high-risk groups.”
 

Focus on single strategy ‘based on local needs’

“Several validated clinical decision tools, along with age or pretest probability adjusted D-dimer threshold are currently in use as diagnostic strategies for ruling out pulmonary embolism,” Dr. Pal said in an interview.

The current study is important because of limited data on the performance of these strategies in specific subgroups of patients whose risk of PE may differ from the overall patient population, he noted.

“Different diagnostic strategies for PE have a variable performance in patients with differences of age, active cancer, and history of VTE,” said Dr. Pal. “However, in this study, no clear preference for one strategy over others could be established for these subgroups, and clinicians should continue to follow institution-specific guidance.

“A single strategy should be adopted at each institution based on local needs and used as the standard of care until further data are available,” he said.

“The use of D-dimer to rule out PE, either with fixed threshold or age-adjusted thresholds, can be confounded in clinical settings by other comorbid conditions such as sepsis, recent surgery, and more recently, COVID-19,” he said.

“Since the findings of this study do not show a clear benefit of one diagnostic strategy over others in the analyzed subgroups of patients, further prospective head-to-head comparison among the subgroups of interest would be helpful to guide clinical decision making,” Dr. Pal added.
 

YEARS-specific study supports D-dimer safety and value

A recent paper published in JAMA supported the results of the meta-analysis. In that study, Yonathan Freund, MD, of Sorbonne Université, Paris, and colleagues focused on the YEARS strategy combined with age-adjusted D-dimer thresholds as a way to rule out PE in PERC-positive ED patients.

The authors of this paper randomized 18 EDs to either a protocol of intervention followed by control, or control followed by intervention. The study population included 726 patients in the intervention group and 688 in the control group.

The intervention strategy to rule out PE consisted of assessing the YEARS criteria and D-dimer testing. PE was ruled out in patients with no YEARS criteria and a D-dimer level below 1,000 ng/mL and in patients with one or more YEARS criteria and D-dimers below an age-adjusted threshold (defined as age times 10 ng/mL in patients aged 50 years and older).

The control strategy consisted of D-dimer testing for all patients with the threshold at age-adjusted levels; D-dimers about these levels prompted chest imaging.

Overall, the risk of a missed VTE at 3 months was noninferior between the groups (0.15% in the intervention group and 0.80% in the controls).

“The intervention was associated with a statistically significant reduction in chest imaging use,” the researchers wrote.

This study’s findings were limited by randomization at the center level, rather than the patient level, and the use of imaging on some patients despite negative D-dimer tests, the researchers wrote. However, their findings support those of previous studies and especially support the safety of the intervention, in an emergency medicine setting, as no PEs occurred in patients with a YEARS score of zero who underwent the intervention.
 

Downsides to applying algorithms to every patient explained

In an editorial accompanying the JAMA study, Marcel Levi, MD, and Nick van Es, MD, of Amsterdam University Medical Center, emphasized the challenges of diagnosing PE given that many patients present with nonspecific clinical manifestations and without typical signs and symptoms. High-resolution CT pulmonary angiography allows for a fast and easy diagnosis in an emergency setting. However, efforts are ongoing to develop alternative strategies that avoid unnecessary scanning for potential PE patients, many of whom have alternative diagnoses such as pulmonary infections, cardiac conditions, pleural disease, or musculoskeletal problems.

On review of the JAMA study using the YEARS rule with adjusted D-dimer thresholds, the editorialists noted that the data were robust and indicated a 10% reduction in chest imaging. They also emphasized the potential to overwhelm busy clinicians with more algorithms.

“Blindly applying algorithms to every patient may be less appropriate or even undesirable in specific situations in which deviation from the rules on clinical grounds is indicated,” but a complex imaging approach may be time consuming and challenging in the acute setting, and a simple algorithm may be safe and efficient in many cases, they wrote. “From a patient perspective, a negative diagnostic algorithm for pulmonary embolism does not diminish the physician’s obligation to consider other diagnoses that explain the symptoms, for which chest CT scans may still be needed and helpful.”

The Annals of Internal Medicine study was supported by the Dutch Research Council. The JAMA study was supported by the French Health Ministry. Dr. Stals, Dr. Freund, Dr. Pal, Dr. Levi, and Dr. van Es had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Two distinct gut microbiota subtypes showed an enhanced clinical response to a low FODMAP diet in an analysis of 41 adults with irritable bowel syndrome and household controls.

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) has a significant impact on quality of life, and some patients find relief on a low FODMAP (fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides and polyols) diet, wrote Kevin Vervier, PhD, of Wellcome Sanger Institute, Hinxton, England, and colleagues. However, the mechanism of action for the success of low FODMAP diets remains unclear, the diet is hard for many patients to follow, and the long-term impact on health is unknown. Therefore, research is needed to identify patients who would derive the most benefit, they said.

In a study published in Gut, the researchers used metagenomics and functional analysis to identify potential biomarkers of response to a low FODMAP diet. They analyzed stool samples from 41 pairs of IBS patients and household contacts. Stool samples were collected at baseline while on usual diets, and again after 4 weeks and 12 weeks on a low FODMAP diet. The patients were divided into two groups based on microbiota clusters; baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were similar between the clusters. In addition, symptom severity was measured using the IBS Severity Scoring System (IBS-SSS).

Cluster 1 was referred to as IBS^P microbiome type because of its pathogenic properties, and cluster 2 as IBS^H microbiome type because of its resemblance to the microbiome of healthy household controls, the researchers wrote.

“We found a significant enrichment of 109 functional pathways and significant depletion of 13 functional pathways in IBS^P microbiomes compared with IBS^H microbiomes,” the researchers said.

More specifically, the IBS^P microbiomes were enriched in Firmicutes and in genes for amino acid and carbohydrate metabolism, at baseline, while the IBS^H microbiomes were similar to healthy controls.

After 4 weeks on the low FODMAP diet, the IBS^P microbiomes normalized, with increased levels of Bacterioides and decreased levels of pathobionts (including Clostridium difficile, Streptococcus parasanguinis, and Paeniclostridium sordellii) to create a microbiome profile resembling the IBSH microbiomes and healthy controls. The taxonomic profile of microbiomes observed in IBS^H and healthy controls did not demonstrate a significant shift.

Although both microbiome groups showed improvement in IBS-SSS scores from baseline on the low FODMAP diet, decreasing from a mean baseline score of 278 to a diet score of 128, the improvement was greater in the IBS^P group than the IBS^H group (delta, 194 vs. 114, respectively; P = .02), the researchers noted. “The shift in the IBS^P microbiota to a healthy profile appeared stable for at least 3 months and correlated with continuing symptomatic well-being,” they wrote.

The distinct responses of the IBS^P and IBS^H microbiomes to the low FODMAP diet suggest a potential mode of action, the researchers said in their discussion. Based on their findings, “it is possible that removal of the eliciting dietary component starves the pathobionts, leading to reduction in their growth and metabolism and a consequent decrease in symptoms, accompanied by an expansion of commensal or symbiotic species leading to a health-associated microbiome,” but more research is needed to prove causality, they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the relatively small sample size, strict inclusion criteria, restriction of medications, and need for participation by household controls, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the inability to control for other factors that could have impacted the gut microbiota, such as the placebo effect and psychological factors, they said.

However, the findings provide a foundation for more research and should be validated in other populations involving different geographical regions and dietary habits, they said. “The identification of a microbial signature ‘biomarker’ that correlates with improved response to a low FODMAP diet may, if validated, allow better stratification and selection of patients likely to benefit from the diet,” they concluded.
 

Setting the stage for focused studies

The low FODMAP diet has demonstrated effectiveness for symptom relief in IBS, although potential risks include exacerbation of disordered eating, nutrition deficiencies, and disrupting gut microbiota, wrote Peter R. Gibson, MD, and Emma P. Halmos, MD, of Monash University and Alfred Health, Melbourne, in an accompanying editorial. However, the current study takes a new step on the journey to identifying patients most likely to respond to a low FODMAP diet, they said.

The editorialists noted three key takeaway points. First, the fecal microbiome may predict response to a low FODMAP diet. Second, the correction of the microbiome through the low FODMAP diet appeared to continue even after the diet was discontinued. “The other intriguing finding was that trehalose metabolic pathways were ‘activated’ in those with dysbiosis,” suggesting that trehalose might be an unrecognized FODMAP, the researchers noted. Trehalose has not been well studied but has been associated with pathogenicity, they said.

Although the study may overemphasize the impact of the low FODMAP diet given the relatively poor assessment of FODMAP intake, “the beauty of Vervier’s work is not in its definitive nature but in that it enables the creation of feasible innovative hypotheses that can be examined by focused studies,” they concluded.

The current study is important because IBS and related disorders of gut-brain interaction are common and greatly impact the quality of life of affected individuals, Jatin Roper, MD, of Duke University in Durham, N.C., said in an interview. Although the mechanisms for improvement are unknown, he said, “The low FODMAP diet is widely used to treat IBS, based on the hypothesis that this diet modifies the gut microbiome in a beneficial way.”

The study authors made two important discoveries, said Dr. Roper. “First, they found that they were able to distinguish IBS versus household controls based on their gut microbial signatures as well expression of key metabolic genes,” he said. “Second, they identified a unique microbiota subtype that was associated with a significant clinical response to the low FODMAP diet in IBS patients; IBS patients with a ‘pathogenic’ microbiome consisting of high Firmicutes and low Bacteroidetes responded to a greater degree to the low FODMAP diet compared to IBS patients with a ‘healthy’ microbiome that was similar to controls,” he explained. “Furthermore, after time on the low FODMAP diet, the IBS patients with pathogenic microbiome signatures developed a microbiome with low Firmicutes and high Bacteroidetes, which is thought to be healthy,” he added.

“These findings are exciting because they suggest that a patient’s microbial signature might be used clinically to predict response to the low FODMAP diet,” said Dr. Roper. “The surprising aspect of these results is that the microbial signature alone was able to predict response to a low FODMAP diet, despite the complex effects of the diet on host physiology and metabolism and the multifactorial etiology of IBS,” he noted. 

However, larger clinical studies are needed to confirm the study findings results in larger patient cohorts and to show that standardized clinical assays can be used to prospectively predict response to dietary interventions such as low FODMAP in IBS, Dr. Roper emphasized.

“This paper provides preliminary and provocative findings that suggest that gut microbiota metabolites may play a role in the pathogenesis of IBS,” said Dr. Roper. “Future basic science and translational research is needed to study the mechanisms by which specific bacterial metabolites regulate intestinal function and disorders such as IBS. I hope that this research will eventually lead to metabolite-based therapies for IBS and other gastrointestinal disorders,” he said.

The study received no outside funding. Lead author Dr. Vervier had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Gibson disclosed authoring two educational/recipe books on the low FODMAP diet, and Monash University financially benefits from the sales of a digital application, booklets, and online courses on the low FODMAP diet. Dr. Halmos had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Roper had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Two distinct gut microbiota subtypes showed an enhanced clinical response to a low FODMAP diet in an analysis of 41 adults with irritable bowel syndrome and household controls.

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) has a significant impact on quality of life, and some patients find relief on a low FODMAP (fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides and polyols) diet, wrote Kevin Vervier, PhD, of Wellcome Sanger Institute, Hinxton, England, and colleagues. However, the mechanism of action for the success of low FODMAP diets remains unclear, the diet is hard for many patients to follow, and the long-term impact on health is unknown. Therefore, research is needed to identify patients who would derive the most benefit, they said.

In a study published in Gut, the researchers used metagenomics and functional analysis to identify potential biomarkers of response to a low FODMAP diet. They analyzed stool samples from 41 pairs of IBS patients and household contacts. Stool samples were collected at baseline while on usual diets, and again after 4 weeks and 12 weeks on a low FODMAP diet. The patients were divided into two groups based on microbiota clusters; baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were similar between the clusters. In addition, symptom severity was measured using the IBS Severity Scoring System (IBS-SSS).

Cluster 1 was referred to as IBS^P microbiome type because of its pathogenic properties, and cluster 2 as IBS^H microbiome type because of its resemblance to the microbiome of healthy household controls, the researchers wrote.

“We found a significant enrichment of 109 functional pathways and significant depletion of 13 functional pathways in IBS^P microbiomes compared with IBS^H microbiomes,” the researchers said.

More specifically, the IBS^P microbiomes were enriched in Firmicutes and in genes for amino acid and carbohydrate metabolism, at baseline, while the IBS^H microbiomes were similar to healthy controls.

After 4 weeks on the low FODMAP diet, the IBS^P microbiomes normalized, with increased levels of Bacterioides and decreased levels of pathobionts (including Clostridium difficile, Streptococcus parasanguinis, and Paeniclostridium sordellii) to create a microbiome profile resembling the IBSH microbiomes and healthy controls. The taxonomic profile of microbiomes observed in IBS^H and healthy controls did not demonstrate a significant shift.

Although both microbiome groups showed improvement in IBS-SSS scores from baseline on the low FODMAP diet, decreasing from a mean baseline score of 278 to a diet score of 128, the improvement was greater in the IBS^P group than the IBS^H group (delta, 194 vs. 114, respectively; P = .02), the researchers noted. “The shift in the IBS^P microbiota to a healthy profile appeared stable for at least 3 months and correlated with continuing symptomatic well-being,” they wrote.

The distinct responses of the IBS^P and IBS^H microbiomes to the low FODMAP diet suggest a potential mode of action, the researchers said in their discussion. Based on their findings, “it is possible that removal of the eliciting dietary component starves the pathobionts, leading to reduction in their growth and metabolism and a consequent decrease in symptoms, accompanied by an expansion of commensal or symbiotic species leading to a health-associated microbiome,” but more research is needed to prove causality, they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the relatively small sample size, strict inclusion criteria, restriction of medications, and need for participation by household controls, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the inability to control for other factors that could have impacted the gut microbiota, such as the placebo effect and psychological factors, they said.

