Leprosy, also known as Hansen’s disease (HD), is a historically stigmatized infection caused by acid-fast bacilli Mycobacterium leprae, and M. lepromatosis. Paucibacillary tuberculoid leprosy is characterized by few anesthetic hypo- or hyperpigmented lesions and can be accompanied by palpable peripheral nerve enlargements.

Tuberculoid leprosy presents histologically with epithelioid histiocytes with lymphocytes and Langhans giant cells. Neurotropic granulomas are also characteristic of tuberculoid leprosy. Fite staining allows for the identification of the acid-fast bacilli of M. leprae, which in some cases are quite few in number. The standard mycobacterium stain, Ziehl-Neelsen, is a good option for M. tuberculosis, but because of the relative weak mycolic acid coat of M. leprae, the Fite stain is more appropriate for identifying M. leprae.

Clinically, other than the presence of fewer than five hypoesthetic lesions that are either hypopigmented or erythematous, tuberculoid leprosy often presents with additional peripheral nerve involvement that manifests as numbness and tingling in hands and feet.¹ This patient denied any tingling, weakness, or numbness, outside of the anesthetic lesion on his posterior upper arm.

The patient, born in the United States, had a remote history of military travel to Iraq, Kuwait, and the Philippines, but had not traveled internationally within the last 15 years, apart from a cruise to the Bahamas. He denied any known contact with individuals with similar lesions. He denied a history of contact with armadillos, but acknowledged that they are native to where he resides in central Florida, and that he had seen them in his yard.

Histopathological examination revealed an unremarkable epidermis with a superficial and deep perivascular, periadnexal, and perineural lymphohistiocytic infiltrate. Fite stain revealed rare rod-shaped organisms (Figure 2). These findings are consistent with a diagnosis of paucibacillary, tuberculoid leprosy.

The patient’s travel history to highly endemic areas (Middle East), as well as possible environmental contact with armadillos – including contact with soil that the armadillos occupied – could explain plausible modes of transmission. Following consultation with our infectious disease department and the National Hansen’s Disease Program, our patient began a planned course of therapy with 18 months of minocycline, rifampin, and moxifloxacin.

Human-to-human transmission of HD has been well documented; however, zoonotic transmission – specifically via the nine-banded armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus) – serves as another suggested means of transmission, especially in the Southeastern United States.^2-6 Travel to highly-endemic areas increases the risk of contracting HD, which may take up to 20 years following contact with the bacteria to manifest clinically.

While central Florida was previously thought to be a nonendemic area of disease, the incidence of the disease in this region has increased in recent years.⁷ Human-to-human transmission, which remains a concern with immigration from highly-endemic regions^, occurs via long-term contact with nasal droplets of an infected person.^8,9

Many patients in regions with very few cases of leprosy deny travel to other endemic regions and contact with infected people. Thus, zoonotic transmission remains a legitimate concern in the Southeastern United States – accounting, at least in part, for many of the non–human-transmitted cases of leprosy.^2,10 We encourage clinicians to maintain a high level of clinical suspicion for leprosy when evaluating patients presenting with hypoesthetic cutaneous lesions and to obtain a travel history and to ask about armadillo exposure.

This case and the photos were submitted by Ms. Smith, from the University of South Florida, Tampa; Dr. Hatch and Dr. Sarriera-Lazaro, from the department of dermatology and cutaneous surgery, University of South Florida; and Dr. Turner and Dr. Beachkofsky, from the department of pathology and laboratory medicine at the James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital, Tampa. Dr. Bilu Martin edited this case. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

1. Leprosy (Hansen’s Disease), in: “Goldman’s Cecil Medicine,” 24th ed. (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 2012: pp. 1950-4.

2. Sharma R et al. Emerg Infect Dis. 2015 Dec;21(12):2127-34.

3. Lane JE et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2006 Oct;55(4):714-6.

4. Clark BM et al. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2008 Jun;78(6):962-7.

5. Bruce S et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2000 Aug;43(2 Pt 1):223-8.

6. Loughry WJ et al. J Wildl Dis. 2009 Jan;45(1):144-52.

7. FDo H. Florida charts: Hansen’s Disease (Leprosy). Health FDo. 2019. https://www.flhealthcharts.gov/ChartsReports/rdPage.aspx?rdReport=NonVitalIndNoGrpCounts.DataViewer&cid=174.

