Latest News

SAN ANTONIO — A large trial has begun to make the case for active surveillance as an alternative to immediate surgery for low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

At 2 years, investigators on the COMET trial found no clinically meaningful difference in the rates of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer among women randomized to active surveillance vs standard upfront surgery with or without radiation.

The 2-year findings suggest that surveillance is safe in the short term.

“While these results are provocative, I don’t think they’re quite practice-changing yet,” said lead investigator Shelley Hwang, MD, a surgical breast oncologist at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, who presented the findings at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2024.

For one thing, it generally takes longer than 2 years for DCIS to convert to invasive cancer, so it will be important to wait for the planned analyses at 5, 7, and 10 years to make sure there isn’t an excess number of invasive breast cancers in the surveillance arm, Hwang said.

If the results prove durable, however, the findings will likely be “practice-changing” for women who were at least 40 years old and had grade 1 or 2 hormone receptor–positive DCIS at low risk for conversion, Hwang said.

The goal of active surveillance is to prevent unnecessary treatment. During surveillance, lesions are monitored for changes that indicate conversion to more advanced disease, at which point guideline-concordant care begins.

Although DCIS can convert to invasive breast cancer, this doesn’t always happen. As a result, upfront surgery and radiation aren’t necessary for some women.

The COMET trial aimed to determine the short-term safety of an active monitoring approach compared with guideline-concordant care in patients with low-risk DCIS.

The prospective, randomized noninferiority trial included women aged 40 years or older with a new diagnosis of HR–positive grade 1 or grade 2 DCIS without invasive cancer from 100 US Alliance Cancer Cooperative Group clinical trial sites.

In the trial, 484 women with DCIS were randomized to active surveillance — breast mammography and physical exam every 6 months — and 473 were randomized to standard upfront surgery with or without radiation. Overall, 15.7% of participants were Black and 75.0% were White.

Patients in either group could elect to have endocrine therapy, typically over a 5-year period (71% of women in the active monitoring group and 65.5% in the surgery group opted for endocrine therapy).

At 2 years, the cumulative rate of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer was 4.2% in the surveillance group vs 5.9% in the upfront surgery arm.

The study also included a planned per-protocol analysis among 673 patients who strictly followed the study protocol — 246 in the guideline-concordant care group who had received surgery by 6 months and 427 in the surveillance group who initiated the active monitoring protocol at 6 months.

With almost half of patients randomized to surgery declined to have it, which indicates that patients are interested in active monitoring, Hwang said.

At 2 years, the cumulative rate of invasive breast cancer was 3.1% in the active surveillance group vs 8.7% in the upfront surgery arm.

Among patients receiving endocrine therapy, the rate of invasive cancer was 7.15% in the surgery group and 3.21% in the surveillance arm.

Endocrine therapy “may have resulted in a reduced rate of invasive cancer in the active monitoring group,” the study authors noted.

These findings bring up the question of whether endocrine therapy might be just as good as surgery for low-risk DCIS, Hwang added. Given that one third of women undergo mastectomy for DCIS, “I think it’s not an inconsequential question,” Hwang said.

The findings, however, also suggest that surveillance sometimes leaves invasive cancer behind, Hwang explained. Nearly all invasive cancers in the surgery group were found during the initial operation , which may explain the slightly higher rates of invasive cancers in this group. Had the active monitoring group undergone surgery as well, the incidence of invasive cancer may have been the same in both arms, Hwang said.

However, when invasive cancers were removed, there were no significant differences in tumor size, node status, or tumor grade between the two groups, suggesting that there might not be a clinical penalty for delayed intervention with active monitoring, Hwang said.

With more than 10% of patients in the surgery group opting for mastectomy, compared with 1.8% in the active monitoring group, the active monitoring approach may not increase the likelihood of an eventual need for more extensive surgery, the COMET authors explained.

 

What Strategy Do Patients Prefer?

A companion analysis of patient-reported outcomes in COMET found no meaningful differences in quality of life, symptoms, or anxiety among patients who opted for surveillance over surgery. Results from questionnaires on quality of life, anxiety, depression, and breast cancer concerns were comparable between the two groups, with no evidence of a substantial impact of one approach over the other at 2 years.

“The results of this secondary analysis suggest that the lived experiences of individuals with low-risk DCIS are similar during early follow-up regardless of treatment allocation,” the COMET investigators concluded.

Overall, the findings from COMET provide reassuring short-term data, said Neil Iyengar, MD, a medical breast oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City.

DCIS is not an aggressive cancer, and it’s not going to invade any time soon, so patients have time to consider their options, Iyengar told Medscape Medical News.

The 2-year findings from COMET also help inform patient discussions. “I can tell patients if they decide not to have surgery what the likelihood is that they are going to convert into invasive cancer” after 2 years, he said.

COMET was published in JAMA, and the PRO analysis was published in JAMA Oncology to coincide with the study presentations.

COMET is funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and others. Hwang is a consultant for Merck and on the advisory board of Clinetic, Exai Bio, and Havah Therapeutics. Iyengar is an advisor and/or researcher for AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, and other companies.

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

SAN ANTONIO — A large trial has begun to make the case for active surveillance as an alternative to immediate surgery for low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

At 2 years, investigators on the COMET trial found no clinically meaningful difference in the rates of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer among women randomized to active surveillance vs standard upfront surgery with or without radiation.

The 2-year findings suggest that surveillance is safe in the short term.

“While these results are provocative, I don’t think they’re quite practice-changing yet,” said lead investigator Shelley Hwang, MD, a surgical breast oncologist at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, who presented the findings at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2024.

For one thing, it generally takes longer than 2 years for DCIS to convert to invasive cancer, so it will be important to wait for the planned analyses at 5, 7, and 10 years to make sure there isn’t an excess number of invasive breast cancers in the surveillance arm, Hwang said.

If the results prove durable, however, the findings will likely be “practice-changing” for women who were at least 40 years old and had grade 1 or 2 hormone receptor–positive DCIS at low risk for conversion, Hwang said.

The goal of active surveillance is to prevent unnecessary treatment. During surveillance, lesions are monitored for changes that indicate conversion to more advanced disease, at which point guideline-concordant care begins.

Although DCIS can convert to invasive breast cancer, this doesn’t always happen. As a result, upfront surgery and radiation aren’t necessary for some women.

The COMET trial aimed to determine the short-term safety of an active monitoring approach compared with guideline-concordant care in patients with low-risk DCIS.

The prospective, randomized noninferiority trial included women aged 40 years or older with a new diagnosis of HR–positive grade 1 or grade 2 DCIS without invasive cancer from 100 US Alliance Cancer Cooperative Group clinical trial sites.

In the trial, 484 women with DCIS were randomized to active surveillance — breast mammography and physical exam every 6 months — and 473 were randomized to standard upfront surgery with or without radiation. Overall, 15.7% of participants were Black and 75.0% were White.

Patients in either group could elect to have endocrine therapy, typically over a 5-year period (71% of women in the active monitoring group and 65.5% in the surgery group opted for endocrine therapy).

At 2 years, the cumulative rate of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer was 4.2% in the surveillance group vs 5.9% in the upfront surgery arm.

The study also included a planned per-protocol analysis among 673 patients who strictly followed the study protocol — 246 in the guideline-concordant care group who had received surgery by 6 months and 427 in the surveillance group who initiated the active monitoring protocol at 6 months.

With almost half of patients randomized to surgery declined to have it, which indicates that patients are interested in active monitoring, Hwang said.

At 2 years, the cumulative rate of invasive breast cancer was 3.1% in the active surveillance group vs 8.7% in the upfront surgery arm.

Among patients receiving endocrine therapy, the rate of invasive cancer was 7.15% in the surgery group and 3.21% in the surveillance arm.

Endocrine therapy “may have resulted in a reduced rate of invasive cancer in the active monitoring group,” the study authors noted.

These findings bring up the question of whether endocrine therapy might be just as good as surgery for low-risk DCIS, Hwang added. Given that one third of women undergo mastectomy for DCIS, “I think it’s not an inconsequential question,” Hwang said.

The findings, however, also suggest that surveillance sometimes leaves invasive cancer behind, Hwang explained. Nearly all invasive cancers in the surgery group were found during the initial operation , which may explain the slightly higher rates of invasive cancers in this group. Had the active monitoring group undergone surgery as well, the incidence of invasive cancer may have been the same in both arms, Hwang said.

However, when invasive cancers were removed, there were no significant differences in tumor size, node status, or tumor grade between the two groups, suggesting that there might not be a clinical penalty for delayed intervention with active monitoring, Hwang said.

With more than 10% of patients in the surgery group opting for mastectomy, compared with 1.8% in the active monitoring group, the active monitoring approach may not increase the likelihood of an eventual need for more extensive surgery, the COMET authors explained.

 

What Strategy Do Patients Prefer?

A companion analysis of patient-reported outcomes in COMET found no meaningful differences in quality of life, symptoms, or anxiety among patients who opted for surveillance over surgery. Results from questionnaires on quality of life, anxiety, depression, and breast cancer concerns were comparable between the two groups, with no evidence of a substantial impact of one approach over the other at 2 years.

“The results of this secondary analysis suggest that the lived experiences of individuals with low-risk DCIS are similar during early follow-up regardless of treatment allocation,” the COMET investigators concluded.

Overall, the findings from COMET provide reassuring short-term data, said Neil Iyengar, MD, a medical breast oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City.

DCIS is not an aggressive cancer, and it’s not going to invade any time soon, so patients have time to consider their options, Iyengar told Medscape Medical News.

The 2-year findings from COMET also help inform patient discussions. “I can tell patients if they decide not to have surgery what the likelihood is that they are going to convert into invasive cancer” after 2 years, he said.

COMET was published in JAMA, and the PRO analysis was published in JAMA Oncology to coincide with the study presentations.

COMET is funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and others. Hwang is a consultant for Merck and on the advisory board of Clinetic, Exai Bio, and Havah Therapeutics. Iyengar is an advisor and/or researcher for AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, and other companies.

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

SAN ANTONIO — A large trial has begun to make the case for active surveillance as an alternative to immediate surgery for low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

At 2 years, investigators on the COMET trial found no clinically meaningful difference in the rates of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer among women randomized to active surveillance vs standard upfront surgery with or without radiation.

The 2-year findings suggest that surveillance is safe in the short term.

“While these results are provocative, I don’t think they’re quite practice-changing yet,” said lead investigator Shelley Hwang, MD, a surgical breast oncologist at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, who presented the findings at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) 2024.

For one thing, it generally takes longer than 2 years for DCIS to convert to invasive cancer, so it will be important to wait for the planned analyses at 5, 7, and 10 years to make sure there isn’t an excess number of invasive breast cancers in the surveillance arm, Hwang said.

If the results prove durable, however, the findings will likely be “practice-changing” for women who were at least 40 years old and had grade 1 or 2 hormone receptor–positive DCIS at low risk for conversion, Hwang said.

The goal of active surveillance is to prevent unnecessary treatment. During surveillance, lesions are monitored for changes that indicate conversion to more advanced disease, at which point guideline-concordant care begins.

Although DCIS can convert to invasive breast cancer, this doesn’t always happen. As a result, upfront surgery and radiation aren’t necessary for some women.

The COMET trial aimed to determine the short-term safety of an active monitoring approach compared with guideline-concordant care in patients with low-risk DCIS.

The prospective, randomized noninferiority trial included women aged 40 years or older with a new diagnosis of HR–positive grade 1 or grade 2 DCIS without invasive cancer from 100 US Alliance Cancer Cooperative Group clinical trial sites.

In the trial, 484 women with DCIS were randomized to active surveillance — breast mammography and physical exam every 6 months — and 473 were randomized to standard upfront surgery with or without radiation. Overall, 15.7% of participants were Black and 75.0% were White.

Patients in either group could elect to have endocrine therapy, typically over a 5-year period (71% of women in the active monitoring group and 65.5% in the surgery group opted for endocrine therapy).

At 2 years, the cumulative rate of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer was 4.2% in the surveillance group vs 5.9% in the upfront surgery arm.

The study also included a planned per-protocol analysis among 673 patients who strictly followed the study protocol — 246 in the guideline-concordant care group who had received surgery by 6 months and 427 in the surveillance group who initiated the active monitoring protocol at 6 months.

With almost half of patients randomized to surgery declined to have it, which indicates that patients are interested in active monitoring, Hwang said.

At 2 years, the cumulative rate of invasive breast cancer was 3.1% in the active surveillance group vs 8.7% in the upfront surgery arm.

Among patients receiving endocrine therapy, the rate of invasive cancer was 7.15% in the surgery group and 3.21% in the surveillance arm.

Endocrine therapy “may have resulted in a reduced rate of invasive cancer in the active monitoring group,” the study authors noted.

These findings bring up the question of whether endocrine therapy might be just as good as surgery for low-risk DCIS, Hwang added. Given that one third of women undergo mastectomy for DCIS, “I think it’s not an inconsequential question,” Hwang said.

The findings, however, also suggest that surveillance sometimes leaves invasive cancer behind, Hwang explained. Nearly all invasive cancers in the surgery group were found during the initial operation , which may explain the slightly higher rates of invasive cancers in this group. Had the active monitoring group undergone surgery as well, the incidence of invasive cancer may have been the same in both arms, Hwang said.

However, when invasive cancers were removed, there were no significant differences in tumor size, node status, or tumor grade between the two groups, suggesting that there might not be a clinical penalty for delayed intervention with active monitoring, Hwang said.

With more than 10% of patients in the surgery group opting for mastectomy, compared with 1.8% in the active monitoring group, the active monitoring approach may not increase the likelihood of an eventual need for more extensive surgery, the COMET authors explained.

 

What Strategy Do Patients Prefer?

A companion analysis of patient-reported outcomes in COMET found no meaningful differences in quality of life, symptoms, or anxiety among patients who opted for surveillance over surgery. Results from questionnaires on quality of life, anxiety, depression, and breast cancer concerns were comparable between the two groups, with no evidence of a substantial impact of one approach over the other at 2 years.

“The results of this secondary analysis suggest that the lived experiences of individuals with low-risk DCIS are similar during early follow-up regardless of treatment allocation,” the COMET investigators concluded.

Overall, the findings from COMET provide reassuring short-term data, said Neil Iyengar, MD, a medical breast oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City.

DCIS is not an aggressive cancer, and it’s not going to invade any time soon, so patients have time to consider their options, Iyengar told Medscape Medical News.

The 2-year findings from COMET also help inform patient discussions. “I can tell patients if they decide not to have surgery what the likelihood is that they are going to convert into invasive cancer” after 2 years, he said.

COMET was published in JAMA, and the PRO analysis was published in JAMA Oncology to coincide with the study presentations.

COMET is funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and others. Hwang is a consultant for Merck and on the advisory board of Clinetic, Exai Bio, and Havah Therapeutics. Iyengar is an advisor and/or researcher for AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, and other companies.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the immune checkpoint inhibitor cosibelimab (Unloxcyt; Checkpoint Therapeutics) for the treatment of adults with metastatic or locally advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) who are not candidates for curative surgery or curative radiation. 

The programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1)–blocking antibody is the first and only treatment of its kind approved for advanced CSCC, according to a Checkpoint Therapeutics press release. The FDA approval was based on findings from the multicenter, open-label Study CK-301-101 trial of 109 patients. 

In that trial, the objective response rate (ORR) was 47% in 78 patients with metastatic CSCC and 48% in 31 patients with locally advanced CSCC. Median duration of response (DOR) in treated patients was not reached in those with metastatic disease and was 17.7 months in those with locally advanced disease, according to the FDA approval notice.

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 10% of patients included fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, rash, diarrhea, hypothyroidism, constipation, nausea, headache, pruritus, edema, localized infection, and urinary tract infection.

The recommended treatment dose, according to the prescribing information, is 1200 mg given as an intravenous infusion over 60 minutes every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The agent offers “a differentiated treatment option versus available therapies by binding to PD-L1, rather than programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1), to release the inhibitory effects of PD-L1 on the anti-tumor immune response,” Checkpoint Therapeutics president and chief executive officer James Oliviero stated in the company press release. 

The agent has also “demonstrated the ability to induce antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity, another potential differentiating feature of the drug compared to existing marketing therapies for CSCC,” Oliviero noted.

“CSCC is the second most common form of skin cancer, and those diagnosed with advanced disease that has recurred or metastasized face a poor prognosis,” stated Emily Ruiz, MD, academic director of the Mohs and Dermatologic Surgery Center at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and director of the High-Risk Skin Cancer Clinic at Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center. 

“With its dual mechanisms of action and compelling safety profile, this promising drug will provide US oncologists with an important new immunotherapy option for the treatment of CSCC,” she added. 

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the immune checkpoint inhibitor cosibelimab (Unloxcyt; Checkpoint Therapeutics) for the treatment of adults with metastatic or locally advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) who are not candidates for curative surgery or curative radiation. 

The programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1)–blocking antibody is the first and only treatment of its kind approved for advanced CSCC, according to a Checkpoint Therapeutics press release. The FDA approval was based on findings from the multicenter, open-label Study CK-301-101 trial of 109 patients. 

In that trial, the objective response rate (ORR) was 47% in 78 patients with metastatic CSCC and 48% in 31 patients with locally advanced CSCC. Median duration of response (DOR) in treated patients was not reached in those with metastatic disease and was 17.7 months in those with locally advanced disease, according to the FDA approval notice.