However, the findings provide a foundation for more research and should be validated in other populations involving different geographical regions and dietary habits, they said. “The identification of a microbial signature ‘biomarker’ that correlates with improved response to a low FODMAP diet may, if validated, allow better stratification and selection of patients likely to benefit from the diet,” they concluded.
 

Setting the stage for focused studies

The low FODMAP diet has demonstrated effectiveness for symptom relief in IBS, although potential risks include exacerbation of disordered eating, nutrition deficiencies, and disrupting gut microbiota, wrote Peter R. Gibson, MD, and Emma P. Halmos, MD, of Monash University and Alfred Health, Melbourne, in an accompanying editorial. However, the current study takes a new step on the journey to identifying patients most likely to respond to a low FODMAP diet, they said.

The editorialists noted three key takeaway points. First, the fecal microbiome may predict response to a low FODMAP diet. Second, the correction of the microbiome through the low FODMAP diet appeared to continue even after the diet was discontinued. “The other intriguing finding was that trehalose metabolic pathways were ‘activated’ in those with dysbiosis,” suggesting that trehalose might be an unrecognized FODMAP, the researchers noted. Trehalose has not been well studied but has been associated with pathogenicity, they said.

Although the study may overemphasize the impact of the low FODMAP diet given the relatively poor assessment of FODMAP intake, “the beauty of Vervier’s work is not in its definitive nature but in that it enables the creation of feasible innovative hypotheses that can be examined by focused studies,” they concluded.

The current study is important because IBS and related disorders of gut-brain interaction are common and greatly impact the quality of life of affected individuals, Jatin Roper, MD, of Duke University in Durham, N.C., said in an interview. Although the mechanisms for improvement are unknown, he said, “The low FODMAP diet is widely used to treat IBS, based on the hypothesis that this diet modifies the gut microbiome in a beneficial way.”

The study authors made two important discoveries, said Dr. Roper. “First, they found that they were able to distinguish IBS versus household controls based on their gut microbial signatures as well expression of key metabolic genes,” he said. “Second, they identified a unique microbiota subtype that was associated with a significant clinical response to the low FODMAP diet in IBS patients; IBS patients with a ‘pathogenic’ microbiome consisting of high Firmicutes and low Bacteroidetes responded to a greater degree to the low FODMAP diet compared to IBS patients with a ‘healthy’ microbiome that was similar to controls,” he explained. “Furthermore, after time on the low FODMAP diet, the IBS patients with pathogenic microbiome signatures developed a microbiome with low Firmicutes and high Bacteroidetes, which is thought to be healthy,” he added.

“These findings are exciting because they suggest that a patient’s microbial signature might be used clinically to predict response to the low FODMAP diet,” said Dr. Roper. “The surprising aspect of these results is that the microbial signature alone was able to predict response to a low FODMAP diet, despite the complex effects of the diet on host physiology and metabolism and the multifactorial etiology of IBS,” he noted. 

However, larger clinical studies are needed to confirm the study findings results in larger patient cohorts and to show that standardized clinical assays can be used to prospectively predict response to dietary interventions such as low FODMAP in IBS, Dr. Roper emphasized.

“This paper provides preliminary and provocative findings that suggest that gut microbiota metabolites may play a role in the pathogenesis of IBS,” said Dr. Roper. “Future basic science and translational research is needed to study the mechanisms by which specific bacterial metabolites regulate intestinal function and disorders such as IBS. I hope that this research will eventually lead to metabolite-based therapies for IBS and other gastrointestinal disorders,” he said.

The study received no outside funding. Lead author Dr. Vervier had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Gibson disclosed authoring two educational/recipe books on the low FODMAP diet, and Monash University financially benefits from the sales of a digital application, booklets, and online courses on the low FODMAP diet. Dr. Halmos had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Roper had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Two distinct gut microbiota subtypes showed an enhanced clinical response to a low FODMAP diet in an analysis of 41 adults with irritable bowel syndrome and household controls.

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) has a significant impact on quality of life, and some patients find relief on a low FODMAP (fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides and polyols) diet, wrote Kevin Vervier, PhD, of Wellcome Sanger Institute, Hinxton, England, and colleagues. However, the mechanism of action for the success of low FODMAP diets remains unclear, the diet is hard for many patients to follow, and the long-term impact on health is unknown. Therefore, research is needed to identify patients who would derive the most benefit, they said.

In a study published in Gut, the researchers used metagenomics and functional analysis to identify potential biomarkers of response to a low FODMAP diet. They analyzed stool samples from 41 pairs of IBS patients and household contacts. Stool samples were collected at baseline while on usual diets, and again after 4 weeks and 12 weeks on a low FODMAP diet. The patients were divided into two groups based on microbiota clusters; baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were similar between the clusters. In addition, symptom severity was measured using the IBS Severity Scoring System (IBS-SSS).

Cluster 1 was referred to as IBS^P microbiome type because of its pathogenic properties, and cluster 2 as IBS^H microbiome type because of its resemblance to the microbiome of healthy household controls, the researchers wrote.

“We found a significant enrichment of 109 functional pathways and significant depletion of 13 functional pathways in IBS^P microbiomes compared with IBS^H microbiomes,” the researchers said.

More specifically, the IBS^P microbiomes were enriched in Firmicutes and in genes for amino acid and carbohydrate metabolism, at baseline, while the IBS^H microbiomes were similar to healthy controls.

After 4 weeks on the low FODMAP diet, the IBS^P microbiomes normalized, with increased levels of Bacterioides and decreased levels of pathobionts (including Clostridium difficile, Streptococcus parasanguinis, and Paeniclostridium sordellii) to create a microbiome profile resembling the IBSH microbiomes and healthy controls. The taxonomic profile of microbiomes observed in IBS^H and healthy controls did not demonstrate a significant shift.

Although both microbiome groups showed improvement in IBS-SSS scores from baseline on the low FODMAP diet, decreasing from a mean baseline score of 278 to a diet score of 128, the improvement was greater in the IBS^P group than the IBS^H group (delta, 194 vs. 114, respectively; P = .02), the researchers noted. “The shift in the IBS^P microbiota to a healthy profile appeared stable for at least 3 months and correlated with continuing symptomatic well-being,” they wrote.

The distinct responses of the IBS^P and IBS^H microbiomes to the low FODMAP diet suggest a potential mode of action, the researchers said in their discussion. Based on their findings, “it is possible that removal of the eliciting dietary component starves the pathobionts, leading to reduction in their growth and metabolism and a consequent decrease in symptoms, accompanied by an expansion of commensal or symbiotic species leading to a health-associated microbiome,” but more research is needed to prove causality, they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the relatively small sample size, strict inclusion criteria, restriction of medications, and need for participation by household controls, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the inability to control for other factors that could have impacted the gut microbiota, such as the placebo effect and psychological factors, they said.

However, the findings provide a foundation for more research and should be validated in other populations involving different geographical regions and dietary habits, they said. “The identification of a microbial signature ‘biomarker’ that correlates with improved response to a low FODMAP diet may, if validated, allow better stratification and selection of patients likely to benefit from the diet,” they concluded.
 

Setting the stage for focused studies

The low FODMAP diet has demonstrated effectiveness for symptom relief in IBS, although potential risks include exacerbation of disordered eating, nutrition deficiencies, and disrupting gut microbiota, wrote Peter R. Gibson, MD, and Emma P. Halmos, MD, of Monash University and Alfred Health, Melbourne, in an accompanying editorial. However, the current study takes a new step on the journey to identifying patients most likely to respond to a low FODMAP diet, they said.

The editorialists noted three key takeaway points. First, the fecal microbiome may predict response to a low FODMAP diet. Second, the correction of the microbiome through the low FODMAP diet appeared to continue even after the diet was discontinued. “The other intriguing finding was that trehalose metabolic pathways were ‘activated’ in those with dysbiosis,” suggesting that trehalose might be an unrecognized FODMAP, the researchers noted. Trehalose has not been well studied but has been associated with pathogenicity, they said.

Although the study may overemphasize the impact of the low FODMAP diet given the relatively poor assessment of FODMAP intake, “the beauty of Vervier’s work is not in its definitive nature but in that it enables the creation of feasible innovative hypotheses that can be examined by focused studies,” they concluded.

The current study is important because IBS and related disorders of gut-brain interaction are common and greatly impact the quality of life of affected individuals, Jatin Roper, MD, of Duke University in Durham, N.C., said in an interview. Although the mechanisms for improvement are unknown, he said, “The low FODMAP diet is widely used to treat IBS, based on the hypothesis that this diet modifies the gut microbiome in a beneficial way.”

The study authors made two important discoveries, said Dr. Roper. “First, they found that they were able to distinguish IBS versus household controls based on their gut microbial signatures as well expression of key metabolic genes,” he said. “Second, they identified a unique microbiota subtype that was associated with a significant clinical response to the low FODMAP diet in IBS patients; IBS patients with a ‘pathogenic’ microbiome consisting of high Firmicutes and low Bacteroidetes responded to a greater degree to the low FODMAP diet compared to IBS patients with a ‘healthy’ microbiome that was similar to controls,” he explained. “Furthermore, after time on the low FODMAP diet, the IBS patients with pathogenic microbiome signatures developed a microbiome with low Firmicutes and high Bacteroidetes, which is thought to be healthy,” he added.

“These findings are exciting because they suggest that a patient’s microbial signature might be used clinically to predict response to the low FODMAP diet,” said Dr. Roper. “The surprising aspect of these results is that the microbial signature alone was able to predict response to a low FODMAP diet, despite the complex effects of the diet on host physiology and metabolism and the multifactorial etiology of IBS,” he noted. 

However, larger clinical studies are needed to confirm the study findings results in larger patient cohorts and to show that standardized clinical assays can be used to prospectively predict response to dietary interventions such as low FODMAP in IBS, Dr. Roper emphasized.

“This paper provides preliminary and provocative findings that suggest that gut microbiota metabolites may play a role in the pathogenesis of IBS,” said Dr. Roper. “Future basic science and translational research is needed to study the mechanisms by which specific bacterial metabolites regulate intestinal function and disorders such as IBS. I hope that this research will eventually lead to metabolite-based therapies for IBS and other gastrointestinal disorders,” he said.

The study received no outside funding. Lead author Dr. Vervier had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Gibson disclosed authoring two educational/recipe books on the low FODMAP diet, and Monash University financially benefits from the sales of a digital application, booklets, and online courses on the low FODMAP diet. Dr. Halmos had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Roper had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Only 12 state medical boards have taken action against physicians who have spread false or misleading information about COVID-19, according to a new survey from the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB).

The FSMB reports that in its 2021 annual survey two-thirds of its 71 member boards (which includes the United States, its territories, and Washington, DC) reported an increase in complaints about doctors spreading false or misleading information.

“The staggering number of state medical boards that have seen an increase in COVID-19 disinformation complaints is a sign of how widespread the issue has become,” said Humayun J. Chaudhry, DO, MACP, president and CEO of the FSMB, in a statement.

The FSMB board of directors warned physicians in July that they risked disciplinary action if they spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation or disinformation.

The organization said 15 state boards have now adopted similar statements.

Dr. Chaudhry said the FSMB was “encouraged by the number of boards that have already taken action to combat COVID-19 disinformation by disciplining physicians who engage in that behavior and by reminding all physicians that their words and actions matter, and they should think twice before spreading disinformation that may harm patients.”

This news organization asked the FSMB for further comment on why more physicians have not been disciplined, but did not receive a response before publication.

Misinformation policies a new battleground

The FSMB and member board policies on COVID-19 around the country have become a new front in the war against mandates and restrictions.

The Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners voted just recently to remove its statement of policy against the spread of misinformation from its website after a Republican lawmaker allegedly threatened to dissolve the board.

The vote came just a few months after the board had approved the policy. The board did not rescind the policy, however, according to a report by the Associated Press.

In California, the president of the state’s medical board tweeted on December 8 about what she said was an incident of harassment by a group that has promoted “fake COVID-19 treatments.”Ms. Kristina Lawson said she observed four men sitting in front of her house in a truck. They flew a drone over her residence, and then followed her to work, parking nose-to-nose with her vehicle.

Ms. Lawson claimed that when she went to drive home the four men ambushed her in what was by then a dark parking garage. She said her “concern turned to terror” as they jumped out, cameras and recording equipment in hand.

The men told law enforcement called to the scene that they were just trying to interview her, according to a statement emailed by Ms. Lawson.

They had not made such a request to the California Medical Board.

Ms. Lawson tweeted that she would continue to volunteer for the board. “That means protecting Californians from bad doctors, and ensuring disinformation and misinformation do not detract from our work to protect patients and consumers,” she wrote.

The men who ambushed Ms. Larson allegedly identified themselves and were wearing clothing emblazoned with the logo of “America’s Frontline Doctors,” an organization that has trafficked in COVID-19 conspiracy theories and promoted unproven treatments like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, according to Time. It is led by Simone Gold, MD, who was arrested for breaching the U.S. Capitol on January 6.

Despite her activities, on November 30, the California Medical Board renewed Ms. Gold’s 2-year license to practice.

Who’s being disciplined, who’s not

Dr. Gold is not alone. An investigation by NPRin September found that 15 of 16 physicians who have spread false information in a high-profile manner have medical licenses in good standing.

Sherri Tenpenny, DO, who has claimed that COVID-19 vaccines magnetize people and “interface” with 5G cell phone towers, was able to renew her license with the Ohio State Medical Board on October 1, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer.

Some boards have acted. The Oregon Medical Board revoked the license of Steven LaTulippe, MD, and fined him $10,000 for spreading misinformation about masks and overprescribing opioids.

In August, Rhode Island’s Board of Medical Licensure suspended Mark Brody’s license for 5 years after finding that the doctor spread falsehoods about COVID-19 vaccines, according to board documents.

Maine physician Paul Gosselin, DO, is on temporary suspension until a February hearing, while the osteopathic board investigates his issuance of vaccine exemption letters and the promotion of unproven COVID-19 therapies.

The board found that Gosselin had “engaged in conduct that constitutes fraud or deceit,” according to official documents.