8. Maymone MBC et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Jul;83(1):1-14.

9. Scollard DM et al. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2006 Apr;19(2):338-81.

10. Domozych R et al. JAAD Case Rep. 2016 May 12;2(3):189-92.




 

Leprosy, also known as Hansen’s disease (HD), is a historically stigmatized infection caused by acid-fast bacilli Mycobacterium leprae, and M. lepromatosis. Paucibacillary tuberculoid leprosy is characterized by few anesthetic hypo- or hyperpigmented lesions and can be accompanied by palpable peripheral nerve enlargements.

Tuberculoid leprosy presents histologically with epithelioid histiocytes with lymphocytes and Langhans giant cells. Neurotropic granulomas are also characteristic of tuberculoid leprosy. Fite staining allows for the identification of the acid-fast bacilli of M. leprae, which in some cases are quite few in number. The standard mycobacterium stain, Ziehl-Neelsen, is a good option for M. tuberculosis, but because of the relative weak mycolic acid coat of M. leprae, the Fite stain is more appropriate for identifying M. leprae.

Clinically, other than the presence of fewer than five hypoesthetic lesions that are either hypopigmented or erythematous, tuberculoid leprosy often presents with additional peripheral nerve involvement that manifests as numbness and tingling in hands and feet.¹ This patient denied any tingling, weakness, or numbness, outside of the anesthetic lesion on his posterior upper arm.

The patient, born in the United States, had a remote history of military travel to Iraq, Kuwait, and the Philippines, but had not traveled internationally within the last 15 years, apart from a cruise to the Bahamas. He denied any known contact with individuals with similar lesions. He denied a history of contact with armadillos, but acknowledged that they are native to where he resides in central Florida, and that he had seen them in his yard.

Histopathological examination revealed an unremarkable epidermis with a superficial and deep perivascular, periadnexal, and perineural lymphohistiocytic infiltrate. Fite stain revealed rare rod-shaped organisms (Figure 2). These findings are consistent with a diagnosis of paucibacillary, tuberculoid leprosy.

The patient’s travel history to highly endemic areas (Middle East), as well as possible environmental contact with armadillos – including contact with soil that the armadillos occupied – could explain plausible modes of transmission. Following consultation with our infectious disease department and the National Hansen’s Disease Program, our patient began a planned course of therapy with 18 months of minocycline, rifampin, and moxifloxacin.

Human-to-human transmission of HD has been well documented; however, zoonotic transmission – specifically via the nine-banded armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus) – serves as another suggested means of transmission, especially in the Southeastern United States.^2-6 Travel to highly-endemic areas increases the risk of contracting HD, which may take up to 20 years following contact with the bacteria to manifest clinically.

While central Florida was previously thought to be a nonendemic area of disease, the incidence of the disease in this region has increased in recent years.⁷ Human-to-human transmission, which remains a concern with immigration from highly-endemic regions^, occurs via long-term contact with nasal droplets of an infected person.^8,9

Many patients in regions with very few cases of leprosy deny travel to other endemic regions and contact with infected people. Thus, zoonotic transmission remains a legitimate concern in the Southeastern United States – accounting, at least in part, for many of the non–human-transmitted cases of leprosy.^2,10 We encourage clinicians to maintain a high level of clinical suspicion for leprosy when evaluating patients presenting with hypoesthetic cutaneous lesions and to obtain a travel history and to ask about armadillo exposure.

This case and the photos were submitted by Ms. Smith, from the University of South Florida, Tampa; Dr. Hatch and Dr. Sarriera-Lazaro, from the department of dermatology and cutaneous surgery, University of South Florida; and Dr. Turner and Dr. Beachkofsky, from the department of pathology and laboratory medicine at the James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital, Tampa. Dr. Bilu Martin edited this case. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

1. Leprosy (Hansen’s Disease), in: “Goldman’s Cecil Medicine,” 24th ed. (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 2012: pp. 1950-4.