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 10% of patients included fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, rash, diarrhea, hypothyroidism, constipation, nausea, headache, pruritus, edema, localized infection, and urinary tract infection.

The recommended treatment dose, according to the prescribing information, is 1200 mg given as an intravenous infusion over 60 minutes every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The agent offers “a differentiated treatment option versus available therapies by binding to PD-L1, rather than programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1), to release the inhibitory effects of PD-L1 on the anti-tumor immune response,” Checkpoint Therapeutics president and chief executive officer James Oliviero stated in the company press release. 

The agent has also “demonstrated the ability to induce antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity, another potential differentiating feature of the drug compared to existing marketing therapies for CSCC,” Oliviero noted.

“CSCC is the second most common form of skin cancer, and those diagnosed with advanced disease that has recurred or metastasized face a poor prognosis,” stated Emily Ruiz, MD, academic director of the Mohs and Dermatologic Surgery Center at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and director of the High-Risk Skin Cancer Clinic at Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center. 

“With its dual mechanisms of action and compelling safety profile, this promising drug will provide US oncologists with an important new immunotherapy option for the treatment of CSCC,” she added. 

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the immune checkpoint inhibitor cosibelimab (Unloxcyt; Checkpoint Therapeutics) for the treatment of adults with metastatic or locally advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) who are not candidates for curative surgery or curative radiation. 

The programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1)–blocking antibody is the first and only treatment of its kind approved for advanced CSCC, according to a Checkpoint Therapeutics press release. The FDA approval was based on findings from the multicenter, open-label Study CK-301-101 trial of 109 patients. 

In that trial, the objective response rate (ORR) was 47% in 78 patients with metastatic CSCC and 48% in 31 patients with locally advanced CSCC. Median duration of response (DOR) in treated patients was not reached in those with metastatic disease and was 17.7 months in those with locally advanced disease, according to the FDA approval notice.

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 10% of patients included fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, rash, diarrhea, hypothyroidism, constipation, nausea, headache, pruritus, edema, localized infection, and urinary tract infection.

The recommended treatment dose, according to the prescribing information, is 1200 mg given as an intravenous infusion over 60 minutes every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The agent offers “a differentiated treatment option versus available therapies by binding to PD-L1, rather than programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1), to release the inhibitory effects of PD-L1 on the anti-tumor immune response,” Checkpoint Therapeutics president and chief executive officer James Oliviero stated in the company press release. 

The agent has also “demonstrated the ability to induce antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity, another potential differentiating feature of the drug compared to existing marketing therapies for CSCC,” Oliviero noted.

“CSCC is the second most common form of skin cancer, and those diagnosed with advanced disease that has recurred or metastasized face a poor prognosis,” stated Emily Ruiz, MD, academic director of the Mohs and Dermatologic Surgery Center at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and director of the High-Risk Skin Cancer Clinic at Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center. 

“With its dual mechanisms of action and compelling safety profile, this promising drug will provide US oncologists with an important new immunotherapy option for the treatment of CSCC,” she added. 

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Long COVID can have an enormous impact on people’s ability to work, particularly if they do not have workplace accommodations and support. Although some patients experience symptoms so severe that they cannot work under any conditions, medical providers and employers can help ensure many patients with long COVID can stay in the workforce.

Long COVID is an infection-associated chronic condition that occurs after SARS-CoV-2 infection and is present for at least 3 months as a continuous, relapsing and remitting, or progressive disease state that affects one or more organ systems. By the end of 2023, at least 400 million people worldwide were estimated to have long COVID.

As members of the Patient-Led Research Collaborative, an international group of more than 60 researchers and health advocates living with long COVID and other infection-associated chronic conditions, we have published one of the first research studies of people with long COVID and their desire to work, the specific needs they have, and what doctors and employers can do to create a path for returning to the workforce. 

In our recent paper, we document the barriers and facilitators that individuals living with long COVID experience when attempting to return to work. Our recommendations are based on these findings and include recommendations for both medical providers and employers. 

If you are a medical provider:

• Ensure you adequately document your patients’ COVID cases, any long COVID diagnoses, and the functional impairment that long COVID causes. Remember that you can diagnose a patient with long COVID on the basis of their symptoms, and clinical guidelines do not require a record of a positive COVID-19 test, which many patients lack owing to testing barriers.
• Keep up to date on research on long COVID and related infection-associated chronic conditions — for example, through the Project ECHO Long COVID and Fatiguing Illness Recovery Program — and learn about pacing and other treatment options.

If you are an employer: 

• Utilize a return-to-work model in which any worker with suspected or confirmed COVID discusses support they may need with their employer when they return to work, with additional check-in dates scheduled to reevaluate supports as needed. Planning for this collaborative and iterative evaluation of return-to-work supports for all workers with COVID-19 is important because it may not be immediately clear to a worker whether they have developed long COVID or are generally recuperating from the illness.
• Do not require medical documentation of a SARS-CoV-2 infection or a Long COVID diagnosis to access accommodations — this is owing to disparities in accessing documentation.
• Tailor job responsibilities, provide remote options, allow flexible hours, and provide longer-range deadlines to account for symptoms for people with long COVID and other infection-associated chronic conditions.
• Provide accommodations to any caregivers of people with long COVID in your workplace.
• If requiring in-person work, make the workplace as safe as possible through ventilation and masking requirements, which will help ensure fewer of your workers develop long COVID, and those already with infection-associated chronic conditions will not get worse.

Our findings and recommendations are specific to long COVID, but they can and should apply to other disabilities. Given that our study’s sample was predominately White and working in jobs that did not require substantial physical labor, additional recommendations may be needed for other populations and workers who have labor-intensive jobs.

 

510 Study Participants

Long COVID is characterized as a relapsing-remitting illness, often described as episodic, in which an individual’s symptoms may fluctuate. Symptoms can become more or less severe depending on tasks, exertion, and social support in addition to physiologic processes and medical intervention. In our paper, we illustrate how the long COVID return-to-work experience and individuals’ symptoms can be shaped by workplace, home, and medical environments. 

We randomly selected 510 participants from a global survey of people living with long COVID and systematically analyzed their open-ended responses using established qualitative analysis methods. In this study, we specifically analyzed what patients wrote about their return-to-work experiences, considering how work experiences and relapsing and remitting long COVID symptoms intersected with personal lives and medical care. 

Most of the study participants identified as White, were 30-60 years old (ie, in their key earning years), and had at least a baccalaureate degree. Participants lived in the United States (38%), United Kingdom (25%), continental Europe (8%), Canada (4%), or other countries (25%). Most participants worked in professions that did not require substantial physical labor, and individuals in those fields may experience even greater return-to-work barriers than are reported in this study.

 

Key Findings

Through our qualitative analysis, we identified four primary return-to-work themes: 

1. People living with long COVID have a strong desire and financial need to return to work. 

The participants in our study described how they had experienced financial hardship because they could not successfully return to work and may have incurred new expenses with long COVID. They also often wrote how they wanted to return to work because their jobs provided meaning and structure for their lives. Some people in this study shared how they had tried to return to their jobs but relapsed. As a result, they considered leaving the workforce.

2. Workers’ long COVID symptoms intersect with organization of work and home life.

Most of the people in our study were employed in positions that did not require substantial physical labor. Even so, workers described how their long COVID symptoms were exacerbated by some job tasks. Computer screen time; reading dense material or writing (including emails); and conversations and meetings, regardless of whether they were in-person or via phone or video conferencing, could trigger or make symptoms worse. Workers who needed to stand for long periods of time, such as teachers and healthcare workers, and workers who needed to do lifting as part of their jobs described how these requirements were too taxing and could lead to relapses.

Because of the relapsing and remitting nature of many long COVID symptoms, people reported how it could be difficult to predict how job tasks, long hours, or pressing deadlines may exacerbate symptoms, which would require them to take time off work. For these participants, “pushing through” symptoms only made the symptoms worse. However, people in the study who were allowed to work from home reported how pacing, elevating their legs, and conserving energy (especially by not commuting) was key to doing their jobs well.

Some people in the study described how they were only able to return to work because they had substantial support from family or partners at home. These individuals shared how the people they lived with did most of the cooking, cleaning, and other household tasks so that the person living with long COVID could conserve their energy for work. This reorganization of home life notably shifted household tasks and caregiving to other people in the household, but without this shift, the individual’s long COVID symptoms may be too severe to work.

3. People with long COVID experience disbelief and stigma at work and healthcare settings.

Some people in our study described how their colleagues, supervisors, and human resource managers insinuated that they were fabricating or exaggerating their symptoms. This made it hard for workers to communicate what support they needed and could limit access to necessary work accommodations.

Many people in our study also described how medical providers did not believe that they had long COVID despite experiencing debilitating symptoms, often because they did not have a positive COVID-19 test to prove they had had an acute infection. Many people with long COVID may not have a positive COVID-19 test because:

• They could not access a test because testing access was limited at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, there are transportation and cost barriers to tests, many health insurance providers no longer cover tests; and there are fewer public testing sites since the World Health Organization declared an end to the public health emergency;
• There is a high probability of false-negative results for viral and antibody tests (especially during the first wave of the pandemic and for individuals with limited immune response); and
• People can develop long COVID after asymptomatic acute infection.

Although healthcare providers can provide a long COVID diagnosis without a positive COVID-19 test on the basis of a patient’s presentation of symptoms and clinical history, many people in our study said that their providers would not provide this diagnosis, which restricted access to worker’s compensation, paid time off, and job accommodations.

Many people in the study also reported that their medical providers misdiagnosed them with a mental health disorder, such as anxiety, instead of long COVID. Although some people with long COVID may experience poor mental health as a natural consequence of dealing with a debilitating medical condition or may have neuropsychiatric symptoms as part of their long COVID, long COVID is not caused by an underlying psychiatric illness.

4. Support of medical providers is key to successful return to work for people living with long COVID.

Some people in our study described how they were able to get workplace accommodations or access workers’ compensation or sick leave because their medical providers recognized they had long COVID and provided them with this documentation. Some of these participants did not have a positive COVID-19 test, but their medical providers were able to diagnose them with long COVID on the basis of symptom presentation and clinical history. This documentation was critical for helping workers remain financially stable and able to return to work.

 

Conclusion

While we continue to search for treatment and cures for long COVID and work to provide a robust social safety net, it is crucial to address the stigma, inaccessibility, and lack of support often experienced by patients in their workplaces. Disabled people have long faced these issues; long COVID may be an opportunity to revolutionize the workplace to ensure an inclusive and accessible environment that can improve the lives of all workers.

For more on how to best be inclusive of employees with long COVID, read Harvard Business Review’s “Long Covid at Work: A Manager’s Guide” and visit the Job Accommodation Network webpage dedicated to long COVID.

Additional discussion about our study and applying the findings to improve work and medical care can be found by listening to the Healthy Work podcast episode titled “Supporting Long COVID at Work.” 

 

Elisabeth Stelson, Gina Assaf, and Lisa McCorkell are members of the Patient-Led Research Collaborative, an international group of more than 60 researchers. Dr Stelson, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Gina Assaf is Research Lead, Patient-Led Research Collaborative, Washington, DC. Lisa McCorkell is a long COVID patient; Cofounder, Team Lead, Researcher, Patient-Led Research Collaborative, Washington, DC.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Long COVID can have an enormous impact on people’s ability to work, particularly if they do not have workplace accommodations and support. Although some patients experience symptoms so severe that they cannot work under any conditions, medical providers and employers can help ensure many patients with long COVID can stay in the workforce.

Long COVID is an infection-associated chronic condition that occurs after SARS-CoV-2 infection and is present for at least 3 months as a continuous, relapsing and remitting, or progressive disease state that affects one or more organ systems. By the end of 2023, at least 400 million people worldwide were estimated to have long COVID.

As members of the Patient-Led Research Collaborative, an international group of more than 60 researchers and health advocates living with long COVID and other infection-associated chronic conditions, we have published one of the first research studies of people with long COVID and their desire to work, the specific needs they have, and what doctors and employers can do to create a path for returning to the workforce. 

In our recent paper, we document the barriers and facilitators that individuals living with long COVID experience when attempting to return to work. Our recommendations are based on these findings and include recommendations for both medical providers and employers. 

If you are a medical provider:

• Ensure you adequately document your patients’ COVID cases, any long COVID diagnoses, and the functional impairment that long COVID causes. Remember that you can diagnose a patient with long COVID on the basis of their symptoms, and clinical guidelines do not require a record of a positive COVID-19 test, which many patients lack owing to testing barriers.
• Keep up to date on research on long COVID and related infection-associated chronic conditions — for example, through the Project ECHO Long COVID and Fatiguing Illness Recovery Program — and learn about pacing and other treatment options.

If you are an employer: 

• Utilize a return-to-work model in which any worker with suspected or confirmed COVID discusses support they may need with their employer when they return to work, with additional check-in dates scheduled to reevaluate supports as needed. Planning for this collaborative and iterative evaluation of return-to-work supports for all workers with COVID-19 is important because it may not be immediately clear to a worker whether they have developed long COVID or are generally recuperating from the illness.
• Do not require medical documentation of a SARS-CoV-2 infection or a Long COVID diagnosis to access accommodations — this is owing to disparities in accessing documentation.
• Tailor job responsibilities, provide remote options, allow flexible hours, and provide longer-range deadlines to account for symptoms for people with long COVID and other infection-associated chronic conditions.
• Provide accommodations to any caregivers of people with long COVID in your workplace.
• If requiring in-person work, make the workplace as safe as possible through ventilation and masking requirements, which will help ensure fewer of your workers develop long COVID, and those already with infection-associated chronic conditions will not get worse.

Our findings and recommendations are specific to long COVID, but they can and should apply to other disabilities. Given that our study’s sample was predominately White and working in jobs that did not require substantial physical labor, additional recommendations may be needed for other populations and workers who have labor-intensive jobs.

 

510 Study Participants

Long COVID is characterized as a relapsing-remitting illness, often described as episodic, in which an individual’s symptoms may fluctuate. Symptoms can become more or less severe depending on tasks, exertion, and social support in addition to physiologic processes and medical intervention. In our paper, we illustrate how the long COVID return-to-work experience and individuals’ symptoms can be shaped by workplace, home, and medical environments. 

We randomly selected 510 participants from a global survey of people living with long COVID and systematically analyzed their open-ended responses using established qualitative analysis methods. In this study, we specifically analyzed what patients wrote about their return-to-work experiences, considering how work experiences and relapsing and remitting long COVID symptoms intersected with personal lives and medical care. 

Most of the study participants identified as White, were 30-60 years old (ie, in their key earning years), and had at least a baccalaureate degree. Participants lived in the United States (38%), United Kingdom (25%), continental Europe (8%), Canada (4%), or other countries (25%). Most participants worked in professions that did not require substantial physical labor, and individuals in those fields may experience even greater return-to-work barriers than are reported in this study.

 

Key Findings

Through our qualitative analysis, we identified four primary return-to-work themes: 

1. People living with long COVID have a strong desire and financial need to return to work. 

The participants in our study described how they had experienced financial hardship because they could not successfully return to work and may have incurred new expenses with long COVID. They also often wrote how they wanted to return to work because their jobs provided meaning and structure for their lives. Some people in this study shared how they had tried to return to their jobs but relapsed. As a result, they considered leaving the workforce.

2. Workers’ long COVID symptoms intersect with organization of work and home life.

Most of the people in our study were employed in positions that did not require substantial physical labor. Even so, workers described how their long COVID symptoms were exacerbated by some job tasks. Computer screen time; reading dense material or writing (including emails); and conversations and meetings, regardless of whether they were in-person or via phone or video conferencing, could trigger or make symptoms worse. Workers who needed to stand for long periods of time, such as teachers and healthcare workers, and workers who needed to do lifting as part of their jobs described how these requirements were too taxing and could lead to relapses.

Because of the relapsing and remitting nature of many long COVID symptoms, people reported how it could be difficult to predict how job tasks, long hours, or pressing deadlines may exacerbate symptoms, which would require them to take time off work. For these participants, “pushing through” symptoms only made the symptoms worse. However, people in the study who were allowed to work from home reported how pacing, elevating their legs, and conserving energy (especially by not commuting) was key to doing their jobs well.

Some people in the study described how they were only able to return to work because they had substantial support from family or partners at home. These individuals shared how the people they lived with did most of the cooking, cleaning, and other household tasks so that the person living with long COVID could conserve their energy for work. This reorganization of home life notably shifted household tasks and caregiving to other people in the household, but without this shift, the individual’s long COVID symptoms may be too severe to work.

3. People with long COVID experience disbelief and stigma at work and healthcare settings.

Some people in our study described how their colleagues, supervisors, and human resource managers insinuated that they were fabricating or exaggerating their symptoms. This made it hard for workers to communicate what support they needed and could limit access to necessary work accommodations.

Many people in our study also described how medical providers did not believe that they had long COVID despite experiencing debilitating symptoms, often because they did not have a positive COVID-19 test to prove they had had an acute infection. Many people with long COVID may not have a positive COVID-19 test because:

• They could not access a test because testing access was limited at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, there are transportation and cost barriers to tests, many health insurance providers no longer cover tests; and there are fewer public testing sites since the World Health Organization declared an end to the public health emergency;
• There is a high probability of false-negative results for viral and antibody tests (especially during the first wave of the pandemic and for individuals with limited immune response); and
• People can develop long COVID after asymptomatic acute infection.