The Washington State Medical Board has opened an investigation into Ryan N. Cole, MD, a physician who has claimed that COVID vaccines are “fake,” and was appointed to a regional health board in Idaho in September, according to the Washington Post.

The Idaho Capital Sun reported that Dr. Cole claims he is licensed in 11 states, including Washington. The Idaho Medical Association has also filed a complaint about Dr. Cole with the Idaho Board of Medicine, according to the paper.

New FSMB guidance coming

The FSMB said it expects more disciplinary actions as investigations continue to unfold.

The organization is drafting a new policy document that will include further guidelines and recommendations for state medical boards “to help address the spread of disinformation,” it said. The final document would be released in April 2022.

In the meantime, some states, like Tennessee and others, are trying to find ways to counter the current policy — a development the FSMB called “troubling.”

“The FSMB strongly opposes any effort to restrict a board’s authority to evaluate the standard of care and assess risk for patient harm,” the organization said in its statement.

A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.

Only 12 state medical boards have taken action against physicians who have spread false or misleading information about COVID-19, according to a new survey from the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB).

The FSMB reports that in its 2021 annual survey two-thirds of its 71 member boards (which includes the United States, its territories, and Washington, DC) reported an increase in complaints about doctors spreading false or misleading information.

“The staggering number of state medical boards that have seen an increase in COVID-19 disinformation complaints is a sign of how widespread the issue has become,” said Humayun J. Chaudhry, DO, MACP, president and CEO of the FSMB, in a statement.

The FSMB board of directors warned physicians in July that they risked disciplinary action if they spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation or disinformation.

The organization said 15 state boards have now adopted similar statements.

Dr. Chaudhry said the FSMB was “encouraged by the number of boards that have already taken action to combat COVID-19 disinformation by disciplining physicians who engage in that behavior and by reminding all physicians that their words and actions matter, and they should think twice before spreading disinformation that may harm patients.”

This news organization asked the FSMB for further comment on why more physicians have not been disciplined, but did not receive a response before publication.

Misinformation policies a new battleground

The FSMB and member board policies on COVID-19 around the country have become a new front in the war against mandates and restrictions.

The Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners voted just recently to remove its statement of policy against the spread of misinformation from its website after a Republican lawmaker allegedly threatened to dissolve the board.

The vote came just a few months after the board had approved the policy. The board did not rescind the policy, however, according to a report by the Associated Press.

In California, the president of the state’s medical board tweeted on December 8 about what she said was an incident of harassment by a group that has promoted “fake COVID-19 treatments.”Ms. Kristina Lawson said she observed four men sitting in front of her house in a truck. They flew a drone over her residence, and then followed her to work, parking nose-to-nose with her vehicle.

Ms. Lawson claimed that when she went to drive home the four men ambushed her in what was by then a dark parking garage. She said her “concern turned to terror” as they jumped out, cameras and recording equipment in hand.

The men told law enforcement called to the scene that they were just trying to interview her, according to a statement emailed by Ms. Lawson.

They had not made such a request to the California Medical Board.

Ms. Lawson tweeted that she would continue to volunteer for the board. “That means protecting Californians from bad doctors, and ensuring disinformation and misinformation do not detract from our work to protect patients and consumers,” she wrote.

The men who ambushed Ms. Larson allegedly identified themselves and were wearing clothing emblazoned with the logo of “America’s Frontline Doctors,” an organization that has trafficked in COVID-19 conspiracy theories and promoted unproven treatments like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, according to Time. It is led by Simone Gold, MD, who was arrested for breaching the U.S. Capitol on January 6.

Despite her activities, on November 30, the California Medical Board renewed Ms. Gold’s 2-year license to practice.

Who’s being disciplined, who’s not

Dr. Gold is not alone. An investigation by NPRin September found that 15 of 16 physicians who have spread false information in a high-profile manner have medical licenses in good standing.

Sherri Tenpenny, DO, who has claimed that COVID-19 vaccines magnetize people and “interface” with 5G cell phone towers, was able to renew her license with the Ohio State Medical Board on October 1, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer.

Some boards have acted. The Oregon Medical Board revoked the license of Steven LaTulippe, MD, and fined him $10,000 for spreading misinformation about masks and overprescribing opioids.

In August, Rhode Island’s Board of Medical Licensure suspended Mark Brody’s license for 5 years after finding that the doctor spread falsehoods about COVID-19 vaccines, according to board documents.

Maine physician Paul Gosselin, DO, is on temporary suspension until a February hearing, while the osteopathic board investigates his issuance of vaccine exemption letters and the promotion of unproven COVID-19 therapies.

The board found that Gosselin had “engaged in conduct that constitutes fraud or deceit,” according to official documents.

The Washington State Medical Board has opened an investigation into Ryan N. Cole, MD, a physician who has claimed that COVID vaccines are “fake,” and was appointed to a regional health board in Idaho in September, according to the Washington Post.

The Idaho Capital Sun reported that Dr. Cole claims he is licensed in 11 states, including Washington. The Idaho Medical Association has also filed a complaint about Dr. Cole with the Idaho Board of Medicine, according to the paper.

New FSMB guidance coming

The FSMB said it expects more disciplinary actions as investigations continue to unfold.

The organization is drafting a new policy document that will include further guidelines and recommendations for state medical boards “to help address the spread of disinformation,” it said. The final document would be released in April 2022.

In the meantime, some states, like Tennessee and others, are trying to find ways to counter the current policy — a development the FSMB called “troubling.”

“The FSMB strongly opposes any effort to restrict a board’s authority to evaluate the standard of care and assess risk for patient harm,” the organization said in its statement.

A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.

Only 12 state medical boards have taken action against physicians who have spread false or misleading information about COVID-19, according to a new survey from the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB).

The FSMB reports that in its 2021 annual survey two-thirds of its 71 member boards (which includes the United States, its territories, and Washington, DC) reported an increase in complaints about doctors spreading false or misleading information.

“The staggering number of state medical boards that have seen an increase in COVID-19 disinformation complaints is a sign of how widespread the issue has become,” said Humayun J. Chaudhry, DO, MACP, president and CEO of the FSMB, in a statement.

The FSMB board of directors warned physicians in July that they risked disciplinary action if they spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation or disinformation.

The organization said 15 state boards have now adopted similar statements.

Dr. Chaudhry said the FSMB was “encouraged by the number of boards that have already taken action to combat COVID-19 disinformation by disciplining physicians who engage in that behavior and by reminding all physicians that their words and actions matter, and they should think twice before spreading disinformation that may harm patients.”

This news organization asked the FSMB for further comment on why more physicians have not been disciplined, but did not receive a response before publication.

Misinformation policies a new battleground

The FSMB and member board policies on COVID-19 around the country have become a new front in the war against mandates and restrictions.

The Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners voted just recently to remove its statement of policy against the spread of misinformation from its website after a Republican lawmaker allegedly threatened to dissolve the board.

The vote came just a few months after the board had approved the policy. The board did not rescind the policy, however, according to a report by the Associated Press.

In California, the president of the state’s medical board tweeted on December 8 about what she said was an incident of harassment by a group that has promoted “fake COVID-19 treatments.”Ms. Kristina Lawson said she observed four men sitting in front of her house in a truck. They flew a drone over her residence, and then followed her to work, parking nose-to-nose with her vehicle.

Ms. Lawson claimed that when she went to drive home the four men ambushed her in what was by then a dark parking garage. She said her “concern turned to terror” as they jumped out, cameras and recording equipment in hand.

The men told law enforcement called to the scene that they were just trying to interview her, according to a statement emailed by Ms. Lawson.

They had not made such a request to the California Medical Board.

Ms. Lawson tweeted that she would continue to volunteer for the board. “That means protecting Californians from bad doctors, and ensuring disinformation and misinformation do not detract from our work to protect patients and consumers,” she wrote.

The men who ambushed Ms. Larson allegedly identified themselves and were wearing clothing emblazoned with the logo of “America’s Frontline Doctors,” an organization that has trafficked in COVID-19 conspiracy theories and promoted unproven treatments like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, according to Time. It is led by Simone Gold, MD, who was arrested for breaching the U.S. Capitol on January 6.

Despite her activities, on November 30, the California Medical Board renewed Ms. Gold’s 2-year license to practice.

Who’s being disciplined, who’s not

Dr. Gold is not alone. An investigation by NPRin September found that 15 of 16 physicians who have spread false information in a high-profile manner have medical licenses in good standing.

Sherri Tenpenny, DO, who has claimed that COVID-19 vaccines magnetize people and “interface” with 5G cell phone towers, was able to renew her license with the Ohio State Medical Board on October 1, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer.

Some boards have acted. The Oregon Medical Board revoked the license of Steven LaTulippe, MD, and fined him $10,000 for spreading misinformation about masks and overprescribing opioids.

In August, Rhode Island’s Board of Medical Licensure suspended Mark Brody’s license for 5 years after finding that the doctor spread falsehoods about COVID-19 vaccines, according to board documents.

Maine physician Paul Gosselin, DO, is on temporary suspension until a February hearing, while the osteopathic board investigates his issuance of vaccine exemption letters and the promotion of unproven COVID-19 therapies.

The board found that Gosselin had “engaged in conduct that constitutes fraud or deceit,” according to official documents.

The Washington State Medical Board has opened an investigation into Ryan N. Cole, MD, a physician who has claimed that COVID vaccines are “fake,” and was appointed to a regional health board in Idaho in September, according to the Washington Post.

The Idaho Capital Sun reported that Dr. Cole claims he is licensed in 11 states, including Washington. The Idaho Medical Association has also filed a complaint about Dr. Cole with the Idaho Board of Medicine, according to the paper.

New FSMB guidance coming

The FSMB said it expects more disciplinary actions as investigations continue to unfold.

The organization is drafting a new policy document that will include further guidelines and recommendations for state medical boards “to help address the spread of disinformation,” it said. The final document would be released in April 2022.

In the meantime, some states, like Tennessee and others, are trying to find ways to counter the current policy — a development the FSMB called “troubling.”

“The FSMB strongly opposes any effort to restrict a board’s authority to evaluate the standard of care and assess risk for patient harm,” the organization said in its statement.

A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.

Macular telangiectasia type 2 (MacTel2) is an uncommon, bilateral, and asymmetric condition that typically presents between the ages of 40 and 60 years without sex predilection.^1-9 Its estimated prevalence ranges from 0.02 to 0.10%.^2,8 The disease can manifest in either a nonproliferative or proliferative phase; the latter is far less common. The etiology of MacTel2 is poorly understood, but it is believed to have neurodegenerative as well as vascular components.^1-6,8-10 We present a case of MacTel2 and highlight the role of diagnostic imaging in early diagnosis prior to development of classic funduscopic features.

Case Presentation

A 66-year-old White male with a 10-year history of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) presented to the eye clinic for an annual eye examination. The patient was taking metformin, and 6 months prior to presentation, his hemoglobin A_1c was 7.4%. He had a history of mild nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy in the left eye without diabetic macular edema. He reported no ocular concerns.

On examination, best-corrected visual acuity (VA) was 20/20 in each eye. Slit-lamp examination was notable only for bilateral mild nuclear sclerosis. Dilated fundus examination showed a blunted foveal reflex consistent with the appearance of a macular pseudo-hole in the right eye and was unremarkable in the left eye (Figure 1).

Discussion

This case highlights several important management considerations in MacTel2. These include symptoms, disease stage, and diagnostic imaging, which can allow more precise staging of the disease.

The etiology of MacTel2 is unknown.⁶ It is believed to be primarily a neurodegenerative condition that damages Müller cells and photoreceptors, leading to vascular changes.^1-6,8-10 Müller cells may play a role in creating and maintaining the integrity of the blood-retinal barrier, particularly in the deep capillary plexus where the vascular abnormalities begin.^6,10 These early changes in the deep capillary plexus may evolve to include the superficial capillary plexus in intermediate stages with anastomoses forming between the 2 layers.^2,6-10 Late proliferative stages show significant alterations of the juxtafoveal capillary network, subretinal neovascularization and retinochoroidal anastomoses.^6,7,9,11 In one cohort study, 81% of patients with MacTel2 were White, and a genetic link is still under investigation.^2,4-9

Presentation

The most common symptoms of MacTel2 include blurred vision, microscotoma, metamorphopsia, and difficulty reading, with missing or distorted letters a common concern.^1,2,4-8 Best-corrected VA at presentation is usually better than 20/30, and disease progression tends to be slow.^2,6 Microscotomata are best mapped with microperimetry.^1-3,5-7

There are several classic fundus findings (Table). In the early stages, these findings are subtle or entirely absent funduscopically.^1,2,4-10 In intermediate stages, fundus findings become apparent and include a loss of retinal clarity (grayish perifoveal sheen), telangiectatic macular vessels, retinal pigment epithelium hypertrophy, blunted right-angled vessels, and superficial retinal crystalline deposits.^2,4-11 Right-angled vessels may have a greater association with choroidal neovascularization, with growth into the outer retina in particular being a marker of disease progression.⁹ The crystalline deposits have been hypothesized to be the footplates of degenerated Müller cells.⁶

Diagnostic Testing

Diagnostic retinal imaging is invaluable in the diagnosis of MacTel2. The OCT can detect hyporeflectivity within the ellipsoid zone in early disease corresponding to ellipsoid zone loss, which increases as the disease progresses.^1-8,10 This loss most often begins in the temporal parafoveal region and correlates with the progression of both relative and absolute scotomas perceived by affected individuals.^2,3,5,8

Intraretinal foveal hyporeflective spaces on the OCT represent cavity formation after Müller cell and photoreceptor loss and do not correlate with increased thickness.^1,2,4,6,7 This is important in differentiating from diabetic macular edema, which will often show thickening.⁶ In most cases of MacTel2, foveal thickness is decreased.^4-6 The ILM remains intact overlying this space and is referred to as ILM drape.^6,7 This can cause blunting or absence of the foveal light reflex and mimic the appearance of a macular pseudohole.⁴