2. Sharma R et al. Emerg Infect Dis. 2015 Dec;21(12):2127-34.

3. Lane JE et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2006 Oct;55(4):714-6.

4. Clark BM et al. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2008 Jun;78(6):962-7.

5. Bruce S et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2000 Aug;43(2 Pt 1):223-8.

6. Loughry WJ et al. J Wildl Dis. 2009 Jan;45(1):144-52.

7. FDo H. Florida charts: Hansen’s Disease (Leprosy). Health FDo. 2019. https://www.flhealthcharts.gov/ChartsReports/rdPage.aspx?rdReport=NonVitalIndNoGrpCounts.DataViewer&cid=174.

8. Maymone MBC et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Jul;83(1):1-14.

9. Scollard DM et al. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2006 Apr;19(2):338-81.

10. Domozych R et al. JAAD Case Rep. 2016 May 12;2(3):189-92.




 

Leprosy, also known as Hansen’s disease (HD), is a historically stigmatized infection caused by acid-fast bacilli Mycobacterium leprae, and M. lepromatosis. Paucibacillary tuberculoid leprosy is characterized by few anesthetic hypo- or hyperpigmented lesions and can be accompanied by palpable peripheral nerve enlargements.

Tuberculoid leprosy presents histologically with epithelioid histiocytes with lymphocytes and Langhans giant cells. Neurotropic granulomas are also characteristic of tuberculoid leprosy. Fite staining allows for the identification of the acid-fast bacilli of M. leprae, which in some cases are quite few in number. The standard mycobacterium stain, Ziehl-Neelsen, is a good option for M. tuberculosis, but because of the relative weak mycolic acid coat of M. leprae, the Fite stain is more appropriate for identifying M. leprae.

Clinically, other than the presence of fewer than five hypoesthetic lesions that are either hypopigmented or erythematous, tuberculoid leprosy often presents with additional peripheral nerve involvement that manifests as numbness and tingling in hands and feet.¹ This patient denied any tingling, weakness, or numbness, outside of the anesthetic lesion on his posterior upper arm.

The patient, born in the United States, had a remote history of military travel to Iraq, Kuwait, and the Philippines, but had not traveled internationally within the last 15 years, apart from a cruise to the Bahamas. He denied any known contact with individuals with similar lesions. He denied a history of contact with armadillos, but acknowledged that they are native to where he resides in central Florida, and that he had seen them in his yard.

Histopathological examination revealed an unremarkable epidermis with a superficial and deep perivascular, periadnexal, and perineural lymphohistiocytic infiltrate. Fite stain revealed rare rod-shaped organisms (Figure 2). These findings are consistent with a diagnosis of paucibacillary, tuberculoid leprosy.

The patient’s travel history to highly endemic areas (Middle East), as well as possible environmental contact with armadillos – including contact with soil that the armadillos occupied – could explain plausible modes of transmission. Following consultation with our infectious disease department and the National Hansen’s Disease Program, our patient began a planned course of therapy with 18 months of minocycline, rifampin, and moxifloxacin.

Human-to-human transmission of HD has been well documented; however, zoonotic transmission – specifically via the nine-banded armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus) – serves as another suggested means of transmission, especially in the Southeastern United States.^2-6 Travel to highly-endemic areas increases the risk of contracting HD, which may take up to 20 years following contact with the bacteria to manifest clinically.

While central Florida was previously thought to be a nonendemic area of disease, the incidence of the disease in this region has increased in recent years.⁷ Human-to-human transmission, which remains a concern with immigration from highly-endemic regions^, occurs via long-term contact with nasal droplets of an infected person.^8,9

Many patients in regions with very few cases of leprosy deny travel to other endemic regions and contact with infected people. Thus, zoonotic transmission remains a legitimate concern in the Southeastern United States – accounting, at least in part, for many of the non–human-transmitted cases of leprosy.^2,10 We encourage clinicians to maintain a high level of clinical suspicion for leprosy when evaluating patients presenting with hypoesthetic cutaneous lesions and to obtain a travel history and to ask about armadillo exposure.