Although healthcare providers can provide a long COVID diagnosis without a positive COVID-19 test on the basis of a patient’s presentation of symptoms and clinical history, many people in our study said that their providers would not provide this diagnosis, which restricted access to worker’s compensation, paid time off, and job accommodations.

Many people in the study also reported that their medical providers misdiagnosed them with a mental health disorder, such as anxiety, instead of long COVID. Although some people with long COVID may experience poor mental health as a natural consequence of dealing with a debilitating medical condition or may have neuropsychiatric symptoms as part of their long COVID, long COVID is not caused by an underlying psychiatric illness.

4. Support of medical providers is key to successful return to work for people living with long COVID.

Some people in our study described how they were able to get workplace accommodations or access workers’ compensation or sick leave because their medical providers recognized they had long COVID and provided them with this documentation. Some of these participants did not have a positive COVID-19 test, but their medical providers were able to diagnose them with long COVID on the basis of symptom presentation and clinical history. This documentation was critical for helping workers remain financially stable and able to return to work.

 

Conclusion

While we continue to search for treatment and cures for long COVID and work to provide a robust social safety net, it is crucial to address the stigma, inaccessibility, and lack of support often experienced by patients in their workplaces. Disabled people have long faced these issues; long COVID may be an opportunity to revolutionize the workplace to ensure an inclusive and accessible environment that can improve the lives of all workers.

For more on how to best be inclusive of employees with long COVID, read Harvard Business Review’s “Long Covid at Work: A Manager’s Guide” and visit the Job Accommodation Network webpage dedicated to long COVID.

Additional discussion about our study and applying the findings to improve work and medical care can be found by listening to the Healthy Work podcast episode titled “Supporting Long COVID at Work.” 

 

Elisabeth Stelson, Gina Assaf, and Lisa McCorkell are members of the Patient-Led Research Collaborative, an international group of more than 60 researchers. Dr Stelson, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Gina Assaf is Research Lead, Patient-Led Research Collaborative, Washington, DC. Lisa McCorkell is a long COVID patient; Cofounder, Team Lead, Researcher, Patient-Led Research Collaborative, Washington, DC.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Long COVID can have an enormous impact on people’s ability to work, particularly if they do not have workplace accommodations and support. Although some patients experience symptoms so severe that they cannot work under any conditions, medical providers and employers can help ensure many patients with long COVID can stay in the workforce.

Long COVID is an infection-associated chronic condition that occurs after SARS-CoV-2 infection and is present for at least 3 months as a continuous, relapsing and remitting, or progressive disease state that affects one or more organ systems. By the end of 2023, at least 400 million people worldwide were estimated to have long COVID.

As members of the Patient-Led Research Collaborative, an international group of more than 60 researchers and health advocates living with long COVID and other infection-associated chronic conditions, we have published one of the first research studies of people with long COVID and their desire to work, the specific needs they have, and what doctors and employers can do to create a path for returning to the workforce. 

In our recent paper, we document the barriers and facilitators that individuals living with long COVID experience when attempting to return to work. Our recommendations are based on these findings and include recommendations for both medical providers and employers. 

If you are a medical provider:

• Ensure you adequately document your patients’ COVID cases, any long COVID diagnoses, and the functional impairment that long COVID causes. Remember that you can diagnose a patient with long COVID on the basis of their symptoms, and clinical guidelines do not require a record of a positive COVID-19 test, which many patients lack owing to testing barriers.
• Keep up to date on research on long COVID and related infection-associated chronic conditions — for example, through the Project ECHO Long COVID and Fatiguing Illness Recovery Program — and learn about pacing and other treatment options.

If you are an employer: 

• Utilize a return-to-work model in which any worker with suspected or confirmed COVID discusses support they may need with their employer when they return to work, with additional check-in dates scheduled to reevaluate supports as needed. Planning for this collaborative and iterative evaluation of return-to-work supports for all workers with COVID-19 is important because it may not be immediately clear to a worker whether they have developed long COVID or are generally recuperating from the illness.
• Do not require medical documentation of a SARS-CoV-2 infection or a Long COVID diagnosis to access accommodations — this is owing to disparities in accessing documentation.
• Tailor job responsibilities, provide remote options, allow flexible hours, and provide longer-range deadlines to account for symptoms for people with long COVID and other infection-associated chronic conditions.
• Provide accommodations to any caregivers of people with long COVID in your workplace.
• If requiring in-person work, make the workplace as safe as possible through ventilation and masking requirements, which will help ensure fewer of your workers develop long COVID, and those already with infection-associated chronic conditions will not get worse.

Our findings and recommendations are specific to long COVID, but they can and should apply to other disabilities. Given that our study’s sample was predominately White and working in jobs that did not require substantial physical labor, additional recommendations may be needed for other populations and workers who have labor-intensive jobs.

 

510 Study Participants

Long COVID is characterized as a relapsing-remitting illness, often described as episodic, in which an individual’s symptoms may fluctuate. Symptoms can become more or less severe depending on tasks, exertion, and social support in addition to physiologic processes and medical intervention. In our paper, we illustrate how the long COVID return-to-work experience and individuals’ symptoms can be shaped by workplace, home, and medical environments. 

We randomly selected 510 participants from a global survey of people living with long COVID and systematically analyzed their open-ended responses using established qualitative analysis methods. In this study, we specifically analyzed what patients wrote about their return-to-work experiences, considering how work experiences and relapsing and remitting long COVID symptoms intersected with personal lives and medical care. 

Most of the study participants identified as White, were 30-60 years old (ie, in their key earning years), and had at least a baccalaureate degree. Participants lived in the United States (38%), United Kingdom (25%), continental Europe (8%), Canada (4%), or other countries (25%). Most participants worked in professions that did not require substantial physical labor, and individuals in those fields may experience even greater return-to-work barriers than are reported in this study.

 

Key Findings

Through our qualitative analysis, we identified four primary return-to-work themes: 

1. People living with long COVID have a strong desire and financial need to return to work. 

The participants in our study described how they had experienced financial hardship because they could not successfully return to work and may have incurred new expenses with long COVID. They also often wrote how they wanted to return to work because their jobs provided meaning and structure for their lives. Some people in this study shared how they had tried to return to their jobs but relapsed. As a result, they considered leaving the workforce.

2. Workers’ long COVID symptoms intersect with organization of work and home life.

Most of the people in our study were employed in positions that did not require substantial physical labor. Even so, workers described how their long COVID symptoms were exacerbated by some job tasks. Computer screen time; reading dense material or writing (including emails); and conversations and meetings, regardless of whether they were in-person or via phone or video conferencing, could trigger or make symptoms worse. Workers who needed to stand for long periods of time, such as teachers and healthcare workers, and workers who needed to do lifting as part of their jobs described how these requirements were too taxing and could lead to relapses.

Because of the relapsing and remitting nature of many long COVID symptoms, people reported how it could be difficult to predict how job tasks, long hours, or pressing deadlines may exacerbate symptoms, which would require them to take time off work. For these participants, “pushing through” symptoms only made the symptoms worse. However, people in the study who were allowed to work from home reported how pacing, elevating their legs, and conserving energy (especially by not commuting) was key to doing their jobs well.

Some people in the study described how they were only able to return to work because they had substantial support from family or partners at home. These individuals shared how the people they lived with did most of the cooking, cleaning, and other household tasks so that the person living with long COVID could conserve their energy for work. This reorganization of home life notably shifted household tasks and caregiving to other people in the household, but without this shift, the individual’s long COVID symptoms may be too severe to work.

3. People with long COVID experience disbelief and stigma at work and healthcare settings.

Some people in our study described how their colleagues, supervisors, and human resource managers insinuated that they were fabricating or exaggerating their symptoms. This made it hard for workers to communicate what support they needed and could limit access to necessary work accommodations.

Many people in our study also described how medical providers did not believe that they had long COVID despite experiencing debilitating symptoms, often because they did not have a positive COVID-19 test to prove they had had an acute infection. Many people with long COVID may not have a positive COVID-19 test because:

• They could not access a test because testing access was limited at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, there are transportation and cost barriers to tests, many health insurance providers no longer cover tests; and there are fewer public testing sites since the World Health Organization declared an end to the public health emergency;
• There is a high probability of false-negative results for viral and antibody tests (especially during the first wave of the pandemic and for individuals with limited immune response); and
• People can develop long COVID after asymptomatic acute infection.

Although healthcare providers can provide a long COVID diagnosis without a positive COVID-19 test on the basis of a patient’s presentation of symptoms and clinical history, many people in our study said that their providers would not provide this diagnosis, which restricted access to worker’s compensation, paid time off, and job accommodations.

Many people in the study also reported that their medical providers misdiagnosed them with a mental health disorder, such as anxiety, instead of long COVID. Although some people with long COVID may experience poor mental health as a natural consequence of dealing with a debilitating medical condition or may have neuropsychiatric symptoms as part of their long COVID, long COVID is not caused by an underlying psychiatric illness.

4. Support of medical providers is key to successful return to work for people living with long COVID.

Some people in our study described how they were able to get workplace accommodations or access workers’ compensation or sick leave because their medical providers recognized they had long COVID and provided them with this documentation. Some of these participants did not have a positive COVID-19 test, but their medical providers were able to diagnose them with long COVID on the basis of symptom presentation and clinical history. This documentation was critical for helping workers remain financially stable and able to return to work.

 

Conclusion

While we continue to search for treatment and cures for long COVID and work to provide a robust social safety net, it is crucial to address the stigma, inaccessibility, and lack of support often experienced by patients in their workplaces. Disabled people have long faced these issues; long COVID may be an opportunity to revolutionize the workplace to ensure an inclusive and accessible environment that can improve the lives of all workers.

For more on how to best be inclusive of employees with long COVID, read Harvard Business Review’s “Long Covid at Work: A Manager’s Guide” and visit the Job Accommodation Network webpage dedicated to long COVID.

Additional discussion about our study and applying the findings to improve work and medical care can be found by listening to the Healthy Work podcast episode titled “Supporting Long COVID at Work.” 

 

Elisabeth Stelson, Gina Assaf, and Lisa McCorkell are members of the Patient-Led Research Collaborative, an international group of more than 60 researchers. Dr Stelson, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Gina Assaf is Research Lead, Patient-Led Research Collaborative, Washington, DC. Lisa McCorkell is a long COVID patient; Cofounder, Team Lead, Researcher, Patient-Led Research Collaborative, Washington, DC.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Virtual visits for urinary tract infections (UTIs) increased by more than 600% from 2015 to 2022, with overall UTI encounters growing by 325.9%. The rate of antibiotic dispensation climbed by 227.3% per 1000 patients, outpacing the 159.8% increase in positive urine cultures.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study analyzing 1,220,698 UTI encounters among 428,855 nonpregnant women aged ≥ 18 years at Kaiser Permanente Southern California from 2015 to 2022.
• Analysis included outpatient UTI encounters in ambulatory and urgent care settings, excluding emergency and inpatient visits.
• Data collection encompassed demographic information, urine tests, antibiotic dispensation, and UTI diagnoses using International Classification of Diseases, 9th and 10th Revision codes.
• Encounters conducted by physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and registered nurses through in-person, phone, video, and health portal platforms were evaluated.

TAKEAWAY:

• Virtual encounters grew by 603.2% compared with a 122.8% increase for in-person visits, with virtual visits accounting for 60% (733,263) of all UTI encounters.
• The rate of UTI encounters per 1000 adult female patients increased by 241.6%, while membership in the health system grew by only 24.4%.
• Antibiotics were prescribed without urine testing in 42.5% (519,135) of encounters, and among encounters with both antibiotic dispensation and urine testing, 57.1% (278,903) had a positive culture.
• According to the authors, the increasing rate of antibiotic dispensation surpassed the growth in positive urine culture rates, suggesting increased use of empiric antibiotics.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings underscore the importance of balancing telemedicine’s accessibility with maintaining antibiotic stewardship and highlight the need for updated guidelines,” wrote the authors of the study. An accompanying editorial said, “Unfortunately, our misguided conceptual model has led to several decades of UTI research focusing on bad bugs rather than investigating the natural host defenses, how we might boost these, what perturbs the ecosystem, and how microbial defense occurs within the bladder.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ghanshyam Yadav, MD, Kaiser Permanente Southern California in San Diego. It was published online in Obstetrics & Gynecology. The editorial, written by Nazema Y. Siddiqui, MD, MHSc, from the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, was also published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective design and analysis at the encounter level did not allow for control of patient and clinician clustering. The study was limited to a single health maintenance organization, which may affect the generalizability of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

This research received support through a grant from the Regional Research Committee of Kaiser Permanente Southern California (RRC grant number: KP-RRC-20221002). Heidi Brown and Jasmine Tan-Kim disclosed receiving royalties from UpToDate. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Virtual visits for urinary tract infections (UTIs) increased by more than 600% from 2015 to 2022, with overall UTI encounters growing by 325.9%. The rate of antibiotic dispensation climbed by 227.3% per 1000 patients, outpacing the 159.8% increase in positive urine cultures.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study analyzing 1,220,698 UTI encounters among 428,855 nonpregnant women aged ≥ 18 years at Kaiser Permanente Southern California from 2015 to 2022.
• Analysis included outpatient UTI encounters in ambulatory and urgent care settings, excluding emergency and inpatient visits.
• Data collection encompassed demographic information, urine tests, antibiotic dispensation, and UTI diagnoses using International Classification of Diseases, 9th and 10th Revision codes.
• Encounters conducted by physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and registered nurses through in-person, phone, video, and health portal platforms were evaluated.

TAKEAWAY:

• Virtual encounters grew by 603.2% compared with a 122.8% increase for in-person visits, with virtual visits accounting for 60% (733,263) of all UTI encounters.
• The rate of UTI encounters per 1000 adult female patients increased by 241.6%, while membership in the health system grew by only 24.4%.
• Antibiotics were prescribed without urine testing in 42.5% (519,135) of encounters, and among encounters with both antibiotic dispensation and urine testing, 57.1% (278,903) had a positive culture.
• According to the authors, the increasing rate of antibiotic dispensation surpassed the growth in positive urine culture rates, suggesting increased use of empiric antibiotics.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings underscore the importance of balancing telemedicine’s accessibility with maintaining antibiotic stewardship and highlight the need for updated guidelines,” wrote the authors of the study. An accompanying editorial said, “Unfortunately, our misguided conceptual model has led to several decades of UTI research focusing on bad bugs rather than investigating the natural host defenses, how we might boost these, what perturbs the ecosystem, and how microbial defense occurs within the bladder.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ghanshyam Yadav, MD, Kaiser Permanente Southern California in San Diego. It was published online in Obstetrics & Gynecology. The editorial, written by Nazema Y. Siddiqui, MD, MHSc, from the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, was also published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective design and analysis at the encounter level did not allow for control of patient and clinician clustering. The study was limited to a single health maintenance organization, which may affect the generalizability of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

This research received support through a grant from the Regional Research Committee of Kaiser Permanente Southern California (RRC grant number: KP-RRC-20221002). Heidi Brown and Jasmine Tan-Kim disclosed receiving royalties from UpToDate. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Virtual visits for urinary tract infections (UTIs) increased by more than 600% from 2015 to 2022, with overall UTI encounters growing by 325.9%. The rate of antibiotic dispensation climbed by 227.3% per 1000 patients, outpacing the 159.8% increase in positive urine cultures.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study analyzing 1,220,698 UTI encounters among 428,855 nonpregnant women aged ≥ 18 years at Kaiser Permanente Southern California from 2015 to 2022.
• Analysis included outpatient UTI encounters in ambulatory and urgent care settings, excluding emergency and inpatient visits.
• Data collection encompassed demographic information, urine tests, antibiotic dispensation, and UTI diagnoses using International Classification of Diseases, 9th and 10th Revision codes.
• Encounters conducted by physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and registered nurses through in-person, phone, video, and health portal platforms were evaluated.

TAKEAWAY:

• Virtual encounters grew by 603.2% compared with a 122.8% increase for in-person visits, with virtual visits accounting for 60% (733,263) of all UTI encounters.
• The rate of UTI encounters per 1000 adult female patients increased by 241.6%, while membership in the health system grew by only 24.4%.
• Antibiotics were prescribed without urine testing in 42.5% (519,135) of encounters, and among encounters with both antibiotic dispensation and urine testing, 57.1% (278,903) had a positive culture.
• According to the authors, the increasing rate of antibiotic dispensation surpassed the growth in positive urine culture rates, suggesting increased use of empiric antibiotics.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings underscore the importance of balancing telemedicine’s accessibility with maintaining antibiotic stewardship and highlight the need for updated guidelines,” wrote the authors of the study. An accompanying editorial said, “Unfortunately, our misguided conceptual model has led to several decades of UTI research focusing on bad bugs rather than investigating the natural host defenses, how we might boost these, what perturbs the ecosystem, and how microbial defense occurs within the bladder.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ghanshyam Yadav, MD, Kaiser Permanente Southern California in San Diego. It was published online in Obstetrics & Gynecology. The editorial, written by Nazema Y. Siddiqui, MD, MHSc, from the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, was also published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective design and analysis at the encounter level did not allow for control of patient and clinician clustering. The study was limited to a single health maintenance organization, which may affect the generalizability of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

This research received support through a grant from the Regional Research Committee of Kaiser Permanente Southern California (RRC grant number: KP-RRC-20221002). Heidi Brown and Jasmine Tan-Kim disclosed receiving royalties from UpToDate. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

We often see urinary tract infections in primary care, so these guidelines for the prevention, diagnosis and management of urinary tract infection (UTI) are very helpful to reaffirm our knowledge in the areas where know what we’re doing and update our knowledge in areas of uncertainty. These guidelines are from a new group called the WikiGuidelines group. Ordinarily, I wouldn’t have considered reviewing one of these guidelines, but this one was published in JAMA Network Open. It is evidence based and covers the topic really well. 