The OCT-A allows visualization of capillary changes through every layer of the retina, which could not otherwise be appreciated, allowing early detection as well as precise staging of the disease.^2,6-10 Anastomoses present in late-stage disease also can be imaged using OCT-A.^7,9 These anastomoses can be seen as hyperreflective vasculature present between the retinal layers where there is little to no vasculature visible in normal eyes.⁷

A lesser-known occurrence in MacTel2 is the depletion of macular luteal pigment, with many eyes possessing an abnormal distribution.^2,4,6-8,10 This depletion and abnormal distribution can be visualized with FAF. In particular, short wavelength fundus autofluorescence (SW-FAF) is the most effective at highlighting these changes.¹⁰ The characteristic finding is a hyperreflective halo surrounding the fovea.^2,6 Fluorescence life imaging ophthalmoscopy (FLIO) is a recent development in FAF that measures FAF lifetime, which is the duration of time a structure autofluoresces.⁸ A cross-sectional study published in 2018 showed prolonged FAF lifetime in the temporal fovea of patients with early and moderate stage MacTel2 when compared with normal patients.⁸ More advanced stages showed a ring encircling the entire fovea.⁸

Classic FA findings in MacTel2 include early hyperfluorescence of temporal foveal telangiectatic capillaries and late-stage leakage with sparing of the central fovea.^1,2,4,6,7,11

Management and Prognosis

Management of MacTel2 depends on the stage of the disease. In the absence of proven treatment, management in nonproliferative stages is conservative.^2,6 Intravitreal anti-VEGF does not offer any benefit in nonproliferative disease.^2,5,6 Indeed, as VEGF may have a neuroprotective effect on the retina, anti-VEGF may result in more harm than benefit in earlier disease stages.⁵ In proliferative stages, intravitreal anti-VEGF can help limit scarring and prevent vision loss.^2,5

Long-term prognosis of MacTel2 is variable with VA typically better than 20/100.² Vision loss in MacTel2 most often begins paracentrally; it can then progress centrally, leading to significant reduction in VA.¹² The progression of this functional vision loss and corresponding structural damage is typically slow.³ VA worse than 20/100 is usually a result of proliferative disease; in such cases, there is potential for severe central vision loss and legal blindness.¹

Conclusions

This case of MacTel2 underscores the subtle retinal findings in the earliest stages of the disease and the importance of a complete retinal examination and diagnostic imaging with macula OCT, OCT-A, and FAF to establish the correct diagnosis.

Macular telangiectasia type 2 (MacTel2) is an uncommon, bilateral, and asymmetric condition that typically presents between the ages of 40 and 60 years without sex predilection.^1-9 Its estimated prevalence ranges from 0.02 to 0.10%.^2,8 The disease can manifest in either a nonproliferative or proliferative phase; the latter is far less common. The etiology of MacTel2 is poorly understood, but it is believed to have neurodegenerative as well as vascular components.^1-6,8-10 We present a case of MacTel2 and highlight the role of diagnostic imaging in early diagnosis prior to development of classic funduscopic features.

Case Presentation

A 66-year-old White male with a 10-year history of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) presented to the eye clinic for an annual eye examination. The patient was taking metformin, and 6 months prior to presentation, his hemoglobin A_1c was 7.4%. He had a history of mild nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy in the left eye without diabetic macular edema. He reported no ocular concerns.

On examination, best-corrected visual acuity (VA) was 20/20 in each eye. Slit-lamp examination was notable only for bilateral mild nuclear sclerosis. Dilated fundus examination showed a blunted foveal reflex consistent with the appearance of a macular pseudo-hole in the right eye and was unremarkable in the left eye (Figure 1).

Discussion

This case highlights several important management considerations in MacTel2. These include symptoms, disease stage, and diagnostic imaging, which can allow more precise staging of the disease.

The etiology of MacTel2 is unknown.⁶ It is believed to be primarily a neurodegenerative condition that damages Müller cells and photoreceptors, leading to vascular changes.^1-6,8-10 Müller cells may play a role in creating and maintaining the integrity of the blood-retinal barrier, particularly in the deep capillary plexus where the vascular abnormalities begin.^6,10 These early changes in the deep capillary plexus may evolve to include the superficial capillary plexus in intermediate stages with anastomoses forming between the 2 layers.^2,6-10 Late proliferative stages show significant alterations of the juxtafoveal capillary network, subretinal neovascularization and retinochoroidal anastomoses.^6,7,9,11 In one cohort study, 81% of patients with MacTel2 were White, and a genetic link is still under investigation.^2,4-9

Presentation

The most common symptoms of MacTel2 include blurred vision, microscotoma, metamorphopsia, and difficulty reading, with missing or distorted letters a common concern.^1,2,4-8 Best-corrected VA at presentation is usually better than 20/30, and disease progression tends to be slow.^2,6 Microscotomata are best mapped with microperimetry.^1-3,5-7

There are several classic fundus findings (Table). In the early stages, these findings are subtle or entirely absent funduscopically.^1,2,4-10 In intermediate stages, fundus findings become apparent and include a loss of retinal clarity (grayish perifoveal sheen), telangiectatic macular vessels, retinal pigment epithelium hypertrophy, blunted right-angled vessels, and superficial retinal crystalline deposits.^2,4-11 Right-angled vessels may have a greater association with choroidal neovascularization, with growth into the outer retina in particular being a marker of disease progression.⁹ The crystalline deposits have been hypothesized to be the footplates of degenerated Müller cells.⁶

Diagnostic Testing

Diagnostic retinal imaging is invaluable in the diagnosis of MacTel2. The OCT can detect hyporeflectivity within the ellipsoid zone in early disease corresponding to ellipsoid zone loss, which increases as the disease progresses.^1-8,10 This loss most often begins in the temporal parafoveal region and correlates with the progression of both relative and absolute scotomas perceived by affected individuals.^2,3,5,8

Intraretinal foveal hyporeflective spaces on the OCT represent cavity formation after Müller cell and photoreceptor loss and do not correlate with increased thickness.^1,2,4,6,7 This is important in differentiating from diabetic macular edema, which will often show thickening.⁶ In most cases of MacTel2, foveal thickness is decreased.^4-6 The ILM remains intact overlying this space and is referred to as ILM drape.^6,7 This can cause blunting or absence of the foveal light reflex and mimic the appearance of a macular pseudohole.⁴

The OCT-A allows visualization of capillary changes through every layer of the retina, which could not otherwise be appreciated, allowing early detection as well as precise staging of the disease.^2,6-10 Anastomoses present in late-stage disease also can be imaged using OCT-A.^7,9 These anastomoses can be seen as hyperreflective vasculature present between the retinal layers where there is little to no vasculature visible in normal eyes.⁷

A lesser-known occurrence in MacTel2 is the depletion of macular luteal pigment, with many eyes possessing an abnormal distribution.^2,4,6-8,10 This depletion and abnormal distribution can be visualized with FAF. In particular, short wavelength fundus autofluorescence (SW-FAF) is the most effective at highlighting these changes.¹⁰ The characteristic finding is a hyperreflective halo surrounding the fovea.^2,6 Fluorescence life imaging ophthalmoscopy (FLIO) is a recent development in FAF that measures FAF lifetime, which is the duration of time a structure autofluoresces.⁸ A cross-sectional study published in 2018 showed prolonged FAF lifetime in the temporal fovea of patients with early and moderate stage MacTel2 when compared with normal patients.⁸ More advanced stages showed a ring encircling the entire fovea.⁸

Classic FA findings in MacTel2 include early hyperfluorescence of temporal foveal telangiectatic capillaries and late-stage leakage with sparing of the central fovea.^1,2,4,6,7,11

Management and Prognosis

Management of MacTel2 depends on the stage of the disease. In the absence of proven treatment, management in nonproliferative stages is conservative.^2,6 Intravitreal anti-VEGF does not offer any benefit in nonproliferative disease.^2,5,6 Indeed, as VEGF may have a neuroprotective effect on the retina, anti-VEGF may result in more harm than benefit in earlier disease stages.⁵ In proliferative stages, intravitreal anti-VEGF can help limit scarring and prevent vision loss.^2,5

Long-term prognosis of MacTel2 is variable with VA typically better than 20/100.² Vision loss in MacTel2 most often begins paracentrally; it can then progress centrally, leading to significant reduction in VA.¹² The progression of this functional vision loss and corresponding structural damage is typically slow.³ VA worse than 20/100 is usually a result of proliferative disease; in such cases, there is potential for severe central vision loss and legal blindness.¹

Conclusions

This case of MacTel2 underscores the subtle retinal findings in the earliest stages of the disease and the importance of a complete retinal examination and diagnostic imaging with macula OCT, OCT-A, and FAF to establish the correct diagnosis.

Macular telangiectasia type 2 (MacTel2) is an uncommon, bilateral, and asymmetric condition that typically presents between the ages of 40 and 60 years without sex predilection.^1-9 Its estimated prevalence ranges from 0.02 to 0.10%.^2,8 The disease can manifest in either a nonproliferative or proliferative phase; the latter is far less common. The etiology of MacTel2 is poorly understood, but it is believed to have neurodegenerative as well as vascular components.^1-6,8-10 We present a case of MacTel2 and highlight the role of diagnostic imaging in early diagnosis prior to development of classic funduscopic features.

Case Presentation

A 66-year-old White male with a 10-year history of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) presented to the eye clinic for an annual eye examination. The patient was taking metformin, and 6 months prior to presentation, his hemoglobin A_1c was 7.4%. He had a history of mild nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy in the left eye without diabetic macular edema. He reported no ocular concerns.

On examination, best-corrected visual acuity (VA) was 20/20 in each eye. Slit-lamp examination was notable only for bilateral mild nuclear sclerosis. Dilated fundus examination showed a blunted foveal reflex consistent with the appearance of a macular pseudo-hole in the right eye and was unremarkable in the left eye (Figure 1).

Discussion

This case highlights several important management considerations in MacTel2. These include symptoms, disease stage, and diagnostic imaging, which can allow more precise staging of the disease.

The etiology of MacTel2 is unknown.⁶ It is believed to be primarily a neurodegenerative condition that damages Müller cells and photoreceptors, leading to vascular changes.^1-6,8-10 Müller cells may play a role in creating and maintaining the integrity of the blood-retinal barrier, particularly in the deep capillary plexus where the vascular abnormalities begin.^6,10 These early changes in the deep capillary plexus may evolve to include the superficial capillary plexus in intermediate stages with anastomoses forming between the 2 layers.^2,6-10 Late proliferative stages show significant alterations of the juxtafoveal capillary network, subretinal neovascularization and retinochoroidal anastomoses.^6,7,9,11 In one cohort study, 81% of patients with MacTel2 were White, and a genetic link is still under investigation.^2,4-9

Presentation

The most common symptoms of MacTel2 include blurred vision, microscotoma, metamorphopsia, and difficulty reading, with missing or distorted letters a common concern.^1,2,4-8 Best-corrected VA at presentation is usually better than 20/30, and disease progression tends to be slow.^2,6 Microscotomata are best mapped with microperimetry.^1-3,5-7

There are several classic fundus findings (Table). In the early stages, these findings are subtle or entirely absent funduscopically.^1,2,4-10 In intermediate stages, fundus findings become apparent and include a loss of retinal clarity (grayish perifoveal sheen), telangiectatic macular vessels, retinal pigment epithelium hypertrophy, blunted right-angled vessels, and superficial retinal crystalline deposits.^2,4-11 Right-angled vessels may have a greater association with choroidal neovascularization, with growth into the outer retina in particular being a marker of disease progression.⁹ The crystalline deposits have been hypothesized to be the footplates of degenerated Müller cells.⁶

Diagnostic Testing

Diagnostic retinal imaging is invaluable in the diagnosis of MacTel2. The OCT can detect hyporeflectivity within the ellipsoid zone in early disease corresponding to ellipsoid zone loss, which increases as the disease progresses.^1-8,10 This loss most often begins in the temporal parafoveal region and correlates with the progression of both relative and absolute scotomas perceived by affected individuals.^2,3,5,8

Intraretinal foveal hyporeflective spaces on the OCT represent cavity formation after Müller cell and photoreceptor loss and do not correlate with increased thickness.^1,2,4,6,7 This is important in differentiating from diabetic macular edema, which will often show thickening.⁶ In most cases of MacTel2, foveal thickness is decreased.^4-6 The ILM remains intact overlying this space and is referred to as ILM drape.^6,7 This can cause blunting or absence of the foveal light reflex and mimic the appearance of a macular pseudohole.⁴

The OCT-A allows visualization of capillary changes through every layer of the retina, which could not otherwise be appreciated, allowing early detection as well as precise staging of the disease.^2,6-10 Anastomoses present in late-stage disease also can be imaged using OCT-A.^7,9 These anastomoses can be seen as hyperreflective vasculature present between the retinal layers where there is little to no vasculature visible in normal eyes.⁷

A lesser-known occurrence in MacTel2 is the depletion of macular luteal pigment, with many eyes possessing an abnormal distribution.^2,4,6-8,10 This depletion and abnormal distribution can be visualized with FAF. In particular, short wavelength fundus autofluorescence (SW-FAF) is the most effective at highlighting these changes.¹⁰ The characteristic finding is a hyperreflective halo surrounding the fovea.^2,6 Fluorescence life imaging ophthalmoscopy (FLIO) is a recent development in FAF that measures FAF lifetime, which is the duration of time a structure autofluoresces.⁸ A cross-sectional study published in 2018 showed prolonged FAF lifetime in the temporal fovea of patients with early and moderate stage MacTel2 when compared with normal patients.⁸ More advanced stages showed a ring encircling the entire fovea.⁸

Classic FA findings in MacTel2 include early hyperfluorescence of temporal foveal telangiectatic capillaries and late-stage leakage with sparing of the central fovea.^1,2,4,6,7,11

Management and Prognosis

Management of MacTel2 depends on the stage of the disease. In the absence of proven treatment, management in nonproliferative stages is conservative.^2,6 Intravitreal anti-VEGF does not offer any benefit in nonproliferative disease.^2,5,6 Indeed, as VEGF may have a neuroprotective effect on the retina, anti-VEGF may result in more harm than benefit in earlier disease stages.⁵ In proliferative stages, intravitreal anti-VEGF can help limit scarring and prevent vision loss.^2,5

Long-term prognosis of MacTel2 is variable with VA typically better than 20/100.² Vision loss in MacTel2 most often begins paracentrally; it can then progress centrally, leading to significant reduction in VA.¹² The progression of this functional vision loss and corresponding structural damage is typically slow.³ VA worse than 20/100 is usually a result of proliferative disease; in such cases, there is potential for severe central vision loss and legal blindness.¹

Conclusions

This case of MacTel2 underscores the subtle retinal findings in the earliest stages of the disease and the importance of a complete retinal examination and diagnostic imaging with macula OCT, OCT-A, and FAF to establish the correct diagnosis.