This case and the photos were submitted by Ms. Smith, from the University of South Florida, Tampa; Dr. Hatch and Dr. Sarriera-Lazaro, from the department of dermatology and cutaneous surgery, University of South Florida; and Dr. Turner and Dr. Beachkofsky, from the department of pathology and laboratory medicine at the James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital, Tampa. Dr. Bilu Martin edited this case. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

1. Leprosy (Hansen’s Disease), in: “Goldman’s Cecil Medicine,” 24th ed. (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 2012: pp. 1950-4.

2. Sharma R et al. Emerg Infect Dis. 2015 Dec;21(12):2127-34.

3. Lane JE et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2006 Oct;55(4):714-6.

4. Clark BM et al. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2008 Jun;78(6):962-7.

5. Bruce S et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2000 Aug;43(2 Pt 1):223-8.

6. Loughry WJ et al. J Wildl Dis. 2009 Jan;45(1):144-52.

7. FDo H. Florida charts: Hansen’s Disease (Leprosy). Health FDo. 2019. https://www.flhealthcharts.gov/ChartsReports/rdPage.aspx?rdReport=NonVitalIndNoGrpCounts.DataViewer&cid=174.

8. Maymone MBC et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Jul;83(1):1-14.

9. Scollard DM et al. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2006 Apr;19(2):338-81.

10. Domozych R et al. JAAD Case Rep. 2016 May 12;2(3):189-92.




 

Pharmacies are running out of the antibiotics used to treat serious infections in children. This leaves parents and doctors frustrated and scared.

After weeks of overcrowded waiting rooms, extended office hours, and countless telephone calls during the viral respiratory surge, pediatricians are now facing a new challenge: an ever-growing list of medication shortages, including many of the most commonly used antibiotics.

These shortages primarily affect liquid formulations, so children – and the pediatricians’ offices and pharmacies serving them – are disproportionately impacted. Though there are multiple factors contributing, antibiotic overuse for viral infections during the surge has undoubtedly catalyzed the current crisis. It can be scary for parents to watch a child miserable with fever, which is why parents and pediatricians look for a quick fix in antibiotics, but unnecessary prescriptions that contribute to ongoing shortages should be avoided. We, as practicing pediatricians, think that this is a moment for reflection on when and why we use antibiotics during viral season. Though antibiotic overuse may have led us into this shortage, better antibiotic stewardship may just lead us out of it.

Since amoxicillin was approved for medical use in 1974, it has been one of the most commonly prescribed antibiotics in children. It is particularly well-suited for use in children because it treats common pediatric infections such as ear infections, strep throat, and pneumonia. These factors, along with its low cost and bubblegum flavor, make it no surprise that amoxicillin was consistently one of the top 25 medications prescribed in the United States between 2013 and 2019, with over 25 million prescriptions annually.

Amoxicillin remains the best first-line treatment option for the most common bacterial respiratory tract infections in children. With liquid formulations scarce, pediatricians, parents, and pharmacists are getting creative with crushed tablets or sprinkling capsules when possible.

However, without liquid amoxicillin readily available in our pediatric arsenal, we have recently had to turn to antibiotics with higher costs and more side effects. These broad-spectrum antibiotics target a more extensive range of bacteria and are rarely necessary for common pediatric infections. Further, their use risks increasing the already dire problem of antibiotic resistance, which causes more than 35,000 deaths in the United States each year. And perhaps most importantly, broader spectrum antibiotics aren’t better than amoxicillin for the treatment of respiratory tract infections; they are sometimes worse.

The urge to turn to antibiotics as a potential cure for childhood illnesses is an understandable one for parents and clinicians alike. A common refrain in pediatrician offices is, “Isn’t there anything we can give them?” as parents look for respite in a long viral season. As viruses continue to surge, it is helpful to remember that children will get 8 to 10 viral infections per year, with most of those occurring in the fall and winter. When parents report that their child is always sick, they aren’t far off.

Most of these infections will be cured by a child’s own immune system rather than our medications. For example, in children older than 2 years, studies have demonstrated that waiting about 2 days to start antibiotics after an ear infection is diagnosed is just as effective as starting the antibiotics right away. As tempting as it is to ask for antibiotics early, that prescription may only worsen the situation if it is a virus. Instead, pediatricians can offer parents support in treating their children at home with humidifiers, pain/fever relievers when appropriate, honey in children over 12 months, and hydration.