Diagnosis. Order a urinalysis or a urine culture only if the patient is having symptoms of a UTI. This may seem obvious, but particularly among older individuals, in whom asymptomatic bacteriuria is very common and should not be treated, nonspecific symptoms such as just not feeling well for a day do not warrant obtaining a urinalysis and culture. With no clear way to distinguish between asymptomatic bacteriuria and a true UTI, the first step in making the diagnosis of a UTI accurately is ordering urine studies only in people who have a reasonable chance of having an infection.

The guideline suggests that the diagnosis of UTI should be primarily based on clinical symptoms. A urinalysis can provide further information, but the authors caution us against relying solely on the urinalysis. This is an incredibly important evidence-based recommendation. If you think about it, this supports the common practice of treating UTIs over the phone without having to see the patient or check a urinalysis. 

The rationale for this recommendation is that urinalysis is neither a sensitive nor specific test for UTI. The sensitivity of leukocyte esterase is only about 80%, and the specificity is even lower. For positive nitrite on urinalysis, the sensitivity is below 50%, meaning the test would be negative more than half the time when someone actually has a UTI. The specificity of urine nitrate is very high (more than 90%), so if the patient is nitrite positive, they clearly have a UTI. This means that a patient’s report of classic UTI symptoms — urinary burning, frequency, and urgency — is about as good if not a better indicator of a UTI than a urinalysis. 

The guidelines also say that in simple uncomplicated cystitis in healthy nonpregnant patients, routine urine cultures are not necessary. A fascinating meta-analysis in JAMA showed that, for women presenting to outpatient clinics with at least two symptoms of UTI and absence of vaginal discharge, there was a greater than 90% likelihood of having acute cystitis. A reminder here, however: If a woman is sexually active and at risk for sexually transmitted infections, then consider testing for STIs as well, because the symptoms of an STI can mimic those of a UTI.

Treatment. Treatment for UTI is usually empiric, with treatment initiated before the culture results are known and with cultures being done only for people with complicated infections, such as pyelonephritis, or with recurrent infections. Decisions about what to use for treatment can be influenced by local patterns of resistance and an individual’s risk factors for antimicrobial resistance. As a general rule, for uncomplicated cystitis, nitrofurantoin for 5 days is a reasonable first-line agent. Evidence of efficacy is good, and the risk for antimicrobial resistance is lower vs using antibiotics for other systemic infections. 

Other reasonable first-line agents for uncomplicated cystitis include trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) for 3 days; fosfomycin (oral) single dose; or a beta-lactam (most commonly a first generation cephalosporin), although evidence for duration is unclear. Also mentioned are two unfamiliar antibiotics: pivmecillinam (a beta-lactam agent recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration [FDA], given for 3 days) and gepotidacin (from a new class of antibiotic that is currently under FDA review). Fluoroquinolones should not usually be first-line agents unless other treatment options are not appropriate. 

It’s important to distinguish between uncomplicated cystitis and pyelonephritis. For pyelonephritis (infection of the upper urinary tract), the first decision has to do with setting for care, depending on how sick someone is, and the likelihood of gram-negative bacteremia — all of which help whether the patient needs to be hospitalized for intravenous antibiotics, or can be treated as an outpatient. Determine if they need to be admitted for intravenous antibiotics or whether they can be treated as an outpatient. For outpatient treatment of pyelonephritis, the guideline suggests that TMP-SMX or a first-generation cephalosporin are both reasonable first-line agents, with fluoroquinolones being a reasonable choice as well. Ceftriaxone is recommended for first-line therapy for patients who require intravenous treatment. 

People often forget that we can do a lot to prevent UTIs, particularly among women with recurrent UTIs. The prevention of UTIs has both nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic approaches.

Nonpharmacologic prevention. One nonpharmacologic strategy is increasing water intake. A randomized controlled trial in women with recurrent cystitis who drank less than 1.5 L of fluid a day showed that the women randomized to consume an additional 1.5 L of water daily had significantly reduced cystitis frequency — approximately 50%. Because this was the only randomized trial to show this effect, this is not a strong recommendation, but there is very little downside in healthy women, so increasing water intake is a reasonable recommendation.

Another commonly discussed intervention is the use of cranberry products. As it turns out, most prospective studies have shown that cranberry products can reduce the risk for symptomatic UTIs in women with recurrent UTI. 

Pharmacologic prevention. For postmenopausal women with recurrent UTI, topical vaginal estrogen has a strong base of evidence — more than 30 randomized trials — supporting its effectiveness in UTI: a 50%-90% reduction in the incidence of recurrent UTIs. Topical estrogen has minimal systemic absorption, and there are no concerning safety signals with respect to either thromboembolic disease or cancer (endometrial or breast). 

Methenamine hippurate is also recommended and is FDA-approved for prevention of UTIs. It works by releasing formaldehyde in the urine, leading to bacteriostasis, which is how it leads to a decrease in UTIs. Finally, postcoital or daily administration of TMP-SMX, nitrofurantoin, norfloxacin, and ciprofloxacin all have comparable efficacy for prophylaxis, with a meta-analysis showing a decrease in recurrence rate of approximately 85%. The guideline states that there is insufficient evidence to support the use of either probiotics or D-mannose to prevent UTIs. 

This is a wonderful update on a common problem. We all have a lot of clinical experience here.

Dr Skolnik, Department of Family Medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia; Associate Director, Department of Family Medicine, Abington Jefferson Health, Abington, Pennsylvania, disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Teva, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Bayer. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

We often see urinary tract infections in primary care, so these guidelines for the prevention, diagnosis and management of urinary tract infection (UTI) are very helpful to reaffirm our knowledge in the areas where know what we’re doing and update our knowledge in areas of uncertainty. These guidelines are from a new group called the WikiGuidelines group. Ordinarily, I wouldn’t have considered reviewing one of these guidelines, but this one was published in JAMA Network Open. It is evidence based and covers the topic really well. 

Diagnosis. Order a urinalysis or a urine culture only if the patient is having symptoms of a UTI. This may seem obvious, but particularly among older individuals, in whom asymptomatic bacteriuria is very common and should not be treated, nonspecific symptoms such as just not feeling well for a day do not warrant obtaining a urinalysis and culture. With no clear way to distinguish between asymptomatic bacteriuria and a true UTI, the first step in making the diagnosis of a UTI accurately is ordering urine studies only in people who have a reasonable chance of having an infection.

The guideline suggests that the diagnosis of UTI should be primarily based on clinical symptoms. A urinalysis can provide further information, but the authors caution us against relying solely on the urinalysis. This is an incredibly important evidence-based recommendation. If you think about it, this supports the common practice of treating UTIs over the phone without having to see the patient or check a urinalysis. 

The rationale for this recommendation is that urinalysis is neither a sensitive nor specific test for UTI. The sensitivity of leukocyte esterase is only about 80%, and the specificity is even lower. For positive nitrite on urinalysis, the sensitivity is below 50%, meaning the test would be negative more than half the time when someone actually has a UTI. The specificity of urine nitrate is very high (more than 90%), so if the patient is nitrite positive, they clearly have a UTI. This means that a patient’s report of classic UTI symptoms — urinary burning, frequency, and urgency — is about as good if not a better indicator of a UTI than a urinalysis. 

The guidelines also say that in simple uncomplicated cystitis in healthy nonpregnant patients, routine urine cultures are not necessary. A fascinating meta-analysis in JAMA showed that, for women presenting to outpatient clinics with at least two symptoms of UTI and absence of vaginal discharge, there was a greater than 90% likelihood of having acute cystitis. A reminder here, however: If a woman is sexually active and at risk for sexually transmitted infections, then consider testing for STIs as well, because the symptoms of an STI can mimic those of a UTI.

Treatment. Treatment for UTI is usually empiric, with treatment initiated before the culture results are known and with cultures being done only for people with complicated infections, such as pyelonephritis, or with recurrent infections. Decisions about what to use for treatment can be influenced by local patterns of resistance and an individual’s risk factors for antimicrobial resistance. As a general rule, for uncomplicated cystitis, nitrofurantoin for 5 days is a reasonable first-line agent. Evidence of efficacy is good, and the risk for antimicrobial resistance is lower vs using antibiotics for other systemic infections. 

Other reasonable first-line agents for uncomplicated cystitis include trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) for 3 days; fosfomycin (oral) single dose; or a beta-lactam (most commonly a first generation cephalosporin), although evidence for duration is unclear. Also mentioned are two unfamiliar antibiotics: pivmecillinam (a beta-lactam agent recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration [FDA], given for 3 days) and gepotidacin (from a new class of antibiotic that is currently under FDA review). Fluoroquinolones should not usually be first-line agents unless other treatment options are not appropriate. 

It’s important to distinguish between uncomplicated cystitis and pyelonephritis. For pyelonephritis (infection of the upper urinary tract), the first decision has to do with setting for care, depending on how sick someone is, and the likelihood of gram-negative bacteremia — all of which help whether the patient needs to be hospitalized for intravenous antibiotics, or can be treated as an outpatient. Determine if they need to be admitted for intravenous antibiotics or whether they can be treated as an outpatient. For outpatient treatment of pyelonephritis, the guideline suggests that TMP-SMX or a first-generation cephalosporin are both reasonable first-line agents, with fluoroquinolones being a reasonable choice as well. Ceftriaxone is recommended for first-line therapy for patients who require intravenous treatment. 

People often forget that we can do a lot to prevent UTIs, particularly among women with recurrent UTIs. The prevention of UTIs has both nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic approaches.

Nonpharmacologic prevention. One nonpharmacologic strategy is increasing water intake. A randomized controlled trial in women with recurrent cystitis who drank less than 1.5 L of fluid a day showed that the women randomized to consume an additional 1.5 L of water daily had significantly reduced cystitis frequency — approximately 50%. Because this was the only randomized trial to show this effect, this is not a strong recommendation, but there is very little downside in healthy women, so increasing water intake is a reasonable recommendation.

Another commonly discussed intervention is the use of cranberry products. As it turns out, most prospective studies have shown that cranberry products can reduce the risk for symptomatic UTIs in women with recurrent UTI. 

Pharmacologic prevention. For postmenopausal women with recurrent UTI, topical vaginal estrogen has a strong base of evidence — more than 30 randomized trials — supporting its effectiveness in UTI: a 50%-90% reduction in the incidence of recurrent UTIs. Topical estrogen has minimal systemic absorption, and there are no concerning safety signals with respect to either thromboembolic disease or cancer (endometrial or breast). 

Methenamine hippurate is also recommended and is FDA-approved for prevention of UTIs. It works by releasing formaldehyde in the urine, leading to bacteriostasis, which is how it leads to a decrease in UTIs. Finally, postcoital or daily administration of TMP-SMX, nitrofurantoin, norfloxacin, and ciprofloxacin all have comparable efficacy for prophylaxis, with a meta-analysis showing a decrease in recurrence rate of approximately 85%. The guideline states that there is insufficient evidence to support the use of either probiotics or D-mannose to prevent UTIs. 

This is a wonderful update on a common problem. We all have a lot of clinical experience here.

Dr Skolnik, Department of Family Medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia; Associate Director, Department of Family Medicine, Abington Jefferson Health, Abington, Pennsylvania, disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Teva, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Bayer. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

We often see urinary tract infections in primary care, so these guidelines for the prevention, diagnosis and management of urinary tract infection (UTI) are very helpful to reaffirm our knowledge in the areas where know what we’re doing and update our knowledge in areas of uncertainty. These guidelines are from a new group called the WikiGuidelines group. Ordinarily, I wouldn’t have considered reviewing one of these guidelines, but this one was published in JAMA Network Open. It is evidence based and covers the topic really well. 

Diagnosis. Order a urinalysis or a urine culture only if the patient is having symptoms of a UTI. This may seem obvious, but particularly among older individuals, in whom asymptomatic bacteriuria is very common and should not be treated, nonspecific symptoms such as just not feeling well for a day do not warrant obtaining a urinalysis and culture. With no clear way to distinguish between asymptomatic bacteriuria and a true UTI, the first step in making the diagnosis of a UTI accurately is ordering urine studies only in people who have a reasonable chance of having an infection.

The guideline suggests that the diagnosis of UTI should be primarily based on clinical symptoms. A urinalysis can provide further information, but the authors caution us against relying solely on the urinalysis. This is an incredibly important evidence-based recommendation. If you think about it, this supports the common practice of treating UTIs over the phone without having to see the patient or check a urinalysis. 

The rationale for this recommendation is that urinalysis is neither a sensitive nor specific test for UTI. The sensitivity of leukocyte esterase is only about 80%, and the specificity is even lower. For positive nitrite on urinalysis, the sensitivity is below 50%, meaning the test would be negative more than half the time when someone actually has a UTI. The specificity of urine nitrate is very high (more than 90%), so if the patient is nitrite positive, they clearly have a UTI. This means that a patient’s report of classic UTI symptoms — urinary burning, frequency, and urgency — is about as good if not a better indicator of a UTI than a urinalysis. 

The guidelines also say that in simple uncomplicated cystitis in healthy nonpregnant patients, routine urine cultures are not necessary. A fascinating meta-analysis in JAMA showed that, for women presenting to outpatient clinics with at least two symptoms of UTI and absence of vaginal discharge, there was a greater than 90% likelihood of having acute cystitis. A reminder here, however: If a woman is sexually active and at risk for sexually transmitted infections, then consider testing for STIs as well, because the symptoms of an STI can mimic those of a UTI.

Treatment. Treatment for UTI is usually empiric, with treatment initiated before the culture results are known and with cultures being done only for people with complicated infections, such as pyelonephritis, or with recurrent infections. Decisions about what to use for treatment can be influenced by local patterns of resistance and an individual’s risk factors for antimicrobial resistance. As a general rule, for uncomplicated cystitis, nitrofurantoin for 5 days is a reasonable first-line agent. Evidence of efficacy is good, and the risk for antimicrobial resistance is lower vs using antibiotics for other systemic infections. 

Other reasonable first-line agents for uncomplicated cystitis include trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) for 3 days; fosfomycin (oral) single dose; or a beta-lactam (most commonly a first generation cephalosporin), although evidence for duration is unclear. Also mentioned are two unfamiliar antibiotics: pivmecillinam (a beta-lactam agent recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration [FDA], given for 3 days) and gepotidacin (from a new class of antibiotic that is currently under FDA review). Fluoroquinolones should not usually be first-line agents unless other treatment options are not appropriate. 

It’s important to distinguish between uncomplicated cystitis and pyelonephritis. For pyelonephritis (infection of the upper urinary tract), the first decision has to do with setting for care, depending on how sick someone is, and the likelihood of gram-negative bacteremia — all of which help whether the patient needs to be hospitalized for intravenous antibiotics, or can be treated as an outpatient. Determine if they need to be admitted for intravenous antibiotics or whether they can be treated as an outpatient. For outpatient treatment of pyelonephritis, the guideline suggests that TMP-SMX or a first-generation cephalosporin are both reasonable first-line agents, with fluoroquinolones being a reasonable choice as well. Ceftriaxone is recommended for first-line therapy for patients who require intravenous treatment. 

People often forget that we can do a lot to prevent UTIs, particularly among women with recurrent UTIs. The prevention of UTIs has both nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic approaches.

Nonpharmacologic prevention. One nonpharmacologic strategy is increasing water intake. A randomized controlled trial in women with recurrent cystitis who drank less than 1.5 L of fluid a day showed that the women randomized to consume an additional 1.5 L of water daily had significantly reduced cystitis frequency — approximately 50%. Because this was the only randomized trial to show this effect, this is not a strong recommendation, but there is very little downside in healthy women, so increasing water intake is a reasonable recommendation.

Another commonly discussed intervention is the use of cranberry products. As it turns out, most prospective studies have shown that cranberry products can reduce the risk for symptomatic UTIs in women with recurrent UTI. 

Pharmacologic prevention. For postmenopausal women with recurrent UTI, topical vaginal estrogen has a strong base of evidence — more than 30 randomized trials — supporting its effectiveness in UTI: a 50%-90% reduction in the incidence of recurrent UTIs. Topical estrogen has minimal systemic absorption, and there are no concerning safety signals with respect to either thromboembolic disease or cancer (endometrial or breast). 

Methenamine hippurate is also recommended and is FDA-approved for prevention of UTIs. It works by releasing formaldehyde in the urine, leading to bacteriostasis, which is how it leads to a decrease in UTIs. Finally, postcoital or daily administration of TMP-SMX, nitrofurantoin, norfloxacin, and ciprofloxacin all have comparable efficacy for prophylaxis, with a meta-analysis showing a decrease in recurrence rate of approximately 85%. The guideline states that there is insufficient evidence to support the use of either probiotics or D-mannose to prevent UTIs. 