Thousands of health care professionals who separate from active duty each year now have a route to stay in federal health care jobs, including open positions in US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals. President Biden signed the Hire Veteran Health Heroes Act of 2021 into law on November 30, saying, “This new program will build upon existing efforts to create a pipeline for former military health professionals….to allow those professionals to continue their service to each other and to our nation.”

Senators Mike Braun (R, Indiana) and Maggie Hassan (D, New Hampshire) introduced the bill last March; Representatives Robert Latta (Ohio-05) and Kathleen Rice (New York-04) introduced companion legislation in the House.

The Act serves multiple purposes, including to retain the critical experience of doctors, nurses, pharmacists, technicians, and physical therapists who understand the challenges service members face; to give those professionals continued employment; and to fill empty staff positions. Two years ago, the VA Inspector General said staff shortages are a root cause of many of the problems in veterans’ care.

 The bill directs the VA to create a program to recruit military medical personnel who are within 1 year of completing their military service. On average, 13,000 active-duty medical department members separate from the military each year at the end of enlistments or contracts, or through retirement. But until now, there has been no formal program to actively recruit them to stay.

The Act requires VA leaders to work with US Department of Defense officials to identify, refer, and transition service members who have critically needed skills. Moreover, the bill specifically mandates that if a member of the Armed Forces expresses an interest in working in a health care occupation within the VA, the VA Secretary “shall refer the member to a recruiter of the Department for consideration of open positions in the specialty and geography of interest to the member.”

Senator Hassan, in an official statement, said, “[W]e must always ensure that veterans have the support and resources that they need to succeed, and a critical way to do that is by expanding employment opportunities for our nation’s heroes and strengthening their health care.”

In his remarks, President Biden said, “For both our veterans and our military medical personnel, service isn’t just what they do, it’s who they are.”

Thousands of health care professionals who separate from active duty each year now have a route to stay in federal health care jobs, including open positions in US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals. President Biden signed the Hire Veteran Health Heroes Act of 2021 into law on November 30, saying, “This new program will build upon existing efforts to create a pipeline for former military health professionals….to allow those professionals to continue their service to each other and to our nation.”

Senators Mike Braun (R, Indiana) and Maggie Hassan (D, New Hampshire) introduced the bill last March; Representatives Robert Latta (Ohio-05) and Kathleen Rice (New York-04) introduced companion legislation in the House.

The Act serves multiple purposes, including to retain the critical experience of doctors, nurses, pharmacists, technicians, and physical therapists who understand the challenges service members face; to give those professionals continued employment; and to fill empty staff positions. Two years ago, the VA Inspector General said staff shortages are a root cause of many of the problems in veterans’ care.

 The bill directs the VA to create a program to recruit military medical personnel who are within 1 year of completing their military service. On average, 13,000 active-duty medical department members separate from the military each year at the end of enlistments or contracts, or through retirement. But until now, there has been no formal program to actively recruit them to stay.

The Act requires VA leaders to work with US Department of Defense officials to identify, refer, and transition service members who have critically needed skills. Moreover, the bill specifically mandates that if a member of the Armed Forces expresses an interest in working in a health care occupation within the VA, the VA Secretary “shall refer the member to a recruiter of the Department for consideration of open positions in the specialty and geography of interest to the member.”

Senator Hassan, in an official statement, said, “[W]e must always ensure that veterans have the support and resources that they need to succeed, and a critical way to do that is by expanding employment opportunities for our nation’s heroes and strengthening their health care.”

In his remarks, President Biden said, “For both our veterans and our military medical personnel, service isn’t just what they do, it’s who they are.”

Thousands of health care professionals who separate from active duty each year now have a route to stay in federal health care jobs, including open positions in US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals. President Biden signed the Hire Veteran Health Heroes Act of 2021 into law on November 30, saying, “This new program will build upon existing efforts to create a pipeline for former military health professionals….to allow those professionals to continue their service to each other and to our nation.”

Senators Mike Braun (R, Indiana) and Maggie Hassan (D, New Hampshire) introduced the bill last March; Representatives Robert Latta (Ohio-05) and Kathleen Rice (New York-04) introduced companion legislation in the House.

The Act serves multiple purposes, including to retain the critical experience of doctors, nurses, pharmacists, technicians, and physical therapists who understand the challenges service members face; to give those professionals continued employment; and to fill empty staff positions. Two years ago, the VA Inspector General said staff shortages are a root cause of many of the problems in veterans’ care.

 The bill directs the VA to create a program to recruit military medical personnel who are within 1 year of completing their military service. On average, 13,000 active-duty medical department members separate from the military each year at the end of enlistments or contracts, or through retirement. But until now, there has been no formal program to actively recruit them to stay.

The Act requires VA leaders to work with US Department of Defense officials to identify, refer, and transition service members who have critically needed skills. Moreover, the bill specifically mandates that if a member of the Armed Forces expresses an interest in working in a health care occupation within the VA, the VA Secretary “shall refer the member to a recruiter of the Department for consideration of open positions in the specialty and geography of interest to the member.”

Senator Hassan, in an official statement, said, “[W]e must always ensure that veterans have the support and resources that they need to succeed, and a critical way to do that is by expanding employment opportunities for our nation’s heroes and strengthening their health care.”

In his remarks, President Biden said, “For both our veterans and our military medical personnel, service isn’t just what they do, it’s who they are.”

Data is sparse thus far, but there is concern in lung transplant medicine about the long-term risk of chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD) and a potentially shortened longevity of transplanted lungs in recipients who become ill with COVID-19.

Nephron/Creative Commons 3.0

“My fear is that we’re potentially sitting on this iceberg worth of people who, come 6 months or a year from [the acute phase of] their COVID illness, will in fact have earlier and progressive, chronic rejection,” said Cameron R. Wolfe, MBBS, MPH, associate professor of medicine in transplant infectious disease at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Lower respiratory viral infections have long been concerning for lung transplant recipients given their propensity to cause scarring, a decline in lung function, and a heightened risk of allograft rejection. Time will tell whether lung transplant recipients who survive COVID-19 follow a similar path, or one that is worse, he said.
 

Short-term data

Outcomes beyond hospitalization and acute illness for lung transplant recipients affected by COVID-19 have been reported in the literature by only a few lung transplant programs. These reports – as well as anecdotal experiences being informally shared among transplant programs – have raised the specter of more severe dysfunction following the acute phase and more early CLAD, said Tathagat Narula, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn., and a consultant in lung transplantation at the Mayo Clinic’s Jacksonville program.

“The available data cover only 3-6 months out. We don’t know what will happen in the next 6 months and beyond,” Dr. Narula said in an interview.

The risks of COVID-19 in already-transplanted patients and issues relating to the inadequate antibody responses to vaccination are just some of the challenges of lung transplant medicine in the era of SARS-CoV-2. “COVID-19,” said Dr. Narula, “has completely changed the way we practice lung transplant medicine – the way we’re looking both at our recipients and our donors.”

Potential donors are being evaluated with lower respiratory SARS-CoV-2 testing and an abundance of caution. And patients with severe COVID-19 affecting their own lungs are roundly expected to drive up lung transplant volume in the near future. “The whole paradigm has changed,” Dr. Narula said.
 

Post-acute trajectories

A chart review study published in October by the lung transplant team at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, covered 44 consecutive survivors at a median follow-up of 4.5 months from hospital discharge or acute illness (the survival rate was 83.3%). Patients had significantly impaired functional status, and 18 of the 44 (40.9%) had a significant and persistent loss of forced vital capacity or forced expiratory volume in 1 second (>10% from pre–COVID-19 baseline).

Three patients met the criteria for new CLAD after COVID-19 infection, with all three classified as restrictive allograft syndrome (RAS) phenotype.

Moreover, the majority of COVID-19 survivors who had CT chest scans (22 of 28) showed persistent parenchymal opacities – a finding that, regardless of symptomatology, suggests persistent allograft injury, said Amit Banga, MD, associate professor of medicine and medical director of the ex vivo lung perfusion program in UT Southwestern’s lung transplant program.

“The implication is that there may be long-term consequences of COVID-19, perhaps related to some degree of ongoing inflammation and damage,” said Dr. Banga, a coauthor of the postinfection outcomes paper.

The UT Southwestern lung transplant program, which normally performs 60-80 transplants a year, began routine CT scanning 4-5 months into the pandemic, after “stumbling into a few patients who had no symptoms indicative of COVID pneumonia and no changes on an x-ray but significant involvement on a CT,” he said.

Without routine scanning in the general population of COVID-19 patients, Dr. Banga noted, “we’re limited in convincingly saying that COVID is uniquely doing this to lung transplant recipients.” Nor can they conclude that SARS-CoV-2 is unique from other respiratory viruses such as respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in this regard. (The program has added CT scanning to its protocol for lung transplant recipients afflicted with other respiratory viruses to learn more.)

However, in the big picture, COVID-19 has proven to be far worse for lung transplant recipients than illness with other respiratory viruses, including RSV. “Patients have more frequent and greater loss of lung function, and worse debility from the acute illness,” Dr. Banga said.

“The cornerstones of treatment of both these viruses are very similar, but both the in-hospital course and the postdischarge outcomes are significantly different.”

In an initial paper published in September 2021, Dr. Banga and colleagues compared their first 25 lung transplant patients testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 with a historical cohort of 36 patients with RSV treated during 2016-2018.

Patients with COVID-19 had significantly worse morbidity and mortality, including worse postinfection lung function loss, functional decline, and 3-month survival.

More time, he said, will shed light on the risks of CLAD and the long-term potential for recovery of lung function. Currently, at UT Southwestern, it appears that patients who survive acute illness and the “first 3-6 months after COVID-19, when we’re seeing all the postinfection morbidity, may [enter] a period of stability,” Dr. Banga said.

Overall, he said, patients in their initial cohort are “holding steady” without unusual morbidity, readmissions, or “other setbacks to their allografts.”

At the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, which normally performs 40-50 lung transplants a year, transplant physicians have similarly observed significant declines in lung function beyond the acute phase of COVID-19. “Anecdotally, we’re seeing that some patients are beginning to recover some of their lung function, while others have not,” said Dr. Narula. “And we don’t have predictors as to who will progress to CLAD. It’s a big knowledge gap.”

Dr. Narula noted that patients with restrictive allograft syndrome, such as those reported by the UT Southwestern team, “have scarring of the lung and a much worse prognosis than the obstructive type of chronic rejection.” Whether there’s a role for antifibrotic therapy is a question worthy of research.

In UT Southwestern’s analysis, persistently lower absolute lymphocyte counts (< 600/dL) and higher ferritin levels (>150 ng/mL) at the time of hospital discharge were independently associated with significant lung function loss. This finding, reported in their October paper, has helped guide their management practices, Dr. Banga said.

“Persistently elevated ferritin may indicate ongoing inflammation at the allograft level,” he said. “We now send [such patients] home on a longer course of oral corticosteroids.”

At the front end of care for infected lung transplant recipients, Dr. Banga said that his team and physicians at other lung transplant programs are holding the cell-cycle inhibitor component of patients’ maintenance immunosuppression therapy (commonly mycophenolate or azathioprine) once infection is diagnosed to maximize chances of a better outcome.

“There may be variation on how long [the regimens are adjusted],” he said. “We changed our duration from 4 weeks to 2 due to patients developing a rebound worsening in the third and fourth week of acute illness.”

There is significant variation from institution to institution in how viral infections are managed in lung transplant recipients, he and Dr. Narula said. “Our numbers are so small in lung transplant, and we don’t have standardized protocols – it’s one of the biggest challenges in our field,” said Dr. Narula.
 

Vaccination issues, evaluation of donors

Whether or not immunosuppression regimens should be adjusted prior to vaccination is a controversial question, but is “an absolutely valid one” and is currently being studied in at least one National Institutes of Health–funded trial involving solid organ transplant recipients, said Dr. Wolfe.

“Some have jumped to the conclusion [based on some earlier data] that they should reduce immunosuppression regimens for everyone at the time of vaccination ... but I don’t know the answer yet,” he said. “Balancing staying rejection free with potentially gaining more immune response is complicated ... and it may depend on where the pandemic is going in your area and other factors.”

Reductions aside, Dr. Wolfe tells lung transplant recipients that, based on his approximation of a number of different studies in solid organ transplant recipients, approximately 40%-50% of patients who are immunized with two doses of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines will develop meaningful antibody levels – and that this rises to 50%-60% after a third dose.

It is difficult to glean from available studies the level of vaccine response for lung transplant recipients specifically. But given that their level of maintenance immunosuppression is higher than for recipients of other donor organs, “as a broad sweep, lung transplant recipients tend to be lower in the pecking order of response,” he said.

Still, “there’s a lot to gain,” he said, pointing to a recent study from the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (2021 Nov 5. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7044e3) showing that effectiveness of mRNA vaccination against COVID-19–associated hospitalization was 77% among immunocompromised adults (compared with 90% in immunocompetent adults).

“This is good vindication to keep vaccinating,” he said, “and perhaps speaks to how difficult it is to assess the vaccine response [through measurement of antibody only].”