This drug shortage is a pivotal moment for parents and clinicians to reconsider how and when we use antibiotics during viral season. Though antibiotics may be one of the greatest inventions of the 20th century, it is how we use them now that will determine our health in the century to come.

Dr. Lockwood is Associate Professor, department of pediatrics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Dr. Same is Assistant Professor, department of clinical pediatrics, at the University of Pennsylvania. Neither reported any conflicts of interest.

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

Pharmacies are running out of the antibiotics used to treat serious infections in children. This leaves parents and doctors frustrated and scared.

After weeks of overcrowded waiting rooms, extended office hours, and countless telephone calls during the viral respiratory surge, pediatricians are now facing a new challenge: an ever-growing list of medication shortages, including many of the most commonly used antibiotics.

These shortages primarily affect liquid formulations, so children – and the pediatricians’ offices and pharmacies serving them – are disproportionately impacted. Though there are multiple factors contributing, antibiotic overuse for viral infections during the surge has undoubtedly catalyzed the current crisis. It can be scary for parents to watch a child miserable with fever, which is why parents and pediatricians look for a quick fix in antibiotics, but unnecessary prescriptions that contribute to ongoing shortages should be avoided. We, as practicing pediatricians, think that this is a moment for reflection on when and why we use antibiotics during viral season. Though antibiotic overuse may have led us into this shortage, better antibiotic stewardship may just lead us out of it.

Since amoxicillin was approved for medical use in 1974, it has been one of the most commonly prescribed antibiotics in children. It is particularly well-suited for use in children because it treats common pediatric infections such as ear infections, strep throat, and pneumonia. These factors, along with its low cost and bubblegum flavor, make it no surprise that amoxicillin was consistently one of the top 25 medications prescribed in the United States between 2013 and 2019, with over 25 million prescriptions annually.

Amoxicillin remains the best first-line treatment option for the most common bacterial respiratory tract infections in children. With liquid formulations scarce, pediatricians, parents, and pharmacists are getting creative with crushed tablets or sprinkling capsules when possible.

However, without liquid amoxicillin readily available in our pediatric arsenal, we have recently had to turn to antibiotics with higher costs and more side effects. These broad-spectrum antibiotics target a more extensive range of bacteria and are rarely necessary for common pediatric infections. Further, their use risks increasing the already dire problem of antibiotic resistance, which causes more than 35,000 deaths in the United States each year. And perhaps most importantly, broader spectrum antibiotics aren’t better than amoxicillin for the treatment of respiratory tract infections; they are sometimes worse.

The urge to turn to antibiotics as a potential cure for childhood illnesses is an understandable one for parents and clinicians alike. A common refrain in pediatrician offices is, “Isn’t there anything we can give them?” as parents look for respite in a long viral season. As viruses continue to surge, it is helpful to remember that children will get 8 to 10 viral infections per year, with most of those occurring in the fall and winter. When parents report that their child is always sick, they aren’t far off.

Most of these infections will be cured by a child’s own immune system rather than our medications. For example, in children older than 2 years, studies have demonstrated that waiting about 2 days to start antibiotics after an ear infection is diagnosed is just as effective as starting the antibiotics right away. As tempting as it is to ask for antibiotics early, that prescription may only worsen the situation if it is a virus. Instead, pediatricians can offer parents support in treating their children at home with humidifiers, pain/fever relievers when appropriate, honey in children over 12 months, and hydration.

This drug shortage is a pivotal moment for parents and clinicians to reconsider how and when we use antibiotics during viral season. Though antibiotics may be one of the greatest inventions of the 20th century, it is how we use them now that will determine our health in the century to come.

Dr. Lockwood is Associate Professor, department of pediatrics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Dr. Same is Assistant Professor, department of clinical pediatrics, at the University of Pennsylvania. Neither reported any conflicts of interest.

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

Pharmacies are running out of the antibiotics used to treat serious infections in children. This leaves parents and doctors frustrated and scared.