This is a wonderful update on a common problem. We all have a lot of clinical experience here.

Dr Skolnik, Department of Family Medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia; Associate Director, Department of Family Medicine, Abington Jefferson Health, Abington, Pennsylvania, disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Teva, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Bayer. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Discussion

Given the patient’s recent dietary changes, particularly his switch to a ketogenic diet, he was diagnosed with prurigo pigmentosa and treated with doxycycline, which cleared the rash. Prurigo pigmentosa is a rare inflammatory dermatosis characterized by net-like or reticulated pink, and later hyperpigmented, papules and plaques. Although the condition predominantly affects young women of East Asian descent, cases have been reported worldwide, highlighting the importance of considering this diagnosis in diverse populations, including children. Here, we describe a case of prurigo pigmentosa in a young male who had recently adopted a ketogenic diet for weight loss.

The association between prurigo pigmentosa and dietary changes, particularly ketosis, is becoming increasingly recognized. This condition is strongly linked to ketosis, a metabolic state marked by the production of ketone bodies (e.g., beta-hydroxybutyrate and acetoacetate) during carbohydrate restriction, fasting, or ketogenic diets, as seen in our patient. These ketone bodies may act as irritants or trigger oxidative stress and inflammatory cascades in the skin.

Ketoacidosis, particularly in prolonged or intense ketosis, is thought to alter the local skin microenvironment, promoting activation of inflammatory cytokines and immune cells. The ketogenic state is believed to generate oxidative stress through increased free fatty acid oxidation, leading to the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS). ROS can induce apoptosis of keratinocytes and inflammation in the epidermis, which is predominantly mediated by neutrophilic infiltration, as seen in histopathological findings. Elevated levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines, such as interleukin-8 (IL-8) and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), have been implicated in neutrophil recruitment and activation. IL-8 is particularly important for guiding neutrophils to areas of injury.

Secondary hyperpigmentation, a hallmark of this condition, is thought to result from melanin-laden macrophages and persistent melanocyte activation in response to inflammation at the dermo-epidermal junction.

The condition progresses in three stages. In the early stage, lesions appear as pruritic, urticarial plaques. These evolve into crusted erythematous papules and papulovesicles in the middle stage, as observed in our patient. Finally, in the late stage, the lesions mature into smooth, hyperpigmented plaques. Each stage of prurigo pigmentosa has distinct histopathological features.

 

Differential Diagnosis

The differential diagnosis for prurigo pigmentosa includes several conditions that may present similarly. Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) can initially mimic the erythematous papules of prurigo pigmentosa, but the absence of a clear allergen exposure and failure to improve with avoidance measures makes ACD less likely. Psoriasis is another possibility, as its erythematous plaques may overlap with prurigo pigmentosa. However, the lack of silvery scales and chronicity makes psoriasis less likely in this case. Eczema, or atopic dermatitis, typically presents with pruritic, ill-defined plaques, often in flexural areas, which were not observed in this patient. Flagellate dermatitis, often caused by exposure to bleomycin or consumption of shiitake mushrooms, can present with linear erythematous lesions resembling prurigo pigmentosa. However, the absence of relevant exposures and a flagellate pattern in this patient rules out this diagnosis.

This case highlights the growing recognition of prurigo pigmentosa in the context of dietary trends, especially ketogenic diets, which have become popular for weight loss and other health benefits. Pediatric populations, in particular, may adopt such diets for various reasons and require careful monitoring, as their physiological responses may differ from those in adults. Prurigo pigmentosa has also been reported in a teenager girl with a history of anorexia nervosa, who was in a ketotic state.

Treatment options for prurigo pigmentosa include antibiotics such as minocycline or doxycycline, or macrolides for 4–10 weeks. Other treatment modalities include dapsone, Q-switch Nd:YAG laser, narrow-band ultraviolet B (UVB) phototherapy, and topical treatments like crisaborole and tacrolimus.

Early recognition of this condition is crucial to avoid unnecessary interventions and to allow for resolution through dietary modification. Dermatologists and pediatricians should maintain a high index of suspicion for prurigo pigmentosa in patients presenting with characteristic eruptions and a history of dietary ketosis.

Catalina Matiz is a pediatric dermatologist at Southern California Permanente Medical Group, San Diego.

Suggested Reading

1. Mufti A et al. Clinical Manifestations and Treatment Outcomes in Prurigo Pigmentosa (Nagashima Disease): A Systematic Review of the Literature. JAAD Int. 2021 Apr 10:3:79-87. doi: 10.1016/j.jdin.2021.03.003.

2. Yang J et al. Use of Minocycline for the Treatment of Prurigo Pigmentosa with Intraepidermal Vesiculation: A Case Report. J Int Med Res. 2021 May;49(5):3000605211015593. doi: 10.1177/03000605211015593.

3. Capucilli P et al. Prurigo Pigmentosa: An Itchy, Urticarial Eruption Confused for Food Allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2018 Jul-Aug;6(4):1381-1382. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2018.02.033.

Discussion

Given the patient’s recent dietary changes, particularly his switch to a ketogenic diet, he was diagnosed with prurigo pigmentosa and treated with doxycycline, which cleared the rash. Prurigo pigmentosa is a rare inflammatory dermatosis characterized by net-like or reticulated pink, and later hyperpigmented, papules and plaques. Although the condition predominantly affects young women of East Asian descent, cases have been reported worldwide, highlighting the importance of considering this diagnosis in diverse populations, including children. Here, we describe a case of prurigo pigmentosa in a young male who had recently adopted a ketogenic diet for weight loss.

The association between prurigo pigmentosa and dietary changes, particularly ketosis, is becoming increasingly recognized. This condition is strongly linked to ketosis, a metabolic state marked by the production of ketone bodies (e.g., beta-hydroxybutyrate and acetoacetate) during carbohydrate restriction, fasting, or ketogenic diets, as seen in our patient. These ketone bodies may act as irritants or trigger oxidative stress and inflammatory cascades in the skin.

Ketoacidosis, particularly in prolonged or intense ketosis, is thought to alter the local skin microenvironment, promoting activation of inflammatory cytokines and immune cells. The ketogenic state is believed to generate oxidative stress through increased free fatty acid oxidation, leading to the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS). ROS can induce apoptosis of keratinocytes and inflammation in the epidermis, which is predominantly mediated by neutrophilic infiltration, as seen in histopathological findings. Elevated levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines, such as interleukin-8 (IL-8) and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), have been implicated in neutrophil recruitment and activation. IL-8 is particularly important for guiding neutrophils to areas of injury.

Secondary hyperpigmentation, a hallmark of this condition, is thought to result from melanin-laden macrophages and persistent melanocyte activation in response to inflammation at the dermo-epidermal junction.

The condition progresses in three stages. In the early stage, lesions appear as pruritic, urticarial plaques. These evolve into crusted erythematous papules and papulovesicles in the middle stage, as observed in our patient. Finally, in the late stage, the lesions mature into smooth, hyperpigmented plaques. Each stage of prurigo pigmentosa has distinct histopathological features.

 

Differential Diagnosis

The differential diagnosis for prurigo pigmentosa includes several conditions that may present similarly. Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) can initially mimic the erythematous papules of prurigo pigmentosa, but the absence of a clear allergen exposure and failure to improve with avoidance measures makes ACD less likely. Psoriasis is another possibility, as its erythematous plaques may overlap with prurigo pigmentosa. However, the lack of silvery scales and chronicity makes psoriasis less likely in this case. Eczema, or atopic dermatitis, typically presents with pruritic, ill-defined plaques, often in flexural areas, which were not observed in this patient. Flagellate dermatitis, often caused by exposure to bleomycin or consumption of shiitake mushrooms, can present with linear erythematous lesions resembling prurigo pigmentosa. However, the absence of relevant exposures and a flagellate pattern in this patient rules out this diagnosis.

This case highlights the growing recognition of prurigo pigmentosa in the context of dietary trends, especially ketogenic diets, which have become popular for weight loss and other health benefits. Pediatric populations, in particular, may adopt such diets for various reasons and require careful monitoring, as their physiological responses may differ from those in adults. Prurigo pigmentosa has also been reported in a teenager girl with a history of anorexia nervosa, who was in a ketotic state.

Treatment options for prurigo pigmentosa include antibiotics such as minocycline or doxycycline, or macrolides for 4–10 weeks. Other treatment modalities include dapsone, Q-switch Nd:YAG laser, narrow-band ultraviolet B (UVB) phototherapy, and topical treatments like crisaborole and tacrolimus.

Early recognition of this condition is crucial to avoid unnecessary interventions and to allow for resolution through dietary modification. Dermatologists and pediatricians should maintain a high index of suspicion for prurigo pigmentosa in patients presenting with characteristic eruptions and a history of dietary ketosis.

Catalina Matiz is a pediatric dermatologist at Southern California Permanente Medical Group, San Diego.

Suggested Reading

1. Mufti A et al. Clinical Manifestations and Treatment Outcomes in Prurigo Pigmentosa (Nagashima Disease): A Systematic Review of the Literature. JAAD Int. 2021 Apr 10:3:79-87. doi: 10.1016/j.jdin.2021.03.003.

2. Yang J et al. Use of Minocycline for the Treatment of Prurigo Pigmentosa with Intraepidermal Vesiculation: A Case Report. J Int Med Res. 2021 May;49(5):3000605211015593. doi: 10.1177/03000605211015593.

3. Capucilli P et al. Prurigo Pigmentosa: An Itchy, Urticarial Eruption Confused for Food Allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2018 Jul-Aug;6(4):1381-1382. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2018.02.033.

Discussion

Given the patient’s recent dietary changes, particularly his switch to a ketogenic diet, he was diagnosed with prurigo pigmentosa and treated with doxycycline, which cleared the rash. Prurigo pigmentosa is a rare inflammatory dermatosis characterized by net-like or reticulated pink, and later hyperpigmented, papules and plaques. Although the condition predominantly affects young women of East Asian descent, cases have been reported worldwide, highlighting the importance of considering this diagnosis in diverse populations, including children. Here, we describe a case of prurigo pigmentosa in a young male who had recently adopted a ketogenic diet for weight loss.

The association between prurigo pigmentosa and dietary changes, particularly ketosis, is becoming increasingly recognized. This condition is strongly linked to ketosis, a metabolic state marked by the production of ketone bodies (e.g., beta-hydroxybutyrate and acetoacetate) during carbohydrate restriction, fasting, or ketogenic diets, as seen in our patient. These ketone bodies may act as irritants or trigger oxidative stress and inflammatory cascades in the skin.

Ketoacidosis, particularly in prolonged or intense ketosis, is thought to alter the local skin microenvironment, promoting activation of inflammatory cytokines and immune cells. The ketogenic state is believed to generate oxidative stress through increased free fatty acid oxidation, leading to the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS). ROS can induce apoptosis of keratinocytes and inflammation in the epidermis, which is predominantly mediated by neutrophilic infiltration, as seen in histopathological findings. Elevated levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines, such as interleukin-8 (IL-8) and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), have been implicated in neutrophil recruitment and activation. IL-8 is particularly important for guiding neutrophils to areas of injury.

Secondary hyperpigmentation, a hallmark of this condition, is thought to result from melanin-laden macrophages and persistent melanocyte activation in response to inflammation at the dermo-epidermal junction.

The condition progresses in three stages. In the early stage, lesions appear as pruritic, urticarial plaques. These evolve into crusted erythematous papules and papulovesicles in the middle stage, as observed in our patient. Finally, in the late stage, the lesions mature into smooth, hyperpigmented plaques. Each stage of prurigo pigmentosa has distinct histopathological features.

 

Differential Diagnosis

The differential diagnosis for prurigo pigmentosa includes several conditions that may present similarly. Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) can initially mimic the erythematous papules of prurigo pigmentosa, but the absence of a clear allergen exposure and failure to improve with avoidance measures makes ACD less likely. Psoriasis is another possibility, as its erythematous plaques may overlap with prurigo pigmentosa. However, the lack of silvery scales and chronicity makes psoriasis less likely in this case. Eczema, or atopic dermatitis, typically presents with pruritic, ill-defined plaques, often in flexural areas, which were not observed in this patient. Flagellate dermatitis, often caused by exposure to bleomycin or consumption of shiitake mushrooms, can present with linear erythematous lesions resembling prurigo pigmentosa. However, the absence of relevant exposures and a flagellate pattern in this patient rules out this diagnosis.

This case highlights the growing recognition of prurigo pigmentosa in the context of dietary trends, especially ketogenic diets, which have become popular for weight loss and other health benefits. Pediatric populations, in particular, may adopt such diets for various reasons and require careful monitoring, as their physiological responses may differ from those in adults. Prurigo pigmentosa has also been reported in a teenager girl with a history of anorexia nervosa, who was in a ketotic state.

Treatment options for prurigo pigmentosa include antibiotics such as minocycline or doxycycline, or macrolides for 4–10 weeks. Other treatment modalities include dapsone, Q-switch Nd:YAG laser, narrow-band ultraviolet B (UVB) phototherapy, and topical treatments like crisaborole and tacrolimus.

Early recognition of this condition is crucial to avoid unnecessary interventions and to allow for resolution through dietary modification. Dermatologists and pediatricians should maintain a high index of suspicion for prurigo pigmentosa in patients presenting with characteristic eruptions and a history of dietary ketosis.

Catalina Matiz is a pediatric dermatologist at Southern California Permanente Medical Group, San Diego.

Suggested Reading

1. Mufti A et al. Clinical Manifestations and Treatment Outcomes in Prurigo Pigmentosa (Nagashima Disease): A Systematic Review of the Literature. JAAD Int. 2021 Apr 10:3:79-87. doi: 10.1016/j.jdin.2021.03.003.

2. Yang J et al. Use of Minocycline for the Treatment of Prurigo Pigmentosa with Intraepidermal Vesiculation: A Case Report. J Int Med Res. 2021 May;49(5):3000605211015593. doi: 10.1177/03000605211015593.

3. Capucilli P et al. Prurigo Pigmentosa: An Itchy, Urticarial Eruption Confused for Food Allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2018 Jul-Aug;6(4):1381-1382. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2018.02.033.

An electronic nudge explaining the cardiovascular benefits of the influenza vaccine increased vaccination rates, particularly among people who had previously had a heart attack, showed the NUDGE FLU series of clinical trials.

Influenza has the potential to be a dangerous infection on its own, but it increases the risk for cardiovascular events among people with a history of heart attack, said the study’s lead author, Ankeet Bhatt, MD, a cardiologist at Kaiser Permanente San Francisco Medical Center, San Francisco.

“Yearly influenza vaccines help prevent influenza infection and, in patients with a heart attack, are potentially cardioprotective,” he said during his presentation at the American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions 2024 in Chicago. The NUDGE FLU results were simultaneously published online in JAMA Cardiology.

In Denmark, where the trials were conducted, about 80% of older adults get flu shots, but only about 40% of younger adults with chronic diseases do, Bhatt reported. In the United States, about 45% of adults and 55% of children received at least one dose of the flu vaccine in the 2023/24 flu season, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

 

The NUDGE FLU Trials

Bhatt and his colleagues conducted three related clinical trials during the 2022/23 and 2023/24 flu seasons: NUDGE-FLU and NUDGE-FLU-2 targeted older adults, whereas NUDGE-FLU-CHRONIC targeted younger adults with chronic diseases. Nearly 2 million people were involved in the three trials.

Participants were randomized to receive one of a series of different behavioral-science-informed letters, delivered through a government-run electronic communication system, or no reminder.

People who received any of the nudges had higher rates of vaccination; among heart attack survivors, there was a 1.8% improvement and among adults without a history of heart attack, there was a 1.3% improvement. But a nudge that explained the potential cardiovascular benefits of flu shots was even more effective, leading to a 3.9% increase among people with a history of heart attack and a 2% increase among those with no heart attack history.

“A simple sentence resulted in a durable improvement in the vaccination rate,” said Bhatt.

The effect was even greater among those who had not been vaccinated in the previous flu season. Among heart attack survivors, nearly 14% more people got the vaccine compared with just 1.5% more survivors who were previously vaccinated. And it was most effective among younger adults who had experienced a recent heart attack, resulting in a 26% increase.

“The impact was larger in patients with a history of acute myocardial infarction, in those who were vaccine-hesitant, and in younger people” — all groups with the most to gain from vaccination in terms of cardiovascular protection — Bhatt reported.

About 25% of people in the United States are unsure about whether to get a flu shot, said Orly Vardeny, PharmD, professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota Medical School in Minneapolis, who was not involved in the study. The fact that previously unvaccinated people were convinced by the nudges is reassuring. “That’s the group where this intervention is most likely to move the needle,” she said.

Around half of all people hospitalized for flu in the United States have cardiovascular disease, CDC data showed, so “even a small increase in the number of patients who get vaccinated has substantial public health benefits,” Vardeny said.

The NUDGE FLU series showed that nudges like this should be employed as a simple tool to improve vaccination rates, but the system would be much more difficult to implement in the United States, Bhatt said.

Denmark has a national health service and a preexisting government electronic communication system, whereas the US system is privately run and more fractured. It would be possible to make it work, he pointed out, but would take some effort.

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

An electronic nudge explaining the cardiovascular benefits of the influenza vaccine increased vaccination rates, particularly among people who had previously had a heart attack, showed the NUDGE FLU series of clinical trials.