Neither Duke University’s transplant program, which performed 100-120 lung transplants a year pre-COVID, nor the programs at UT Southwestern or the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville require that solid organ transplant candidates be vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 in order to receive transplants, as some other transplant programs have done. (When asked about the issue, Dr. Banga and Dr. Narula each said that they have had no or little trouble convincing patients awaiting lung transplants of the need for COVID-19 vaccination.)

In an August statement, the American Society of Transplantation recommended vaccination for all solid organ transplant recipients, preferably prior to transplantation, and said that it “support[s] the development of institutional policies regarding pretransplant vaccination.”

The Society is not tracking centers’ vaccination policies. But Kaiser Health News reported in October that a growing number of transplant programs, such as UCHealth in Denver and UW Medicine in Seattle, have decided to either bar patients who refuse to be vaccinated from receiving transplants or give them lower priority on waitlists.

Potential lung donors, meanwhile, must be evaluated with lower respiratory COVID-19 testing, with results available prior to transplantation, according to policy developed by the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network and effective in May 2021. The policy followed three published cases of donor-derived COVID-19 in lung transplant recipients, said Dr. Wolfe, who wrote about use of COVID-positive donors in an editorial published in October.

In each case, the donor had a negative COVID-19 nasopharyngeal swab at the time of organ procurement but was later found to have the virus on bronchoalveolar lavage, he said.

(The use of other organs from COVID-positive donors is appearing thus far to be safe, Dr. Wolfe noted. In the editorial, he references 13 cases of solid organ transplantation from SARS-CoV-2–infected donors into noninfected recipients; none of the 13 transplant recipients developed COVID-19).

Some questions remain, such as how many lower respiratory tests should be run, and how donors should be evaluated in cases of discordant results. Dr. Banga shared the case of a donor with one positive lower respiratory test result followed by two negative results. After internal debate, and consideration of potential false positives and other issues, the team at UT Southwestern decided to decline the donor, Dr. Banga said.

Other programs are likely making similar, appropriately cautious decisions, said Dr. Wolfe. “There’s no way in real-time donor evaluation to know whether the positive test is active virus that could infect the recipient and replicate ... or whether it’s [picking up] inactive or dead fragments of virus that was there several weeks ago. Our tests don’t differentiate that.”

Transplants in COVID-19 patients

Decision-making about lung transplant candidacy among patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome is complex and in need of a new paradigm.

“Some of these patients have the potential to recover, and they’re going to recover way later than what we’re used to,” said Dr. Banga. “We can’t extrapolate for COVID ARDS what we’ve learned for any other virus-related ARDS.”

Dr. Narula also has recently seen at least one COVID-19 patient on ECMO and under evaluation for transplantation recover. “We do not want to transplant too early,” he said, noting that there is consensus that lung transplant should be pursued only when the damage is deemed irreversible clinically and radiologically in the best judgment of the team. Still, “for many of these patients the only exit route will be lung transplants. For the next 12-24 months, a significant proportion of our lung transplant patients will have had post-COVID–related lung damage.”

As of October 2021, 233 lung transplants had been performed in the United States in recipients whose primary diagnosis was reported as COVID related, said Anne Paschke, media relations specialist with the United Network for Organ Sharing.

Dr. Banga, Dr. Wolfe, and Dr. Narula reported that they have no relevant disclosures.

Data is sparse thus far, but there is concern in lung transplant medicine about the long-term risk of chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD) and a potentially shortened longevity of transplanted lungs in recipients who become ill with COVID-19.

Nephron/Creative Commons 3.0

“My fear is that we’re potentially sitting on this iceberg worth of people who, come 6 months or a year from [the acute phase of] their COVID illness, will in fact have earlier and progressive, chronic rejection,” said Cameron R. Wolfe, MBBS, MPH, associate professor of medicine in transplant infectious disease at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Lower respiratory viral infections have long been concerning for lung transplant recipients given their propensity to cause scarring, a decline in lung function, and a heightened risk of allograft rejection. Time will tell whether lung transplant recipients who survive COVID-19 follow a similar path, or one that is worse, he said.
 

Short-term data

Outcomes beyond hospitalization and acute illness for lung transplant recipients affected by COVID-19 have been reported in the literature by only a few lung transplant programs. These reports – as well as anecdotal experiences being informally shared among transplant programs – have raised the specter of more severe dysfunction following the acute phase and more early CLAD, said Tathagat Narula, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn., and a consultant in lung transplantation at the Mayo Clinic’s Jacksonville program.

“The available data cover only 3-6 months out. We don’t know what will happen in the next 6 months and beyond,” Dr. Narula said in an interview.

The risks of COVID-19 in already-transplanted patients and issues relating to the inadequate antibody responses to vaccination are just some of the challenges of lung transplant medicine in the era of SARS-CoV-2. “COVID-19,” said Dr. Narula, “has completely changed the way we practice lung transplant medicine – the way we’re looking both at our recipients and our donors.”

Potential donors are being evaluated with lower respiratory SARS-CoV-2 testing and an abundance of caution. And patients with severe COVID-19 affecting their own lungs are roundly expected to drive up lung transplant volume in the near future. “The whole paradigm has changed,” Dr. Narula said.
 

Post-acute trajectories

A chart review study published in October by the lung transplant team at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, covered 44 consecutive survivors at a median follow-up of 4.5 months from hospital discharge or acute illness (the survival rate was 83.3%). Patients had significantly impaired functional status, and 18 of the 44 (40.9%) had a significant and persistent loss of forced vital capacity or forced expiratory volume in 1 second (>10% from pre–COVID-19 baseline).

Three patients met the criteria for new CLAD after COVID-19 infection, with all three classified as restrictive allograft syndrome (RAS) phenotype.

Moreover, the majority of COVID-19 survivors who had CT chest scans (22 of 28) showed persistent parenchymal opacities – a finding that, regardless of symptomatology, suggests persistent allograft injury, said Amit Banga, MD, associate professor of medicine and medical director of the ex vivo lung perfusion program in UT Southwestern’s lung transplant program.

“The implication is that there may be long-term consequences of COVID-19, perhaps related to some degree of ongoing inflammation and damage,” said Dr. Banga, a coauthor of the postinfection outcomes paper.

The UT Southwestern lung transplant program, which normally performs 60-80 transplants a year, began routine CT scanning 4-5 months into the pandemic, after “stumbling into a few patients who had no symptoms indicative of COVID pneumonia and no changes on an x-ray but significant involvement on a CT,” he said.

Without routine scanning in the general population of COVID-19 patients, Dr. Banga noted, “we’re limited in convincingly saying that COVID is uniquely doing this to lung transplant recipients.” Nor can they conclude that SARS-CoV-2 is unique from other respiratory viruses such as respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in this regard. (The program has added CT scanning to its protocol for lung transplant recipients afflicted with other respiratory viruses to learn more.)

However, in the big picture, COVID-19 has proven to be far worse for lung transplant recipients than illness with other respiratory viruses, including RSV. “Patients have more frequent and greater loss of lung function, and worse debility from the acute illness,” Dr. Banga said.

“The cornerstones of treatment of both these viruses are very similar, but both the in-hospital course and the postdischarge outcomes are significantly different.”

In an initial paper published in September 2021, Dr. Banga and colleagues compared their first 25 lung transplant patients testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 with a historical cohort of 36 patients with RSV treated during 2016-2018.

Patients with COVID-19 had significantly worse morbidity and mortality, including worse postinfection lung function loss, functional decline, and 3-month survival.

More time, he said, will shed light on the risks of CLAD and the long-term potential for recovery of lung function. Currently, at UT Southwestern, it appears that patients who survive acute illness and the “first 3-6 months after COVID-19, when we’re seeing all the postinfection morbidity, may [enter] a period of stability,” Dr. Banga said.

Overall, he said, patients in their initial cohort are “holding steady” without unusual morbidity, readmissions, or “other setbacks to their allografts.”

At the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, which normally performs 40-50 lung transplants a year, transplant physicians have similarly observed significant declines in lung function beyond the acute phase of COVID-19. “Anecdotally, we’re seeing that some patients are beginning to recover some of their lung function, while others have not,” said Dr. Narula. “And we don’t have predictors as to who will progress to CLAD. It’s a big knowledge gap.”

Dr. Narula noted that patients with restrictive allograft syndrome, such as those reported by the UT Southwestern team, “have scarring of the lung and a much worse prognosis than the obstructive type of chronic rejection.” Whether there’s a role for antifibrotic therapy is a question worthy of research.

In UT Southwestern’s analysis, persistently lower absolute lymphocyte counts (< 600/dL) and higher ferritin levels (>150 ng/mL) at the time of hospital discharge were independently associated with significant lung function loss. This finding, reported in their October paper, has helped guide their management practices, Dr. Banga said.

“Persistently elevated ferritin may indicate ongoing inflammation at the allograft level,” he said. “We now send [such patients] home on a longer course of oral corticosteroids.”

At the front end of care for infected lung transplant recipients, Dr. Banga said that his team and physicians at other lung transplant programs are holding the cell-cycle inhibitor component of patients’ maintenance immunosuppression therapy (commonly mycophenolate or azathioprine) once infection is diagnosed to maximize chances of a better outcome.

“There may be variation on how long [the regimens are adjusted],” he said. “We changed our duration from 4 weeks to 2 due to patients developing a rebound worsening in the third and fourth week of acute illness.”

There is significant variation from institution to institution in how viral infections are managed in lung transplant recipients, he and Dr. Narula said. “Our numbers are so small in lung transplant, and we don’t have standardized protocols – it’s one of the biggest challenges in our field,” said Dr. Narula.
 

Vaccination issues, evaluation of donors

Whether or not immunosuppression regimens should be adjusted prior to vaccination is a controversial question, but is “an absolutely valid one” and is currently being studied in at least one National Institutes of Health–funded trial involving solid organ transplant recipients, said Dr. Wolfe.

“Some have jumped to the conclusion [based on some earlier data] that they should reduce immunosuppression regimens for everyone at the time of vaccination ... but I don’t know the answer yet,” he said. “Balancing staying rejection free with potentially gaining more immune response is complicated ... and it may depend on where the pandemic is going in your area and other factors.”

Reductions aside, Dr. Wolfe tells lung transplant recipients that, based on his approximation of a number of different studies in solid organ transplant recipients, approximately 40%-50% of patients who are immunized with two doses of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines will develop meaningful antibody levels – and that this rises to 50%-60% after a third dose.

It is difficult to glean from available studies the level of vaccine response for lung transplant recipients specifically. But given that their level of maintenance immunosuppression is higher than for recipients of other donor organs, “as a broad sweep, lung transplant recipients tend to be lower in the pecking order of response,” he said.

Still, “there’s a lot to gain,” he said, pointing to a recent study from the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (2021 Nov 5. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7044e3) showing that effectiveness of mRNA vaccination against COVID-19–associated hospitalization was 77% among immunocompromised adults (compared with 90% in immunocompetent adults).

“This is good vindication to keep vaccinating,” he said, “and perhaps speaks to how difficult it is to assess the vaccine response [through measurement of antibody only].”

Neither Duke University’s transplant program, which performed 100-120 lung transplants a year pre-COVID, nor the programs at UT Southwestern or the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville require that solid organ transplant candidates be vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 in order to receive transplants, as some other transplant programs have done. (When asked about the issue, Dr. Banga and Dr. Narula each said that they have had no or little trouble convincing patients awaiting lung transplants of the need for COVID-19 vaccination.)

In an August statement, the American Society of Transplantation recommended vaccination for all solid organ transplant recipients, preferably prior to transplantation, and said that it “support[s] the development of institutional policies regarding pretransplant vaccination.”

The Society is not tracking centers’ vaccination policies. But Kaiser Health News reported in October that a growing number of transplant programs, such as UCHealth in Denver and UW Medicine in Seattle, have decided to either bar patients who refuse to be vaccinated from receiving transplants or give them lower priority on waitlists.

Potential lung donors, meanwhile, must be evaluated with lower respiratory COVID-19 testing, with results available prior to transplantation, according to policy developed by the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network and effective in May 2021. The policy followed three published cases of donor-derived COVID-19 in lung transplant recipients, said Dr. Wolfe, who wrote about use of COVID-positive donors in an editorial published in October.

In each case, the donor had a negative COVID-19 nasopharyngeal swab at the time of organ procurement but was later found to have the virus on bronchoalveolar lavage, he said.

(The use of other organs from COVID-positive donors is appearing thus far to be safe, Dr. Wolfe noted. In the editorial, he references 13 cases of solid organ transplantation from SARS-CoV-2–infected donors into noninfected recipients; none of the 13 transplant recipients developed COVID-19).

Some questions remain, such as how many lower respiratory tests should be run, and how donors should be evaluated in cases of discordant results. Dr. Banga shared the case of a donor with one positive lower respiratory test result followed by two negative results. After internal debate, and consideration of potential false positives and other issues, the team at UT Southwestern decided to decline the donor, Dr. Banga said.

Other programs are likely making similar, appropriately cautious decisions, said Dr. Wolfe. “There’s no way in real-time donor evaluation to know whether the positive test is active virus that could infect the recipient and replicate ... or whether it’s [picking up] inactive or dead fragments of virus that was there several weeks ago. Our tests don’t differentiate that.”

Transplants in COVID-19 patients

Decision-making about lung transplant candidacy among patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome is complex and in need of a new paradigm.

“Some of these patients have the potential to recover, and they’re going to recover way later than what we’re used to,” said Dr. Banga. “We can’t extrapolate for COVID ARDS what we’ve learned for any other virus-related ARDS.”

Dr. Narula also has recently seen at least one COVID-19 patient on ECMO and under evaluation for transplantation recover. “We do not want to transplant too early,” he said, noting that there is consensus that lung transplant should be pursued only when the damage is deemed irreversible clinically and radiologically in the best judgment of the team. Still, “for many of these patients the only exit route will be lung transplants. For the next 12-24 months, a significant proportion of our lung transplant patients will have had post-COVID–related lung damage.”