After weeks of overcrowded waiting rooms, extended office hours, and countless telephone calls during the viral respiratory surge, pediatricians are now facing a new challenge: an ever-growing list of medication shortages, including many of the most commonly used antibiotics.

These shortages primarily affect liquid formulations, so children – and the pediatricians’ offices and pharmacies serving them – are disproportionately impacted. Though there are multiple factors contributing, antibiotic overuse for viral infections during the surge has undoubtedly catalyzed the current crisis. It can be scary for parents to watch a child miserable with fever, which is why parents and pediatricians look for a quick fix in antibiotics, but unnecessary prescriptions that contribute to ongoing shortages should be avoided. We, as practicing pediatricians, think that this is a moment for reflection on when and why we use antibiotics during viral season. Though antibiotic overuse may have led us into this shortage, better antibiotic stewardship may just lead us out of it.

Since amoxicillin was approved for medical use in 1974, it has been one of the most commonly prescribed antibiotics in children. It is particularly well-suited for use in children because it treats common pediatric infections such as ear infections, strep throat, and pneumonia. These factors, along with its low cost and bubblegum flavor, make it no surprise that amoxicillin was consistently one of the top 25 medications prescribed in the United States between 2013 and 2019, with over 25 million prescriptions annually.

Amoxicillin remains the best first-line treatment option for the most common bacterial respiratory tract infections in children. With liquid formulations scarce, pediatricians, parents, and pharmacists are getting creative with crushed tablets or sprinkling capsules when possible.

However, without liquid amoxicillin readily available in our pediatric arsenal, we have recently had to turn to antibiotics with higher costs and more side effects. These broad-spectrum antibiotics target a more extensive range of bacteria and are rarely necessary for common pediatric infections. Further, their use risks increasing the already dire problem of antibiotic resistance, which causes more than 35,000 deaths in the United States each year. And perhaps most importantly, broader spectrum antibiotics aren’t better than amoxicillin for the treatment of respiratory tract infections; they are sometimes worse.

The urge to turn to antibiotics as a potential cure for childhood illnesses is an understandable one for parents and clinicians alike. A common refrain in pediatrician offices is, “Isn’t there anything we can give them?” as parents look for respite in a long viral season. As viruses continue to surge, it is helpful to remember that children will get 8 to 10 viral infections per year, with most of those occurring in the fall and winter. When parents report that their child is always sick, they aren’t far off.

Most of these infections will be cured by a child’s own immune system rather than our medications. For example, in children older than 2 years, studies have demonstrated that waiting about 2 days to start antibiotics after an ear infection is diagnosed is just as effective as starting the antibiotics right away. As tempting as it is to ask for antibiotics early, that prescription may only worsen the situation if it is a virus. Instead, pediatricians can offer parents support in treating their children at home with humidifiers, pain/fever relievers when appropriate, honey in children over 12 months, and hydration.

This drug shortage is a pivotal moment for parents and clinicians to reconsider how and when we use antibiotics during viral season. Though antibiotics may be one of the greatest inventions of the 20th century, it is how we use them now that will determine our health in the century to come.

Dr. Lockwood is Associate Professor, department of pediatrics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Dr. Same is Assistant Professor, department of clinical pediatrics, at the University of Pennsylvania. Neither reported any conflicts of interest.

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

While it’s well known that COVID-19 vaccines are less effective in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who take immunity-lowering drugs, a new study offers fresh insight into what’s happening inside the body. In these patients, the vaccines often don’t boost B cells, which produce antibodies, but they do strengthen T cells, potentially providing crucial protection against severe illness and death.

These findings don’t reveal whether the T-cell boost actually provides extra protection against COVID-19. Still, the study suggests that patients with CLL should be vaccinated no matter which medications they’re taking, coauthor and hematologist/oncologist Clemens-Martin Wendtner, MD, of the Munich (Germany) Clinic, said in an interview.

“Do not defer or pause treatment,” said Dr. Wendtner, whose study was published in Blood Advances.