Influenza has the potential to be a dangerous infection on its own, but it increases the risk for cardiovascular events among people with a history of heart attack, said the study’s lead author, Ankeet Bhatt, MD, a cardiologist at Kaiser Permanente San Francisco Medical Center, San Francisco.

“Yearly influenza vaccines help prevent influenza infection and, in patients with a heart attack, are potentially cardioprotective,” he said during his presentation at the American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions 2024 in Chicago. The NUDGE FLU results were simultaneously published online in JAMA Cardiology.

In Denmark, where the trials were conducted, about 80% of older adults get flu shots, but only about 40% of younger adults with chronic diseases do, Bhatt reported. In the United States, about 45% of adults and 55% of children received at least one dose of the flu vaccine in the 2023/24 flu season, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

 

The NUDGE FLU Trials

Bhatt and his colleagues conducted three related clinical trials during the 2022/23 and 2023/24 flu seasons: NUDGE-FLU and NUDGE-FLU-2 targeted older adults, whereas NUDGE-FLU-CHRONIC targeted younger adults with chronic diseases. Nearly 2 million people were involved in the three trials.

Participants were randomized to receive one of a series of different behavioral-science-informed letters, delivered through a government-run electronic communication system, or no reminder.

People who received any of the nudges had higher rates of vaccination; among heart attack survivors, there was a 1.8% improvement and among adults without a history of heart attack, there was a 1.3% improvement. But a nudge that explained the potential cardiovascular benefits of flu shots was even more effective, leading to a 3.9% increase among people with a history of heart attack and a 2% increase among those with no heart attack history.

“A simple sentence resulted in a durable improvement in the vaccination rate,” said Bhatt.

The effect was even greater among those who had not been vaccinated in the previous flu season. Among heart attack survivors, nearly 14% more people got the vaccine compared with just 1.5% more survivors who were previously vaccinated. And it was most effective among younger adults who had experienced a recent heart attack, resulting in a 26% increase.

“The impact was larger in patients with a history of acute myocardial infarction, in those who were vaccine-hesitant, and in younger people” — all groups with the most to gain from vaccination in terms of cardiovascular protection — Bhatt reported.

About 25% of people in the United States are unsure about whether to get a flu shot, said Orly Vardeny, PharmD, professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota Medical School in Minneapolis, who was not involved in the study. The fact that previously unvaccinated people were convinced by the nudges is reassuring. “That’s the group where this intervention is most likely to move the needle,” she said.

Around half of all people hospitalized for flu in the United States have cardiovascular disease, CDC data showed, so “even a small increase in the number of patients who get vaccinated has substantial public health benefits,” Vardeny said.

The NUDGE FLU series showed that nudges like this should be employed as a simple tool to improve vaccination rates, but the system would be much more difficult to implement in the United States, Bhatt said.

Denmark has a national health service and a preexisting government electronic communication system, whereas the US system is privately run and more fractured. It would be possible to make it work, he pointed out, but would take some effort.

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

An electronic nudge explaining the cardiovascular benefits of the influenza vaccine increased vaccination rates, particularly among people who had previously had a heart attack, showed the NUDGE FLU series of clinical trials.

Influenza has the potential to be a dangerous infection on its own, but it increases the risk for cardiovascular events among people with a history of heart attack, said the study’s lead author, Ankeet Bhatt, MD, a cardiologist at Kaiser Permanente San Francisco Medical Center, San Francisco.

“Yearly influenza vaccines help prevent influenza infection and, in patients with a heart attack, are potentially cardioprotective,” he said during his presentation at the American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions 2024 in Chicago. The NUDGE FLU results were simultaneously published online in JAMA Cardiology.

In Denmark, where the trials were conducted, about 80% of older adults get flu shots, but only about 40% of younger adults with chronic diseases do, Bhatt reported. In the United States, about 45% of adults and 55% of children received at least one dose of the flu vaccine in the 2023/24 flu season, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

 

The NUDGE FLU Trials

Bhatt and his colleagues conducted three related clinical trials during the 2022/23 and 2023/24 flu seasons: NUDGE-FLU and NUDGE-FLU-2 targeted older adults, whereas NUDGE-FLU-CHRONIC targeted younger adults with chronic diseases. Nearly 2 million people were involved in the three trials.

Participants were randomized to receive one of a series of different behavioral-science-informed letters, delivered through a government-run electronic communication system, or no reminder.

People who received any of the nudges had higher rates of vaccination; among heart attack survivors, there was a 1.8% improvement and among adults without a history of heart attack, there was a 1.3% improvement. But a nudge that explained the potential cardiovascular benefits of flu shots was even more effective, leading to a 3.9% increase among people with a history of heart attack and a 2% increase among those with no heart attack history.

“A simple sentence resulted in a durable improvement in the vaccination rate,” said Bhatt.

The effect was even greater among those who had not been vaccinated in the previous flu season. Among heart attack survivors, nearly 14% more people got the vaccine compared with just 1.5% more survivors who were previously vaccinated. And it was most effective among younger adults who had experienced a recent heart attack, resulting in a 26% increase.

“The impact was larger in patients with a history of acute myocardial infarction, in those who were vaccine-hesitant, and in younger people” — all groups with the most to gain from vaccination in terms of cardiovascular protection — Bhatt reported.

About 25% of people in the United States are unsure about whether to get a flu shot, said Orly Vardeny, PharmD, professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota Medical School in Minneapolis, who was not involved in the study. The fact that previously unvaccinated people were convinced by the nudges is reassuring. “That’s the group where this intervention is most likely to move the needle,” she said.

Around half of all people hospitalized for flu in the United States have cardiovascular disease, CDC data showed, so “even a small increase in the number of patients who get vaccinated has substantial public health benefits,” Vardeny said.

The NUDGE FLU series showed that nudges like this should be employed as a simple tool to improve vaccination rates, but the system would be much more difficult to implement in the United States, Bhatt said.

Denmark has a national health service and a preexisting government electronic communication system, whereas the US system is privately run and more fractured. It would be possible to make it work, he pointed out, but would take some effort.

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

Vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) offer important protection against severe illness for pregnant people and their babies.¹ However, vaccination coverage estimates among pregnant people remain suboptimal.^2-5 Additionally, some measures indicate that vaccine hesitancy among pregnant people is increasing; for example, 17.5% of surveyed pregnant women reported being very hesitant about influenza vaccination during pregnancy in 2019-2020, compared with 24.7% in 2022-2023.⁶As fall and winter virus season continues, consider opportunities for you and your staff to help communicate the importance of prenatal vaccination to pregnant patients in your care. Explore updated provider toolkits and prenatal vaccination patient education resources, including fact sheets, social media assets, posters, and short videos on respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), Tdap, COVID-19, influenza, and hepatitis B.

In an interview, CDC’s Haben Debessai, MD, an adjunct instructor in obstetrics and gynecology at Emory School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, contextualizes the data to help healthcare professionals communicate effectively with their pregnant patients. 

 

What can practitioners communicate to patients about why it is important to get vaccinated during their pregnancy?

When communicating with their patients, practitioners can consider opportunities to discuss how vaccines work during pregnancy, emphasizing that prenatal vaccinations are beneficial for both the pregnant person and the fetus. It can be helpful to educate patients on how a pregnant person’s immune system can develop antibodies that will then pass to the fetus during the pregnancy and confer protection during the infant’s early months of life — when they are highly susceptible to illnesses that can be severe, such as RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infections. It can also be useful to discuss pregnancy’s impact on the immune system, which contributes to pregnant people being at higher risk for severe illness from infections like COVID-19 and flu, if contracted. The outcomes of severe illness can be dire for both the pregnant person and their pregnancy, which is why vaccination is the best mitigation option. It can also be beneficial to share with patients that some vaccines, like RSV and Tdap, are specifically for neonatal benefit, which could help patients understand why some vaccines are recommended at a specific gestational age and in each pregnancy or subsequent pregnancies. 

What is known about pregnant populations that experience disparities in vaccination coverage? 

While vaccination coverage among pregnant people is suboptimal, coverage estimates are often lowest among Black pregnant people, some of whom report experiencing mistreatment and discrimination during pregnancy and delivery.⁷ It is important to recognize that there are many intersecting factors that may impact vaccination coverage. Systemic and structural factors may prohibit some patient populations from accessing vaccinations (eg, transportation barriers, difficulty accessing adequate healthcare for those on government assistance, language barriers). To be responsive to the intersectional lived realities of each of these communities, the medical and public health community continually strives to increase trustworthiness, which can lead to increased uptake of vaccinations in these populations. 

What vaccines are available and recommended for pregnant people?

Four vaccines are routinely recommended during pregnancy: Tdap, COVID-19, influenza (seasonal), and RSV (seasonal). CDC recommends getting a Tdap vaccine between the 27th and 36th week of each pregnancy, preferably during the earlier part of this time period. CDC recommends that everyone 6 months or older in the United States, including pregnant people, stay up to date on COVID-19 vaccines. A COVID-19 vaccine can be given during any trimester of pregnancy. CDC recommends an annual flu vaccine during each flu season (fall/winter) for everyone 6 months or older in the United States, including pregnant people. A flu vaccine can be given during any trimester of pregnancy. For individuals who will be between 32 and 36 weeks pregnant during September through January, CDC recommends getting an RSV vaccine. RSV season and timing of vaccination may vary depending on geography. If a pregnant patient does not get the RSV vaccine during their pregnancy, CDC recommends that their baby receive an RSV monoclonal antibody (nirsevimab) to provide additional protection during the infant’s first RSV season, if they are younger than 8 months. At this time, pregnant people who received an RSV vaccine during a previous pregnancy (last year) are not recommended to receive another RSV vaccine during pregnancy. The current recommendation is for babies born during subsequent pregnancies to receive nirsevimab. Some pregnant people may also need other vaccines, such as hepatitis B. 

How can practitioners approach conversations about vaccination during pregnancy amid increasing vaccine hesitancy?

Many pregnant people who do get vaccinated describe their provider’s recommendation as an important motivator toward vaccination.^8-11 Communications research suggests that practitioners can further increase trustworthiness by openly discussing potential side effects of prenatal vaccinations and providing patients with a rationale for why each vaccine is recommended. Practitioners can also utilize opportunities to communicate that the risk for severe illness from whooping cough, COVID-19, flu, and RSV in pregnancy and among neonates in the first few months of life is often higher than the risk for an adverse reaction from receiving ACIP-recommended vaccines. Finally, practitioners can consider sharing tested and refined patient education resources at least one appointment prior to the recommended administration of each vaccine, providing individuals with time to process the information they need to facilitate their vaccine decision-making process.

Some patients may be more comfortable with older, well-known prenatal vaccinations but have skepticism about newer vaccines like COVID-19 and RSV. How can practitioners respond to these concerns?

As pregnant people navigate the challenges of making health decisions that could impact their developing baby, practitioners can build trust through empathetically responding to safety concerns and questions, particularly with respect to newly authorized vaccines. Vaccine confidence may be strengthened by communicating to patients that all recommended vaccinations, including those that have been newly authorized, have been rigorously tested prior to being recommended for pregnant people. Additionally, in my clinical practice, I see that patients are often more comfortable accepting vaccines when the benefit for the baby is clearly communicated. I have been pleasantly surprised that most patients I have counseled on the new maternal RSV vaccine have been receptive, making statements like, “If this will help protect my baby from getting sick, then yes, I will get it.”

As you and your staff care for pregnant patients during fall and winter virus season, remember that a provider recommendation remains one of the strongest known predictors of vaccination uptake.¹² As a trusted source of information about prenatal vaccination, consider further incorporating patient education resources to help communicate how prenatal vaccination helps pregnant people share important protection against severe illnesses with their babies. 

Haben Debessai, MD, is a Gilstrap Fellow at the CDC Foundation. Debessai also serves as an Emory Obstetrics/Gynecology Adjunct Instructor at Grady Health System in Atlanta, Georgia. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

References

1. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 741: Maternal Immunization. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131:e214-e217. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000002662

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Flu, Tdap, and COVID-19 vaccination coverage among pregnant women – United States, April 2024. 2024 Sep 23. 3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Respiratory syncytial virus (rsv) vaccination coverage, pregnant persons. 2024 Nov 19. 4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. COVID-19 vaccination coverage, pregnant persons. 2024 Nov 19. 5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Influenza vaccination coverage, pregnant persons. 2024 Nov 19.6. Razzaghi H et al. IMMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:1065-1071. Published 2023 Sep 29. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7239a4

7. Mohamoud YA et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2023;72:961-967. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7235e1.

8. Kiefer MK et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2022;4:100603. doi: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2022.100603

9. Spires B et al. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2023;50:401-419. doi: 10.1016/j.ogc.2023.02.013

10. Wales DP et al. Public Health. 2020;179:38-44. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2019.10.001

11. Zimmerman M et al. J Natl Med Assoc. 2023;115:362-376. doi:10.1016/j.jnma.2023.04.003

12. Castillo E et al. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2021;76:83-95. doi:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2021.03.008

Vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) offer important protection against severe illness for pregnant people and their babies.¹ However, vaccination coverage estimates among pregnant people remain suboptimal.^2-5 Additionally, some measures indicate that vaccine hesitancy among pregnant people is increasing; for example, 17.5% of surveyed pregnant women reported being very hesitant about influenza vaccination during pregnancy in 2019-2020, compared with 24.7% in 2022-2023.⁶As fall and winter virus season continues, consider opportunities for you and your staff to help communicate the importance of prenatal vaccination to pregnant patients in your care. Explore updated provider toolkits and prenatal vaccination patient education resources, including fact sheets, social media assets, posters, and short videos on respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), Tdap, COVID-19, influenza, and hepatitis B.

In an interview, CDC’s Haben Debessai, MD, an adjunct instructor in obstetrics and gynecology at Emory School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, contextualizes the data to help healthcare professionals communicate effectively with their pregnant patients. 

 

What can practitioners communicate to patients about why it is important to get vaccinated during their pregnancy?

When communicating with their patients, practitioners can consider opportunities to discuss how vaccines work during pregnancy, emphasizing that prenatal vaccinations are beneficial for both the pregnant person and the fetus. It can be helpful to educate patients on how a pregnant person’s immune system can develop antibodies that will then pass to the fetus during the pregnancy and confer protection during the infant’s early months of life — when they are highly susceptible to illnesses that can be severe, such as RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infections. It can also be useful to discuss pregnancy’s impact on the immune system, which contributes to pregnant people being at higher risk for severe illness from infections like COVID-19 and flu, if contracted. The outcomes of severe illness can be dire for both the pregnant person and their pregnancy, which is why vaccination is the best mitigation option. It can also be beneficial to share with patients that some vaccines, like RSV and Tdap, are specifically for neonatal benefit, which could help patients understand why some vaccines are recommended at a specific gestational age and in each pregnancy or subsequent pregnancies. 

What is known about pregnant populations that experience disparities in vaccination coverage? 

While vaccination coverage among pregnant people is suboptimal, coverage estimates are often lowest among Black pregnant people, some of whom report experiencing mistreatment and discrimination during pregnancy and delivery.⁷ It is important to recognize that there are many intersecting factors that may impact vaccination coverage. Systemic and structural factors may prohibit some patient populations from accessing vaccinations (eg, transportation barriers, difficulty accessing adequate healthcare for those on government assistance, language barriers). To be responsive to the intersectional lived realities of each of these communities, the medical and public health community continually strives to increase trustworthiness, which can lead to increased uptake of vaccinations in these populations. 

What vaccines are available and recommended for pregnant people?

Four vaccines are routinely recommended during pregnancy: Tdap, COVID-19, influenza (seasonal), and RSV (seasonal). CDC recommends getting a Tdap vaccine between the 27th and 36th week of each pregnancy, preferably during the earlier part of this time period. CDC recommends that everyone 6 months or older in the United States, including pregnant people, stay up to date on COVID-19 vaccines. A COVID-19 vaccine can be given during any trimester of pregnancy. CDC recommends an annual flu vaccine during each flu season (fall/winter) for everyone 6 months or older in the United States, including pregnant people. A flu vaccine can be given during any trimester of pregnancy. For individuals who will be between 32 and 36 weeks pregnant during September through January, CDC recommends getting an RSV vaccine. RSV season and timing of vaccination may vary depending on geography. If a pregnant patient does not get the RSV vaccine during their pregnancy, CDC recommends that their baby receive an RSV monoclonal antibody (nirsevimab) to provide additional protection during the infant’s first RSV season, if they are younger than 8 months. At this time, pregnant people who received an RSV vaccine during a previous pregnancy (last year) are not recommended to receive another RSV vaccine during pregnancy. The current recommendation is for babies born during subsequent pregnancies to receive nirsevimab. Some pregnant people may also need other vaccines, such as hepatitis B. 

How can practitioners approach conversations about vaccination during pregnancy amid increasing vaccine hesitancy?

Many pregnant people who do get vaccinated describe their provider’s recommendation as an important motivator toward vaccination.^8-11 Communications research suggests that practitioners can further increase trustworthiness by openly discussing potential side effects of prenatal vaccinations and providing patients with a rationale for why each vaccine is recommended. Practitioners can also utilize opportunities to communicate that the risk for severe illness from whooping cough, COVID-19, flu, and RSV in pregnancy and among neonates in the first few months of life is often higher than the risk for an adverse reaction from receiving ACIP-recommended vaccines. Finally, practitioners can consider sharing tested and refined patient education resources at least one appointment prior to the recommended administration of each vaccine, providing individuals with time to process the information they need to facilitate their vaccine decision-making process.