As of October 2021, 233 lung transplants had been performed in the United States in recipients whose primary diagnosis was reported as COVID related, said Anne Paschke, media relations specialist with the United Network for Organ Sharing.

Dr. Banga, Dr. Wolfe, and Dr. Narula reported that they have no relevant disclosures.

Data is sparse thus far, but there is concern in lung transplant medicine about the long-term risk of chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD) and a potentially shortened longevity of transplanted lungs in recipients who become ill with COVID-19.

Nephron/Creative Commons 3.0

“My fear is that we’re potentially sitting on this iceberg worth of people who, come 6 months or a year from [the acute phase of] their COVID illness, will in fact have earlier and progressive, chronic rejection,” said Cameron R. Wolfe, MBBS, MPH, associate professor of medicine in transplant infectious disease at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Lower respiratory viral infections have long been concerning for lung transplant recipients given their propensity to cause scarring, a decline in lung function, and a heightened risk of allograft rejection. Time will tell whether lung transplant recipients who survive COVID-19 follow a similar path, or one that is worse, he said.
 

Short-term data

Outcomes beyond hospitalization and acute illness for lung transplant recipients affected by COVID-19 have been reported in the literature by only a few lung transplant programs. These reports – as well as anecdotal experiences being informally shared among transplant programs – have raised the specter of more severe dysfunction following the acute phase and more early CLAD, said Tathagat Narula, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn., and a consultant in lung transplantation at the Mayo Clinic’s Jacksonville program.

“The available data cover only 3-6 months out. We don’t know what will happen in the next 6 months and beyond,” Dr. Narula said in an interview.

The risks of COVID-19 in already-transplanted patients and issues relating to the inadequate antibody responses to vaccination are just some of the challenges of lung transplant medicine in the era of SARS-CoV-2. “COVID-19,” said Dr. Narula, “has completely changed the way we practice lung transplant medicine – the way we’re looking both at our recipients and our donors.”

Potential donors are being evaluated with lower respiratory SARS-CoV-2 testing and an abundance of caution. And patients with severe COVID-19 affecting their own lungs are roundly expected to drive up lung transplant volume in the near future. “The whole paradigm has changed,” Dr. Narula said.
 

Post-acute trajectories

A chart review study published in October by the lung transplant team at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, covered 44 consecutive survivors at a median follow-up of 4.5 months from hospital discharge or acute illness (the survival rate was 83.3%). Patients had significantly impaired functional status, and 18 of the 44 (40.9%) had a significant and persistent loss of forced vital capacity or forced expiratory volume in 1 second (>10% from pre–COVID-19 baseline).

Three patients met the criteria for new CLAD after COVID-19 infection, with all three classified as restrictive allograft syndrome (RAS) phenotype.

Moreover, the majority of COVID-19 survivors who had CT chest scans (22 of 28) showed persistent parenchymal opacities – a finding that, regardless of symptomatology, suggests persistent allograft injury, said Amit Banga, MD, associate professor of medicine and medical director of the ex vivo lung perfusion program in UT Southwestern’s lung transplant program.

“The implication is that there may be long-term consequences of COVID-19, perhaps related to some degree of ongoing inflammation and damage,” said Dr. Banga, a coauthor of the postinfection outcomes paper.

The UT Southwestern lung transplant program, which normally performs 60-80 transplants a year, began routine CT scanning 4-5 months into the pandemic, after “stumbling into a few patients who had no symptoms indicative of COVID pneumonia and no changes on an x-ray but significant involvement on a CT,” he said.

Without routine scanning in the general population of COVID-19 patients, Dr. Banga noted, “we’re limited in convincingly saying that COVID is uniquely doing this to lung transplant recipients.” Nor can they conclude that SARS-CoV-2 is unique from other respiratory viruses such as respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in this regard. (The program has added CT scanning to its protocol for lung transplant recipients afflicted with other respiratory viruses to learn more.)

However, in the big picture, COVID-19 has proven to be far worse for lung transplant recipients than illness with other respiratory viruses, including RSV. “Patients have more frequent and greater loss of lung function, and worse debility from the acute illness,” Dr. Banga said.

“The cornerstones of treatment of both these viruses are very similar, but both the in-hospital course and the postdischarge outcomes are significantly different.”

In an initial paper published in September 2021, Dr. Banga and colleagues compared their first 25 lung transplant patients testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 with a historical cohort of 36 patients with RSV treated during 2016-2018.

Patients with COVID-19 had significantly worse morbidity and mortality, including worse postinfection lung function loss, functional decline, and 3-month survival.

More time, he said, will shed light on the risks of CLAD and the long-term potential for recovery of lung function. Currently, at UT Southwestern, it appears that patients who survive acute illness and the “first 3-6 months after COVID-19, when we’re seeing all the postinfection morbidity, may [enter] a period of stability,” Dr. Banga said.

Overall, he said, patients in their initial cohort are “holding steady” without unusual morbidity, readmissions, or “other setbacks to their allografts.”

At the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, which normally performs 40-50 lung transplants a year, transplant physicians have similarly observed significant declines in lung function beyond the acute phase of COVID-19. “Anecdotally, we’re seeing that some patients are beginning to recover some of their lung function, while others have not,” said Dr. Narula. “And we don’t have predictors as to who will progress to CLAD. It’s a big knowledge gap.”

Dr. Narula noted that patients with restrictive allograft syndrome, such as those reported by the UT Southwestern team, “have scarring of the lung and a much worse prognosis than the obstructive type of chronic rejection.” Whether there’s a role for antifibrotic therapy is a question worthy of research.

In UT Southwestern’s analysis, persistently lower absolute lymphocyte counts (< 600/dL) and higher ferritin levels (>150 ng/mL) at the time of hospital discharge were independently associated with significant lung function loss. This finding, reported in their October paper, has helped guide their management practices, Dr. Banga said.

“Persistently elevated ferritin may indicate ongoing inflammation at the allograft level,” he said. “We now send [such patients] home on a longer course of oral corticosteroids.”

At the front end of care for infected lung transplant recipients, Dr. Banga said that his team and physicians at other lung transplant programs are holding the cell-cycle inhibitor component of patients’ maintenance immunosuppression therapy (commonly mycophenolate or azathioprine) once infection is diagnosed to maximize chances of a better outcome.

“There may be variation on how long [the regimens are adjusted],” he said. “We changed our duration from 4 weeks to 2 due to patients developing a rebound worsening in the third and fourth week of acute illness.”

There is significant variation from institution to institution in how viral infections are managed in lung transplant recipients, he and Dr. Narula said. “Our numbers are so small in lung transplant, and we don’t have standardized protocols – it’s one of the biggest challenges in our field,” said Dr. Narula.
 

Vaccination issues, evaluation of donors

Whether or not immunosuppression regimens should be adjusted prior to vaccination is a controversial question, but is “an absolutely valid one” and is currently being studied in at least one National Institutes of Health–funded trial involving solid organ transplant recipients, said Dr. Wolfe.

“Some have jumped to the conclusion [based on some earlier data] that they should reduce immunosuppression regimens for everyone at the time of vaccination ... but I don’t know the answer yet,” he said. “Balancing staying rejection free with potentially gaining more immune response is complicated ... and it may depend on where the pandemic is going in your area and other factors.”

Reductions aside, Dr. Wolfe tells lung transplant recipients that, based on his approximation of a number of different studies in solid organ transplant recipients, approximately 40%-50% of patients who are immunized with two doses of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines will develop meaningful antibody levels – and that this rises to 50%-60% after a third dose.

It is difficult to glean from available studies the level of vaccine response for lung transplant recipients specifically. But given that their level of maintenance immunosuppression is higher than for recipients of other donor organs, “as a broad sweep, lung transplant recipients tend to be lower in the pecking order of response,” he said.

Still, “there’s a lot to gain,” he said, pointing to a recent study from the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (2021 Nov 5. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7044e3) showing that effectiveness of mRNA vaccination against COVID-19–associated hospitalization was 77% among immunocompromised adults (compared with 90% in immunocompetent adults).

“This is good vindication to keep vaccinating,” he said, “and perhaps speaks to how difficult it is to assess the vaccine response [through measurement of antibody only].”

Neither Duke University’s transplant program, which performed 100-120 lung transplants a year pre-COVID, nor the programs at UT Southwestern or the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville require that solid organ transplant candidates be vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 in order to receive transplants, as some other transplant programs have done. (When asked about the issue, Dr. Banga and Dr. Narula each said that they have had no or little trouble convincing patients awaiting lung transplants of the need for COVID-19 vaccination.)

In an August statement, the American Society of Transplantation recommended vaccination for all solid organ transplant recipients, preferably prior to transplantation, and said that it “support[s] the development of institutional policies regarding pretransplant vaccination.”

The Society is not tracking centers’ vaccination policies. But Kaiser Health News reported in October that a growing number of transplant programs, such as UCHealth in Denver and UW Medicine in Seattle, have decided to either bar patients who refuse to be vaccinated from receiving transplants or give them lower priority on waitlists.

Potential lung donors, meanwhile, must be evaluated with lower respiratory COVID-19 testing, with results available prior to transplantation, according to policy developed by the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network and effective in May 2021. The policy followed three published cases of donor-derived COVID-19 in lung transplant recipients, said Dr. Wolfe, who wrote about use of COVID-positive donors in an editorial published in October.

In each case, the donor had a negative COVID-19 nasopharyngeal swab at the time of organ procurement but was later found to have the virus on bronchoalveolar lavage, he said.

(The use of other organs from COVID-positive donors is appearing thus far to be safe, Dr. Wolfe noted. In the editorial, he references 13 cases of solid organ transplantation from SARS-CoV-2–infected donors into noninfected recipients; none of the 13 transplant recipients developed COVID-19).

Some questions remain, such as how many lower respiratory tests should be run, and how donors should be evaluated in cases of discordant results. Dr. Banga shared the case of a donor with one positive lower respiratory test result followed by two negative results. After internal debate, and consideration of potential false positives and other issues, the team at UT Southwestern decided to decline the donor, Dr. Banga said.

Other programs are likely making similar, appropriately cautious decisions, said Dr. Wolfe. “There’s no way in real-time donor evaluation to know whether the positive test is active virus that could infect the recipient and replicate ... or whether it’s [picking up] inactive or dead fragments of virus that was there several weeks ago. Our tests don’t differentiate that.”

Transplants in COVID-19 patients

Decision-making about lung transplant candidacy among patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome is complex and in need of a new paradigm.

“Some of these patients have the potential to recover, and they’re going to recover way later than what we’re used to,” said Dr. Banga. “We can’t extrapolate for COVID ARDS what we’ve learned for any other virus-related ARDS.”

Dr. Narula also has recently seen at least one COVID-19 patient on ECMO and under evaluation for transplantation recover. “We do not want to transplant too early,” he said, noting that there is consensus that lung transplant should be pursued only when the damage is deemed irreversible clinically and radiologically in the best judgment of the team. Still, “for many of these patients the only exit route will be lung transplants. For the next 12-24 months, a significant proportion of our lung transplant patients will have had post-COVID–related lung damage.”

As of October 2021, 233 lung transplants had been performed in the United States in recipients whose primary diagnosis was reported as COVID related, said Anne Paschke, media relations specialist with the United Network for Organ Sharing.

Dr. Banga, Dr. Wolfe, and Dr. Narula reported that they have no relevant disclosures.

ATLANTA - A new drug recently introduced for use in the treatment of refractory/relapsed multiple myeloma looks like it will also find a role in the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed transplant-eligible multiple myeloma.

The drug is isatuximab (Sarclisa, Sanofi), an anti-CD38 antibody that was approved last year for use in patients with advanced disease.

Now it has shown benefit in patients who have been newly diagnosed with the disease. When isatuximab was added onto a usual triplet therapy for myeloma, it increased the likelihood that patients would be negative for minimal residual disease (MRD) at the end of the induction phase of treatment, thereby increasing their chances for a successful autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT).

The new results come from the GMMG-HD7 trial, in which all patients were treated with the triplet combination of lenalidomide (Revlimid), bortezomib (Velcade), and dexamethasone (RVd).

Some patients, after randomization, also received isatuximab, and in this group, the MRD-negativity rate was 50.1% at the end of induction therapy compared with 35.6% for patients treated with RVd alone.  

Patients who are MRD-negative at the time of ASCT have significantly better outcomes than patients who remain MRD-positive.

“Isa-RVd is the first regimen to demonstrate significant MRD-negativity benefit at the end of induction versus RVd in a phase 3 trial,” reported Hartmut Goldschmidt, MD, from University Hospital Heidelberg, Germany.

“The benefits of the addition of Isa to RVd versus RVd regarding MRD negativity after induction therapy was consistent in all subgroups,” he added.

Dr. Goldschmidt spoke at a press briefing prior to his presentation of the data here at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (ASH).

“I think that these data are encouraging, but they are preliminary, and we need mature data to be absolutely certain about whether this presents a major advance in treatment,” commented Ravi Vij, MD, from the Siteman Cancer Center and Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. Dr. Vij was not involved in the study.

“We know that for transplant-eligible patients, for whom this trial was conducted, the field is moving toward giving four drugs for induction,” he said in an interview with this news organization.

He noted that the combination of RVd with the other currently available anti-CD38 antibody, daratumumab (Darzalex), was approved for this indication in the United States in Jan. 2021.

Dr. Vij said that isatuximab has been slow to catch on in the United States both because it was approved after clinicians had already become familiar with daratumumab and because it is given intravenously, compared with subcutaneous administration of the latest formulation of daratumumab.

“Whereas isatuximab can take an hour-and-a-half with each infusion, daratumumab takes 5 minutes for an injection and the patient is out of there, so it is convenient both for the patient and the treating institution,” he said.
 

MRD vs. CR?

Dr. Goldschmidt was asked during the briefing about whether MRD-negativity or complete response rates are better predictors of progression-free survival (PFS). He replied that with current standardized sequencing techniques and sensitivity down to 10-6, “it’s a big benefit to analyze MRD negativity, and there is ongoing discussion between colleagues from the myeloma group with the Food and Drug Administration about how we can merge the data and predict PFS and overall survival.”