Some patients may be more comfortable with older, well-known prenatal vaccinations but have skepticism about newer vaccines like COVID-19 and RSV. How can practitioners respond to these concerns?

As pregnant people navigate the challenges of making health decisions that could impact their developing baby, practitioners can build trust through empathetically responding to safety concerns and questions, particularly with respect to newly authorized vaccines. Vaccine confidence may be strengthened by communicating to patients that all recommended vaccinations, including those that have been newly authorized, have been rigorously tested prior to being recommended for pregnant people. Additionally, in my clinical practice, I see that patients are often more comfortable accepting vaccines when the benefit for the baby is clearly communicated. I have been pleasantly surprised that most patients I have counseled on the new maternal RSV vaccine have been receptive, making statements like, “If this will help protect my baby from getting sick, then yes, I will get it.”

As you and your staff care for pregnant patients during fall and winter virus season, remember that a provider recommendation remains one of the strongest known predictors of vaccination uptake.¹² As a trusted source of information about prenatal vaccination, consider further incorporating patient education resources to help communicate how prenatal vaccination helps pregnant people share important protection against severe illnesses with their babies. 

Haben Debessai, MD, is a Gilstrap Fellow at the CDC Foundation. Debessai also serves as an Emory Obstetrics/Gynecology Adjunct Instructor at Grady Health System in Atlanta, Georgia. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

References

1. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 741: Maternal Immunization. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131:e214-e217. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000002662

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Flu, Tdap, and COVID-19 vaccination coverage among pregnant women – United States, April 2024. 2024 Sep 23. 3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Respiratory syncytial virus (rsv) vaccination coverage, pregnant persons. 2024 Nov 19. 4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. COVID-19 vaccination coverage, pregnant persons. 2024 Nov 19. 5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Influenza vaccination coverage, pregnant persons. 2024 Nov 19.6. Razzaghi H et al. IMMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:1065-1071. Published 2023 Sep 29. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7239a4

7. Mohamoud YA et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2023;72:961-967. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7235e1.

8. Kiefer MK et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2022;4:100603. doi: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2022.100603

9. Spires B et al. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2023;50:401-419. doi: 10.1016/j.ogc.2023.02.013

10. Wales DP et al. Public Health. 2020;179:38-44. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2019.10.001

11. Zimmerman M et al. J Natl Med Assoc. 2023;115:362-376. doi:10.1016/j.jnma.2023.04.003

12. Castillo E et al. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2021;76:83-95. doi:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2021.03.008

Vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) offer important protection against severe illness for pregnant people and their babies.¹ However, vaccination coverage estimates among pregnant people remain suboptimal.^2-5 Additionally, some measures indicate that vaccine hesitancy among pregnant people is increasing; for example, 17.5% of surveyed pregnant women reported being very hesitant about influenza vaccination during pregnancy in 2019-2020, compared with 24.7% in 2022-2023.⁶As fall and winter virus season continues, consider opportunities for you and your staff to help communicate the importance of prenatal vaccination to pregnant patients in your care. Explore updated provider toolkits and prenatal vaccination patient education resources, including fact sheets, social media assets, posters, and short videos on respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), Tdap, COVID-19, influenza, and hepatitis B.

In an interview, CDC’s Haben Debessai, MD, an adjunct instructor in obstetrics and gynecology at Emory School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, contextualizes the data to help healthcare professionals communicate effectively with their pregnant patients. 

 

What can practitioners communicate to patients about why it is important to get vaccinated during their pregnancy?

When communicating with their patients, practitioners can consider opportunities to discuss how vaccines work during pregnancy, emphasizing that prenatal vaccinations are beneficial for both the pregnant person and the fetus. It can be helpful to educate patients on how a pregnant person’s immune system can develop antibodies that will then pass to the fetus during the pregnancy and confer protection during the infant’s early months of life — when they are highly susceptible to illnesses that can be severe, such as RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infections. It can also be useful to discuss pregnancy’s impact on the immune system, which contributes to pregnant people being at higher risk for severe illness from infections like COVID-19 and flu, if contracted. The outcomes of severe illness can be dire for both the pregnant person and their pregnancy, which is why vaccination is the best mitigation option. It can also be beneficial to share with patients that some vaccines, like RSV and Tdap, are specifically for neonatal benefit, which could help patients understand why some vaccines are recommended at a specific gestational age and in each pregnancy or subsequent pregnancies. 

What is known about pregnant populations that experience disparities in vaccination coverage? 

While vaccination coverage among pregnant people is suboptimal, coverage estimates are often lowest among Black pregnant people, some of whom report experiencing mistreatment and discrimination during pregnancy and delivery.⁷ It is important to recognize that there are many intersecting factors that may impact vaccination coverage. Systemic and structural factors may prohibit some patient populations from accessing vaccinations (eg, transportation barriers, difficulty accessing adequate healthcare for those on government assistance, language barriers). To be responsive to the intersectional lived realities of each of these communities, the medical and public health community continually strives to increase trustworthiness, which can lead to increased uptake of vaccinations in these populations. 

What vaccines are available and recommended for pregnant people?

Four vaccines are routinely recommended during pregnancy: Tdap, COVID-19, influenza (seasonal), and RSV (seasonal). CDC recommends getting a Tdap vaccine between the 27th and 36th week of each pregnancy, preferably during the earlier part of this time period. CDC recommends that everyone 6 months or older in the United States, including pregnant people, stay up to date on COVID-19 vaccines. A COVID-19 vaccine can be given during any trimester of pregnancy. CDC recommends an annual flu vaccine during each flu season (fall/winter) for everyone 6 months or older in the United States, including pregnant people. A flu vaccine can be given during any trimester of pregnancy. For individuals who will be between 32 and 36 weeks pregnant during September through January, CDC recommends getting an RSV vaccine. RSV season and timing of vaccination may vary depending on geography. If a pregnant patient does not get the RSV vaccine during their pregnancy, CDC recommends that their baby receive an RSV monoclonal antibody (nirsevimab) to provide additional protection during the infant’s first RSV season, if they are younger than 8 months. At this time, pregnant people who received an RSV vaccine during a previous pregnancy (last year) are not recommended to receive another RSV vaccine during pregnancy. The current recommendation is for babies born during subsequent pregnancies to receive nirsevimab. Some pregnant people may also need other vaccines, such as hepatitis B. 

How can practitioners approach conversations about vaccination during pregnancy amid increasing vaccine hesitancy?

Many pregnant people who do get vaccinated describe their provider’s recommendation as an important motivator toward vaccination.^8-11 Communications research suggests that practitioners can further increase trustworthiness by openly discussing potential side effects of prenatal vaccinations and providing patients with a rationale for why each vaccine is recommended. Practitioners can also utilize opportunities to communicate that the risk for severe illness from whooping cough, COVID-19, flu, and RSV in pregnancy and among neonates in the first few months of life is often higher than the risk for an adverse reaction from receiving ACIP-recommended vaccines. Finally, practitioners can consider sharing tested and refined patient education resources at least one appointment prior to the recommended administration of each vaccine, providing individuals with time to process the information they need to facilitate their vaccine decision-making process.

Some patients may be more comfortable with older, well-known prenatal vaccinations but have skepticism about newer vaccines like COVID-19 and RSV. How can practitioners respond to these concerns?

As pregnant people navigate the challenges of making health decisions that could impact their developing baby, practitioners can build trust through empathetically responding to safety concerns and questions, particularly with respect to newly authorized vaccines. Vaccine confidence may be strengthened by communicating to patients that all recommended vaccinations, including those that have been newly authorized, have been rigorously tested prior to being recommended for pregnant people. Additionally, in my clinical practice, I see that patients are often more comfortable accepting vaccines when the benefit for the baby is clearly communicated. I have been pleasantly surprised that most patients I have counseled on the new maternal RSV vaccine have been receptive, making statements like, “If this will help protect my baby from getting sick, then yes, I will get it.”

As you and your staff care for pregnant patients during fall and winter virus season, remember that a provider recommendation remains one of the strongest known predictors of vaccination uptake.¹² As a trusted source of information about prenatal vaccination, consider further incorporating patient education resources to help communicate how prenatal vaccination helps pregnant people share important protection against severe illnesses with their babies. 

Haben Debessai, MD, is a Gilstrap Fellow at the CDC Foundation. Debessai also serves as an Emory Obstetrics/Gynecology Adjunct Instructor at Grady Health System in Atlanta, Georgia. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

References

1. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 741: Maternal Immunization. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131:e214-e217. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000002662

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Flu, Tdap, and COVID-19 vaccination coverage among pregnant women – United States, April 2024. 2024 Sep 23. 3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Respiratory syncytial virus (rsv) vaccination coverage, pregnant persons. 2024 Nov 19. 4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. COVID-19 vaccination coverage, pregnant persons. 2024 Nov 19. 5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Influenza vaccination coverage, pregnant persons. 2024 Nov 19.6. Razzaghi H et al. IMMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:1065-1071. Published 2023 Sep 29. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7239a4

7. Mohamoud YA et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2023;72:961-967. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7235e1.

8. Kiefer MK et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2022;4:100603. doi: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2022.100603

9. Spires B et al. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2023;50:401-419. doi: 10.1016/j.ogc.2023.02.013

10. Wales DP et al. Public Health. 2020;179:38-44. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2019.10.001

11. Zimmerman M et al. J Natl Med Assoc. 2023;115:362-376. doi:10.1016/j.jnma.2023.04.003

12. Castillo E et al. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2021;76:83-95. doi:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2021.03.008

TOPLINE:

In patients with stage II or III colorectal cancer (CRC), frequent follow-up testing with CT scans and serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) screening provides no significant overall or cancer-specific survival benefits at 10 years, according to findings from a secondary analysis.

METHODOLOGY:

• After curative surgery for CRC, intensive patient follow-up is common in clinical practice. However, there’s limited evidence to suggest that more frequent testing provides a long-term survival benefit.
• In the COLOFOL trial, patients with stage II or III CRC who had undergone curative resection were randomly assigned to either high-frequency follow-up (CT scans and CEA screening at 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months) or low-frequency follow-up (testing at 12 and 36 months) after surgery.
• This secondary analysis of the COLOFOL trial included 2456 patients (median age, 65 years), 1227 of whom received high-frequency follow-up and 1229 of whom received low-frequency follow-up.
• The main outcome of the secondary analysis was 10-year overall mortality and CRC–specific mortality rates.
• The analysis included both intention-to-treat and per-protocol approaches, with outcomes measured through December 2020.

TAKEAWAY:

• In the intention-to-treat analysis, the 10-year overall mortality rates were similar between the high- and low-frequency follow-up groups — 27.1% and 28.4%, respectively (risk difference, 1.3%; P = .46).
• A per-protocol analysis confirmed these findings: The 10-year overall mortality risk was 26.4% in the high-frequency group and 27.8% in the low-frequency group.
• The 10-year CRC–specific mortality rate was also similar between the high-frequency and low-frequency groups — 15.6% and 16.0%, respectively — (risk difference, 0.4%; P = .72). The same pattern was seen in the per-protocol analysis, which found a 10-year CRC–specific mortality risk of 15.6% in the high-frequency group and 15.9% in the low-frequency group.
• Subgroup analyses by cancer stage and location (rectal and colon) also revealed no significant differences in mortality outcomes between the two follow-up groups.

IN PRACTICE:

“This secondary analysis of the COLOFOL randomized clinical trial found that, among patients with stage II or III colorectal cancer, more frequent follow-up testing with CT scan and CEA screening, compared with less frequent follow-up, did not result in a significant rate reduction in 10-year overall mortality or colorectal cancer-specific mortality,” the authors concluded. “The results of this trial should be considered as the evidence base for updating clinical guidelines.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Henrik Toft Sørensen, MD, PhD, DMSc, DSc, Aarhus University Hospital and Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The staff turnover at recruitment centers potentially affected protocol adherence. The inability to blind patients and physicians to the follow-up frequency was another limitation. The low-frequency follow-up protocol was less intensive than that recommended in the current guidelines by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the American Society of Clinical Oncology, potentially limiting comparisons to current standard practices.

DISCLOSURES:

The initial trial received unrestricted grants from multiple organizations including the Nordic Cancer Union, A.P. Møller Foundation, Beckett Foundation, Danish Cancer Society, and Swedish Cancer Foundation project. The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In patients with stage II or III colorectal cancer (CRC), frequent follow-up testing with CT scans and serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) screening provides no significant overall or cancer-specific survival benefits at 10 years, according to findings from a secondary analysis.

METHODOLOGY:

• After curative surgery for CRC, intensive patient follow-up is common in clinical practice. However, there’s limited evidence to suggest that more frequent testing provides a long-term survival benefit.
• In the COLOFOL trial, patients with stage II or III CRC who had undergone curative resection were randomly assigned to either high-frequency follow-up (CT scans and CEA screening at 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months) or low-frequency follow-up (testing at 12 and 36 months) after surgery.
• This secondary analysis of the COLOFOL trial included 2456 patients (median age, 65 years), 1227 of whom received high-frequency follow-up and 1229 of whom received low-frequency follow-up.
• The main outcome of the secondary analysis was 10-year overall mortality and CRC–specific mortality rates.
• The analysis included both intention-to-treat and per-protocol approaches, with outcomes measured through December 2020.

TAKEAWAY:

• In the intention-to-treat analysis, the 10-year overall mortality rates were similar between the high- and low-frequency follow-up groups — 27.1% and 28.4%, respectively (risk difference, 1.3%; P = .46).
• A per-protocol analysis confirmed these findings: The 10-year overall mortality risk was 26.4% in the high-frequency group and 27.8% in the low-frequency group.
• The 10-year CRC–specific mortality rate was also similar between the high-frequency and low-frequency groups — 15.6% and 16.0%, respectively — (risk difference, 0.4%; P = .72). The same pattern was seen in the per-protocol analysis, which found a 10-year CRC–specific mortality risk of 15.6% in the high-frequency group and 15.9% in the low-frequency group.
• Subgroup analyses by cancer stage and location (rectal and colon) also revealed no significant differences in mortality outcomes between the two follow-up groups.

IN PRACTICE:

“This secondary analysis of the COLOFOL randomized clinical trial found that, among patients with stage II or III colorectal cancer, more frequent follow-up testing with CT scan and CEA screening, compared with less frequent follow-up, did not result in a significant rate reduction in 10-year overall mortality or colorectal cancer-specific mortality,” the authors concluded. “The results of this trial should be considered as the evidence base for updating clinical guidelines.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Henrik Toft Sørensen, MD, PhD, DMSc, DSc, Aarhus University Hospital and Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The staff turnover at recruitment centers potentially affected protocol adherence. The inability to blind patients and physicians to the follow-up frequency was another limitation. The low-frequency follow-up protocol was less intensive than that recommended in the current guidelines by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the American Society of Clinical Oncology, potentially limiting comparisons to current standard practices.

DISCLOSURES:

The initial trial received unrestricted grants from multiple organizations including the Nordic Cancer Union, A.P. Møller Foundation, Beckett Foundation, Danish Cancer Society, and Swedish Cancer Foundation project. The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In patients with stage II or III colorectal cancer (CRC), frequent follow-up testing with CT scans and serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) screening provides no significant overall or cancer-specific survival benefits at 10 years, according to findings from a secondary analysis.

METHODOLOGY:

• After curative surgery for CRC, intensive patient follow-up is common in clinical practice. However, there’s limited evidence to suggest that more frequent testing provides a long-term survival benefit.
• In the COLOFOL trial, patients with stage II or III CRC who had undergone curative resection were randomly assigned to either high-frequency follow-up (CT scans and CEA screening at 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months) or low-frequency follow-up (testing at 12 and 36 months) after surgery.
• This secondary analysis of the COLOFOL trial included 2456 patients (median age, 65 years), 1227 of whom received high-frequency follow-up and 1229 of whom received low-frequency follow-up.
• The main outcome of the secondary analysis was 10-year overall mortality and CRC–specific mortality rates.
• The analysis included both intention-to-treat and per-protocol approaches, with outcomes measured through December 2020.

TAKEAWAY:

• In the intention-to-treat analysis, the 10-year overall mortality rates were similar between the high- and low-frequency follow-up groups — 27.1% and 28.4%, respectively (risk difference, 1.3%; P = .46).
• A per-protocol analysis confirmed these findings: The 10-year overall mortality risk was 26.4% in the high-frequency group and 27.8% in the low-frequency group.
• The 10-year CRC–specific mortality rate was also similar between the high-frequency and low-frequency groups — 15.6% and 16.0%, respectively — (risk difference, 0.4%; P = .72). The same pattern was seen in the per-protocol analysis, which found a 10-year CRC–specific mortality risk of 15.6% in the high-frequency group and 15.9% in the low-frequency group.
• Subgroup analyses by cancer stage and location (rectal and colon) also revealed no significant differences in mortality outcomes between the two follow-up groups.

IN PRACTICE:

“This secondary analysis of the COLOFOL randomized clinical trial found that, among patients with stage II or III colorectal cancer, more frequent follow-up testing with CT scan and CEA screening, compared with less frequent follow-up, did not result in a significant rate reduction in 10-year overall mortality or colorectal cancer-specific mortality,” the authors concluded. “The results of this trial should be considered as the evidence base for updating clinical guidelines.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Henrik Toft Sørensen, MD, PhD, DMSc, DSc, Aarhus University Hospital and Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The staff turnover at recruitment centers potentially affected protocol adherence. The inability to blind patients and physicians to the follow-up frequency was another limitation. The low-frequency follow-up protocol was less intensive than that recommended in the current guidelines by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the American Society of Clinical Oncology, potentially limiting comparisons to current standard practices.

DISCLOSURES:

The initial trial received unrestricted grants from multiple organizations including the Nordic Cancer Union, A.P. Møller Foundation, Beckett Foundation, Danish Cancer Society, and Swedish Cancer Foundation project. The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Matthew F. Watto, MD: I’m Dr Matthew Frank Watto, here with my great friend and America’s primary care physician, Dr Paul Nelson Williams. 

We had a great discussion with Kidney Boy, Dr Joel Topf, everyone’s favorite nephrologist, and he taught us how to manage blood pressure in chronic kidney disease (CKD).

When should I start freaking out about a patient’s kidney function? 

Paul N. Williams, MD: Dr Topf focuses more on albuminuria than we are used to doing. It’s probably one of the most important prognostic indicators of how a patient is going to do from a renal standpoint.

Historically, I’ve tended to focus on the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and the lower that number gets, the more I sweat, but albuminuria is probably equally, if not more, important as a way of prognosticating whether a patient is going to progress to dialysis or transplant. He directed us towards this nifty little calculator, kidneyfailurerisk.com, where you plug in the patient’s age, eGFR, and degree of albuminuria, and it spits out their risk of progressing to hemodialysis or renal transplantation over the next 5 years. It’s a nice way to concretely explain to patients their risk for progression.

Instead of telling the patient, “You are high risk,” Dr Topf will say, “Your risk is 6% of needing dialysis in the next 5 years.” You can even use these thresholds to gauge when to refer a patient. If someone has a 5-year risk between 3% and 5% or higher, that patient should probably be seeing a nephrologist.

If their 2-year risk is greater than 20%, that patient probably should be evaluated for transplantation. This gives us have more concrete numbers to work with rather than just saying, “Your kidneys aren’t working as well as we would like and you should see a kidney doctor.” Patients have a better sense of how serious things might be. 

Watto: It’s just easier for them to understand. Dr Topf made the point that we used to have a heat map based on the stage of CKD that would tell you how high a patient’s risk was compared with other people. But patients don’t really understand relative risk, so Dr Topf tells them their absolute risk for ending up on dialysis over the next 2-5 years. 

Patients come in and they are worried because they looked at their lab results and see that their creatinine level is red, or their eGFR is low. They think, It says I have stage 3a CKD. 

We should probably have the stages of CKD start at stage 3, which should be called stage 1 so it doesn’t sound as bad. Patients think they are halfway to dialysis; they are already at stage 3 and didn’t even know their kidneys were a problem. 

Dr Topf said that cystatin C (something I only recently started ordering) can be obtained, and sometimes you can recategorize the patient, especially those with an eGFR between 45 and 60. The cystatin C can predict their renal function better than the creatinine-based equations. If you are using the creatinine equation, he recommends using the 2021 equations.

Another nice thing about cystatin C is that it isn’t tripped up in younger patients with a lot of muscle mass. You just have to watch out for inflammation, which can throw the test off. For example, when a patient is in the intensive care unit, it’s probably not that helpful, but for your outpatients, cystatin C works well. 

Williams: I’ve been using it a fair amount in my patients with more muscle mass. And some patients have been taking creatine as a supplement, and that can alter the numbers as well. This is a nice way to get them out of CKD stage 2 or 3 and back where they belong, with normal healthy functioning kidneys.

Watto: Now, Paul, if we find a patient with more advanced CKD — let’s say stage 4, whether by cystatin C or serum creatinine, and their eGFR is less than 30 — should we start peeling off the angiotensin-converting enzyme ACE inhibitor or the angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB)? Those drugs can raise potassium. What should we do here? 

Williams: That’s the temptation, Matt, and I feel like that was the old orthodoxy, back in residency. It didn’t take much for us to start taking off ACE inhibitors or ARBs once the kidney function started to drop, but it turns out you may be doing more harm than good.

Some data have shown that if you peel off those medications, you actually increase mortality and cardiovascular risk. So, in general, if you can keep them going, the patient will be better off. Hang onto the ACE inhibitors or ARBs as long as you are able to, because they confer a fair amount of benefit.

Watto: As long as the potassium isn’t in red on your lab’s range. It might go up to 5.2 or 5.4, but as long as it’s stable, that should be OK. You probably wouldn’t initiate an ACE inhibitor or ARB or spironolactone with a potassium level above 5, but if it’s below 5 when you start and it goes up slightly after you start the drug, that could be acceptable. 

Another thing we talked about was when a patient progresses to CKD and ends up on dialysis, how helpful are those intradialysis blood pressures in predicting cardiovascular outcomes? 

Williams: For someone who’s performing the dialysis, probably really helpful. In the outpatient setting to predict cardiovascular risk, probably less so. Dr Topf makes the point that the readings are done either shortly after or right when the patient is about to have a large-bore catheter inserted into their arm. And then they have liters of fluid drained out of them. So those numbers are going to have huge amounts of variability. You would not base the patient’s blood pressure treatment solely on those numbers. But regardless of what the numbers are, or even regardless of your office numbers, hopefully you’re working with a nephrologist to make sure that you’re actually in concert and not fighting each other with the blood pressure medications.

Watto: Dr Topf said that a lot of the hypertension in dialysis is because of too much volume. If you can get the volume down, you might be able to peel off blood pressure medications instead of adding more. But some patients have issues with cramping; it’s uncomfortable and not everyone tolerates it. 

I was really surprised to learn that beta blockers, specifically atenolol, have some evidence of improving cardiovascular outcomes in patients on dialysis. Dr Topf speculated that this was because they are largely dying of cardiovascular disease, so maybe that’s why, but that’s one of the places, the only places I can think of aside from thyroid disease, where atenolol really shines. 

If you want to hear this fantastic episode and all the great pearls, then click on this link. 

Matthew F. Watto, MD, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at University of Pennsylvania; Internist, Department of Medicine, Hospital Medicine Section, Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Paul N. Williams, MD, has disclosed ties with The Curbsiders.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Matthew F. Watto, MD: I’m Dr Matthew Frank Watto, here with my great friend and America’s primary care physician, Dr Paul Nelson Williams. 

We had a great discussion with Kidney Boy, Dr Joel Topf, everyone’s favorite nephrologist, and he taught us how to manage blood pressure in chronic kidney disease (CKD).

When should I start freaking out about a patient’s kidney function? 

Paul N. Williams, MD: Dr Topf focuses more on albuminuria than we are used to doing. It’s probably one of the most important prognostic indicators of how a patient is going to do from a renal standpoint.

Historically, I’ve tended to focus on the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and the lower that number gets, the more I sweat, but albuminuria is probably equally, if not more, important as a way of prognosticating whether a patient is going to progress to dialysis or transplant. He directed us towards this nifty little calculator, kidneyfailurerisk.com, where you plug in the patient’s age, eGFR, and degree of albuminuria, and it spits out their risk of progressing to hemodialysis or renal transplantation over the next 5 years. It’s a nice way to concretely explain to patients their risk for progression.

Instead of telling the patient, “You are high risk,” Dr Topf will say, “Your risk is 6% of needing dialysis in the next 5 years.” You can even use these thresholds to gauge when to refer a patient. If someone has a 5-year risk between 3% and 5% or higher, that patient should probably be seeing a nephrologist.

If their 2-year risk is greater than 20%, that patient probably should be evaluated for transplantation. This gives us have more concrete numbers to work with rather than just saying, “Your kidneys aren’t working as well as we would like and you should see a kidney doctor.” Patients have a better sense of how serious things might be. 

Watto: It’s just easier for them to understand. Dr Topf made the point that we used to have a heat map based on the stage of CKD that would tell you how high a patient’s risk was compared with other people. But patients don’t really understand relative risk, so Dr Topf tells them their absolute risk for ending up on dialysis over the next 2-5 years. 

Patients come in and they are worried because they looked at their lab results and see that their creatinine level is red, or their eGFR is low. They think, It says I have stage 3a CKD. 

We should probably have the stages of CKD start at stage 3, which should be called stage 1 so it doesn’t sound as bad. Patients think they are halfway to dialysis; they are already at stage 3 and didn’t even know their kidneys were a problem. 

Dr Topf said that cystatin C (something I only recently started ordering) can be obtained, and sometimes you can recategorize the patient, especially those with an eGFR between 45 and 60. The cystatin C can predict their renal function better than the creatinine-based equations. If you are using the creatinine equation, he recommends using the 2021 equations.

Another nice thing about cystatin C is that it isn’t tripped up in younger patients with a lot of muscle mass. You just have to watch out for inflammation, which can throw the test off. For example, when a patient is in the intensive care unit, it’s probably not that helpful, but for your outpatients, cystatin C works well. 

Williams: I’ve been using it a fair amount in my patients with more muscle mass. And some patients have been taking creatine as a supplement, and that can alter the numbers as well. This is a nice way to get them out of CKD stage 2 or 3 and back where they belong, with normal healthy functioning kidneys.

Watto: Now, Paul, if we find a patient with more advanced CKD — let’s say stage 4, whether by cystatin C or serum creatinine, and their eGFR is less than 30 — should we start peeling off the angiotensin-converting enzyme ACE inhibitor or the angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB)? Those drugs can raise potassium. What should we do here? 

Williams: That’s the temptation, Matt, and I feel like that was the old orthodoxy, back in residency. It didn’t take much for us to start taking off ACE inhibitors or ARBs once the kidney function started to drop, but it turns out you may be doing more harm than good.

Some data have shown that if you peel off those medications, you actually increase mortality and cardiovascular risk. So, in general, if you can keep them going, the patient will be better off. Hang onto the ACE inhibitors or ARBs as long as you are able to, because they confer a fair amount of benefit.

Watto: As long as the potassium isn’t in red on your lab’s range. It might go up to 5.2 or 5.4, but as long as it’s stable, that should be OK. You probably wouldn’t initiate an ACE inhibitor or ARB or spironolactone with a potassium level above 5, but if it’s below 5 when you start and it goes up slightly after you start the drug, that could be acceptable. 

Another thing we talked about was when a patient progresses to CKD and ends up on dialysis, how helpful are those intradialysis blood pressures in predicting cardiovascular outcomes? 

Williams: For someone who’s performing the dialysis, probably really helpful. In the outpatient setting to predict cardiovascular risk, probably less so. Dr Topf makes the point that the readings are done either shortly after or right when the patient is about to have a large-bore catheter inserted into their arm. And then they have liters of fluid drained out of them. So those numbers are going to have huge amounts of variability. You would not base the patient’s blood pressure treatment solely on those numbers. But regardless of what the numbers are, or even regardless of your office numbers, hopefully you’re working with a nephrologist to make sure that you’re actually in concert and not fighting each other with the blood pressure medications.

Watto: Dr Topf said that a lot of the hypertension in dialysis is because of too much volume. If you can get the volume down, you might be able to peel off blood pressure medications instead of adding more. But some patients have issues with cramping; it’s uncomfortable and not everyone tolerates it. 

I was really surprised to learn that beta blockers, specifically atenolol, have some evidence of improving cardiovascular outcomes in patients on dialysis. Dr Topf speculated that this was because they are largely dying of cardiovascular disease, so maybe that’s why, but that’s one of the places, the only places I can think of aside from thyroid disease, where atenolol really shines. 

If you want to hear this fantastic episode and all the great pearls, then click on this link. 

Matthew F. Watto, MD, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at University of Pennsylvania; Internist, Department of Medicine, Hospital Medicine Section, Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Paul N. Williams, MD, has disclosed ties with The Curbsiders.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Matthew F. Watto, MD: I’m Dr Matthew Frank Watto, here with my great friend and America’s primary care physician, Dr Paul Nelson Williams. 

We had a great discussion with Kidney Boy, Dr Joel Topf, everyone’s favorite nephrologist, and he taught us how to manage blood pressure in chronic kidney disease (CKD).

When should I start freaking out about a patient’s kidney function? 

Paul N. Williams, MD: Dr Topf focuses more on albuminuria than we are used to doing. It’s probably one of the most important prognostic indicators of how a patient is going to do from a renal standpoint.

Historically, I’ve tended to focus on the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and the lower that number gets, the more I sweat, but albuminuria is probably equally, if not more, important as a way of prognosticating whether a patient is going to progress to dialysis or transplant. He directed us towards this nifty little calculator, kidneyfailurerisk.com, where you plug in the patient’s age, eGFR, and degree of albuminuria, and it spits out their risk of progressing to hemodialysis or renal transplantation over the next 5 years. It’s a nice way to concretely explain to patients their risk for progression.

Instead of telling the patient, “You are high risk,” Dr Topf will say, “Your risk is 6% of needing dialysis in the next 5 years.” You can even use these thresholds to gauge when to refer a patient. If someone has a 5-year risk between 3% and 5% or higher, that patient should probably be seeing a nephrologist.

If their 2-year risk is greater than 20%, that patient probably should be evaluated for transplantation. This gives us have more concrete numbers to work with rather than just saying, “Your kidneys aren’t working as well as we would like and you should see a kidney doctor.” Patients have a better sense of how serious things might be. 

Watto: It’s just easier for them to understand. Dr Topf made the point that we used to have a heat map based on the stage of CKD that would tell you how high a patient’s risk was compared with other people. But patients don’t really understand relative risk, so Dr Topf tells them their absolute risk for ending up on dialysis over the next 2-5 years. 

Patients come in and they are worried because they looked at their lab results and see that their creatinine level is red, or their eGFR is low. They think, It says I have stage 3a CKD. 

We should probably have the stages of CKD start at stage 3, which should be called stage 1 so it doesn’t sound as bad. Patients think they are halfway to dialysis; they are already at stage 3 and didn’t even know their kidneys were a problem. 

Dr Topf said that cystatin C (something I only recently started ordering) can be obtained, and sometimes you can recategorize the patient, especially those with an eGFR between 45 and 60. The cystatin C can predict their renal function better than the creatinine-based equations. If you are using the creatinine equation, he recommends using the 2021 equations.

Another nice thing about cystatin C is that it isn’t tripped up in younger patients with a lot of muscle mass. You just have to watch out for inflammation, which can throw the test off. For example, when a patient is in the intensive care unit, it’s probably not that helpful, but for your outpatients, cystatin C works well. 

Williams: I’ve been using it a fair amount in my patients with more muscle mass. And some patients have been taking creatine as a supplement, and that can alter the numbers as well. This is a nice way to get them out of CKD stage 2 or 3 and back where they belong, with normal healthy functioning kidneys.

Watto: Now, Paul, if we find a patient with more advanced CKD — let’s say stage 4, whether by cystatin C or serum creatinine, and their eGFR is less than 30 — should we start peeling off the angiotensin-converting enzyme ACE inhibitor or the angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB)? Those drugs can raise potassium. What should we do here? 

Williams: That’s the temptation, Matt, and I feel like that was the old orthodoxy, back in residency. It didn’t take much for us to start taking off ACE inhibitors or ARBs once the kidney function started to drop, but it turns out you may be doing more harm than good.

Some data have shown that if you peel off those medications, you actually increase mortality and cardiovascular risk. So, in general, if you can keep them going, the patient will be better off. Hang onto the ACE inhibitors or ARBs as long as you are able to, because they confer a fair amount of benefit.

Watto: As long as the potassium isn’t in red on your lab’s range. It might go up to 5.2 or 5.4, but as long as it’s stable, that should be OK. You probably wouldn’t initiate an ACE inhibitor or ARB or spironolactone with a potassium level above 5, but if it’s below 5 when you start and it goes up slightly after you start the drug, that could be acceptable. 

Another thing we talked about was when a patient progresses to CKD and ends up on dialysis, how helpful are those intradialysis blood pressures in predicting cardiovascular outcomes? 

Williams: For someone who’s performing the dialysis, probably really helpful. In the outpatient setting to predict cardiovascular risk, probably less so. Dr Topf makes the point that the readings are done either shortly after or right when the patient is about to have a large-bore catheter inserted into their arm. And then they have liters of fluid drained out of them. So those numbers are going to have huge amounts of variability. You would not base the patient’s blood pressure treatment solely on those numbers. But regardless of what the numbers are, or even regardless of your office numbers, hopefully you’re working with a nephrologist to make sure that you’re actually in concert and not fighting each other with the blood pressure medications.

Watto: Dr Topf said that a lot of the hypertension in dialysis is because of too much volume. If you can get the volume down, you might be able to peel off blood pressure medications instead of adding more. But some patients have issues with cramping; it’s uncomfortable and not everyone tolerates it. 

I was really surprised to learn that beta blockers, specifically atenolol, have some evidence of improving cardiovascular outcomes in patients on dialysis. Dr Topf speculated that this was because they are largely dying of cardiovascular disease, so maybe that’s why, but that’s one of the places, the only places I can think of aside from thyroid disease, where atenolol really shines. 

If you want to hear this fantastic episode and all the great pearls, then click on this link. 

Matthew F. Watto, MD, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at University of Pennsylvania; Internist, Department of Medicine, Hospital Medicine Section, Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Paul N. Williams, MD, has disclosed ties with The Curbsiders.