Laurie Sehn, MD, MPH, from the BC Cancer Centre for Lymphoid Cancer, Vancouver, who moderated the briefing, commented that “we’re desperately looking for surrogate markers to speed up answers to clinical trials, and I think MRD in myeloma is quickly becoming a very important surrogate marker.”
 

GMMG-7 results

For their trial, Dr. Goldschmidt and colleagues enrolled 662 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were candidates for high-dose therapy and ASCT and after stratification by revised International Staging System (r-ISS) criteria, randomly assigned them six three-week cycles of induction therapy with Isa-RVd or RVd alone.

Following ASCT, patients were again randomized to maintenance with either isatuximab plus lenalidomide or lenalidomide alone.

As noted before, MRD rates at the end of induction were 50.1% with Isa-RVd versus 35.6% with RVd alone, translating to a hazard ratio favoring the four-drug combination of 1.83 (P < .001).

Treatment with Isa-RVd was the only significant predictor for the likelihood of MRD negativity in a multivariate analysis controlling for treatment group, r-ISS status, performance status, renal impairment, age, and sex.

Although the rate of complete responses at the end of induction was similar between the treatment groups, the rate of very good partial response or better was higher with the isatuximab-containing combination (77.3% vs. 60.5%; P < .001).

The respective rates of disease progression at the end of induction in the Isa-RVd and RVd groups were 1.5% versus 4.0%.

The rates of adverse events were generally similar between the groups, except a higher proportion of patients had leukocytopenia or neutropenia in the Isa-RVd than the RVdgroup (26.4% vs. 9.1%). There were four deaths in the Isa-RVd group and eight in the RVd group. Most of the deaths were attributable to disease progression or COVID-19, said Dr. Goldschmidt.

The study was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Goldschmidt has disclosed honoraria and research grants from Sanofi and others. Dr. Vij has disclosed honoraria or advisory board activities from various companies, including Sanofi. Dr. Sehn is a consultant for and has received honoraria from various companies, not including Sanofi.

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

ATLANTA - A new drug recently introduced for use in the treatment of refractory/relapsed multiple myeloma looks like it will also find a role in the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed transplant-eligible multiple myeloma.

The drug is isatuximab (Sarclisa, Sanofi), an anti-CD38 antibody that was approved last year for use in patients with advanced disease.

Now it has shown benefit in patients who have been newly diagnosed with the disease. When isatuximab was added onto a usual triplet therapy for myeloma, it increased the likelihood that patients would be negative for minimal residual disease (MRD) at the end of the induction phase of treatment, thereby increasing their chances for a successful autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT).

The new results come from the GMMG-HD7 trial, in which all patients were treated with the triplet combination of lenalidomide (Revlimid), bortezomib (Velcade), and dexamethasone (RVd).

Some patients, after randomization, also received isatuximab, and in this group, the MRD-negativity rate was 50.1% at the end of induction therapy compared with 35.6% for patients treated with RVd alone.  

Patients who are MRD-negative at the time of ASCT have significantly better outcomes than patients who remain MRD-positive.

“Isa-RVd is the first regimen to demonstrate significant MRD-negativity benefit at the end of induction versus RVd in a phase 3 trial,” reported Hartmut Goldschmidt, MD, from University Hospital Heidelberg, Germany.

“The benefits of the addition of Isa to RVd versus RVd regarding MRD negativity after induction therapy was consistent in all subgroups,” he added.

Dr. Goldschmidt spoke at a press briefing prior to his presentation of the data here at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (ASH).

“I think that these data are encouraging, but they are preliminary, and we need mature data to be absolutely certain about whether this presents a major advance in treatment,” commented Ravi Vij, MD, from the Siteman Cancer Center and Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. Dr. Vij was not involved in the study.

“We know that for transplant-eligible patients, for whom this trial was conducted, the field is moving toward giving four drugs for induction,” he said in an interview with this news organization.

He noted that the combination of RVd with the other currently available anti-CD38 antibody, daratumumab (Darzalex), was approved for this indication in the United States in Jan. 2021.

Dr. Vij said that isatuximab has been slow to catch on in the United States both because it was approved after clinicians had already become familiar with daratumumab and because it is given intravenously, compared with subcutaneous administration of the latest formulation of daratumumab.

“Whereas isatuximab can take an hour-and-a-half with each infusion, daratumumab takes 5 minutes for an injection and the patient is out of there, so it is convenient both for the patient and the treating institution,” he said.
 

MRD vs. CR?

Dr. Goldschmidt was asked during the briefing about whether MRD-negativity or complete response rates are better predictors of progression-free survival (PFS). He replied that with current standardized sequencing techniques and sensitivity down to 10-6, “it’s a big benefit to analyze MRD negativity, and there is ongoing discussion between colleagues from the myeloma group with the Food and Drug Administration about how we can merge the data and predict PFS and overall survival.”

Laurie Sehn, MD, MPH, from the BC Cancer Centre for Lymphoid Cancer, Vancouver, who moderated the briefing, commented that “we’re desperately looking for surrogate markers to speed up answers to clinical trials, and I think MRD in myeloma is quickly becoming a very important surrogate marker.”
 

GMMG-7 results

For their trial, Dr. Goldschmidt and colleagues enrolled 662 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were candidates for high-dose therapy and ASCT and after stratification by revised International Staging System (r-ISS) criteria, randomly assigned them six three-week cycles of induction therapy with Isa-RVd or RVd alone.

Following ASCT, patients were again randomized to maintenance with either isatuximab plus lenalidomide or lenalidomide alone.

As noted before, MRD rates at the end of induction were 50.1% with Isa-RVd versus 35.6% with RVd alone, translating to a hazard ratio favoring the four-drug combination of 1.83 (P < .001).

Treatment with Isa-RVd was the only significant predictor for the likelihood of MRD negativity in a multivariate analysis controlling for treatment group, r-ISS status, performance status, renal impairment, age, and sex.

Although the rate of complete responses at the end of induction was similar between the treatment groups, the rate of very good partial response or better was higher with the isatuximab-containing combination (77.3% vs. 60.5%; P < .001).

The respective rates of disease progression at the end of induction in the Isa-RVd and RVd groups were 1.5% versus 4.0%.

The rates of adverse events were generally similar between the groups, except a higher proportion of patients had leukocytopenia or neutropenia in the Isa-RVd than the RVdgroup (26.4% vs. 9.1%). There were four deaths in the Isa-RVd group and eight in the RVd group. Most of the deaths were attributable to disease progression or COVID-19, said Dr. Goldschmidt.

The study was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Goldschmidt has disclosed honoraria and research grants from Sanofi and others. Dr. Vij has disclosed honoraria or advisory board activities from various companies, including Sanofi. Dr. Sehn is a consultant for and has received honoraria from various companies, not including Sanofi.

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

ATLANTA - A new drug recently introduced for use in the treatment of refractory/relapsed multiple myeloma looks like it will also find a role in the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed transplant-eligible multiple myeloma.

The drug is isatuximab (Sarclisa, Sanofi), an anti-CD38 antibody that was approved last year for use in patients with advanced disease.

Now it has shown benefit in patients who have been newly diagnosed with the disease. When isatuximab was added onto a usual triplet therapy for myeloma, it increased the likelihood that patients would be negative for minimal residual disease (MRD) at the end of the induction phase of treatment, thereby increasing their chances for a successful autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT).

The new results come from the GMMG-HD7 trial, in which all patients were treated with the triplet combination of lenalidomide (Revlimid), bortezomib (Velcade), and dexamethasone (RVd).

Some patients, after randomization, also received isatuximab, and in this group, the MRD-negativity rate was 50.1% at the end of induction therapy compared with 35.6% for patients treated with RVd alone.  

Patients who are MRD-negative at the time of ASCT have significantly better outcomes than patients who remain MRD-positive.

“Isa-RVd is the first regimen to demonstrate significant MRD-negativity benefit at the end of induction versus RVd in a phase 3 trial,” reported Hartmut Goldschmidt, MD, from University Hospital Heidelberg, Germany.

“The benefits of the addition of Isa to RVd versus RVd regarding MRD negativity after induction therapy was consistent in all subgroups,” he added.

Dr. Goldschmidt spoke at a press briefing prior to his presentation of the data here at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (ASH).

“I think that these data are encouraging, but they are preliminary, and we need mature data to be absolutely certain about whether this presents a major advance in treatment,” commented Ravi Vij, MD, from the Siteman Cancer Center and Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. Dr. Vij was not involved in the study.

“We know that for transplant-eligible patients, for whom this trial was conducted, the field is moving toward giving four drugs for induction,” he said in an interview with this news organization.

He noted that the combination of RVd with the other currently available anti-CD38 antibody, daratumumab (Darzalex), was approved for this indication in the United States in Jan. 2021.

Dr. Vij said that isatuximab has been slow to catch on in the United States both because it was approved after clinicians had already become familiar with daratumumab and because it is given intravenously, compared with subcutaneous administration of the latest formulation of daratumumab.

“Whereas isatuximab can take an hour-and-a-half with each infusion, daratumumab takes 5 minutes for an injection and the patient is out of there, so it is convenient both for the patient and the treating institution,” he said.
 

MRD vs. CR?

Dr. Goldschmidt was asked during the briefing about whether MRD-negativity or complete response rates are better predictors of progression-free survival (PFS). He replied that with current standardized sequencing techniques and sensitivity down to 10-6, “it’s a big benefit to analyze MRD negativity, and there is ongoing discussion between colleagues from the myeloma group with the Food and Drug Administration about how we can merge the data and predict PFS and overall survival.”

Laurie Sehn, MD, MPH, from the BC Cancer Centre for Lymphoid Cancer, Vancouver, who moderated the briefing, commented that “we’re desperately looking for surrogate markers to speed up answers to clinical trials, and I think MRD in myeloma is quickly becoming a very important surrogate marker.”
 

GMMG-7 results

For their trial, Dr. Goldschmidt and colleagues enrolled 662 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who were candidates for high-dose therapy and ASCT and after stratification by revised International Staging System (r-ISS) criteria, randomly assigned them six three-week cycles of induction therapy with Isa-RVd or RVd alone.

Following ASCT, patients were again randomized to maintenance with either isatuximab plus lenalidomide or lenalidomide alone.

As noted before, MRD rates at the end of induction were 50.1% with Isa-RVd versus 35.6% with RVd alone, translating to a hazard ratio favoring the four-drug combination of 1.83 (P < .001).

Treatment with Isa-RVd was the only significant predictor for the likelihood of MRD negativity in a multivariate analysis controlling for treatment group, r-ISS status, performance status, renal impairment, age, and sex.

Although the rate of complete responses at the end of induction was similar between the treatment groups, the rate of very good partial response or better was higher with the isatuximab-containing combination (77.3% vs. 60.5%; P < .001).

The respective rates of disease progression at the end of induction in the Isa-RVd and RVd groups were 1.5% versus 4.0%.

The rates of adverse events were generally similar between the groups, except a higher proportion of patients had leukocytopenia or neutropenia in the Isa-RVd than the RVdgroup (26.4% vs. 9.1%). There were four deaths in the Isa-RVd group and eight in the RVd group. Most of the deaths were attributable to disease progression or COVID-19, said Dr. Goldschmidt.

The study was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Goldschmidt has disclosed honoraria and research grants from Sanofi and others. Dr. Vij has disclosed honoraria or advisory board activities from various companies, including Sanofi. Dr. Sehn is a consultant for and has received honoraria from various companies, not including Sanofi.

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

Most of the United States will see significant growth in COVID-19 cases during the next four weeks, according to the latest forecasting models by the PolicyLab at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

Large metropolitan areas, especially those in the Northeast, are already seeing a major increase in cases following Thanksgiving, and that trend is expected to continue.

“Why? Simply stated, the large amount of Thanksgiving travel and gatherings undermined the nation’s pandemic footing and has elevated disease burden in areas of the country that were fortunate to have lower case rates before the holidays,” the forecasters wrote.

Case numbers in New York City are expected to double throughout December, the forecasters said. Similar growth could happen across Boston, Philadelphia, and Baltimore.

Overall, COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are rising across the United States but remain below levels seen during the summer and last winter’s surges, according to the New York Times. The increase is still being driven by the Delta variant, though it remains unclear how the Omicron variant, which has been detected in 27 states, could affect the trends in the coming weeks.

During the past week, the United States has reported an average of more than 120,000 new cases each day, the newspaper reported, which is an increase of 38% from two weeks ago.

The daily average of COVID-19 hospitalizations is around 64,000, which marks an increase of 22% from two weeks ago. More than 1,300 deaths are being reported each day, which is up 26%.

Numerous states are reporting double the cases from two weeks ago, stretching across the country from states in the Northeast such as Connecticut and Rhode Island to southern states such as North Carolina and Texas and western states such as California.

The Great Lakes region and the Northeast are seeing some of the most severe increases, the newspaper reported. New Hampshire leads the United States in recent cases per capita, and Maine has reported more cases in the past week than in any other seven-day period during the pandemic.

Michigan has the country’s highest hospitalization rate, and federal medical teams have been sent to the state to help with the surge in patients, according to The Detroit News. Michigan’s top public health officials described the surge as a “critical” and “deeply concerning” situation on Dec. 10, and they requested 200 more ventilators from the Strategic National Stockpile.

Indiana, Maine, and New York have also requested aid from the National Guard, according to USA Today. Health officials in those states urged residents to get vaccines or booster shots and wear masks in indoor public settings.

The Omicron variant can evade some vaccine protection, but booster shots can increase efficacy and offer more coverage, Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said Dec. 12.

“If you want to be optimally protected, absolutely get a booster,” he said on ABC’s “This Week.”

In addition, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul has announced a statewide mask mandate, which will take effect Dec. 13. Masks will be required in all indoor public spaces and businesses, unless the location implements a vaccine requirement instead, the news outlet reported.

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