Patients with CLL appear to have among the weakest responses to the COVID-19 vaccine among people with various types of blood cancer. A meta-analysis published in 2022 found that seropositivity rates following vaccination were just 51% in patients with CLL, compared with 80%-90% in those with acute leukemia and 76%-80% of those with myeloma.

“Usually, the response rate to vaccination among the nonimmunocompromised would be 95%,” Dr. Wendtner said.

Research has also suggested that patients treated with B-cell pathway inhibitors and anti-CD20 antibodies are especially likely to have poorer responses to COVID-19 vaccines, no surprise considering that their job is to dampen the immune system. But there’s an unanswered question, according to Dr. Wendtner: Does “just measuring B-cell response tell us everything about the immune response?”

The new prospective, single-institution study aims to answer that question in patients who each received two types of vaccines. Researchers compared peripheral blood mononuclear cell transcriptional response with antibody and T-cell response rates in 15 patients with CLL/small lymphocytic lymphoma following vaccination with both the Pfizer-BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines.

The average antibody response was limited. “Overall, 7/15 of patients failed to mount a humoral response even after three-dose vaccination,” the researchers reported. All of the patients were “heavily pretreated” with CLL medications such as venetoclax, an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody.

By contrast, the T-cell response was much stronger: 80% of patients (12/15) had a robust response, a number that grew to 90% (14/15) after a booster. This response is “almost ideal” considering that the response in a nonimmunocompromised person would be about 99%, Dr. Wendtner said.

The study also revealed that vaccine responses were weaker in patients who took a combination of a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor and venetoclax within a year.

Four patients developed COVID-19 infections with the Omicron variant about 6 months after vaccination. All had mild symptoms. A lone patient had a history of COVID-19 infection prior to vaccination.

The researchers noted that the study had several limitations, including its small size, its reliance on a single institution, and the differences in treatments and vaccination protocols among the patient population.

Broadly speaking, the study showed that “a vaccine is not in vain” in patients with CLL, “although the doctor might not detect an antibody response,” Dr. Wendtner said. He added that mixing vaccine types should provide more protection. Start with a viral vector vaccine followed by an mRNA vaccine or vice versa, he suggested.

In an interview, infectious disease physician Joshua A. Hill, MD, from Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, who wasn’t involved with the study, said it makes “important and interesting observations to reinforce other studies with similar findings.”

Specifically, Dr. Hill said, “despite the absence of a robust antibody response some of these patients who are on active treatment, patients can still generate robust cellular immune responses in the form of T-cell immunity. Our understanding is that having T cell immunity will provide important additional protection for developing severe disease, although is less easily tested.”

As for the best vaccination strategies, Dr. Hill said “patients should get vaccinated as soon as they are eligible, according to standard guidelines. If patients have not yet started therapy, they should get their indicated vaccines before starting treatment whenever possible.”

The German study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the Bavarian State Ministry of Science and Art. Dr. Wendtner disclosed consultant fees from AstraZeneca and BioNTech, and another author disclosed consultant fees from AstraZeneca. The other authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Hill disclosed consultant fees from Moderna, Pfizer, and Gilead.

While it’s well known that COVID-19 vaccines are less effective in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who take immunity-lowering drugs, a new study offers fresh insight into what’s happening inside the body. In these patients, the vaccines often don’t boost B cells, which produce antibodies, but they do strengthen T cells, potentially providing crucial protection against severe illness and death.

These findings don’t reveal whether the T-cell boost actually provides extra protection against COVID-19. Still, the study suggests that patients with CLL should be vaccinated no matter which medications they’re taking, coauthor and hematologist/oncologist Clemens-Martin Wendtner, MD, of the Munich (Germany) Clinic, said in an interview.

“Do not defer or pause treatment,” said Dr. Wendtner, whose study was published in Blood Advances.

Patients with CLL appear to have among the weakest responses to the COVID-19 vaccine among people with various types of blood cancer. A meta-analysis published in 2022 found that seropositivity rates following vaccination were just 51% in patients with CLL, compared with 80%-90% in those with acute leukemia and 76%-80% of those with myeloma.

“Usually, the response rate to vaccination among the nonimmunocompromised would be 95%,” Dr. Wendtner said.

Research has also suggested that patients treated with B-cell pathway inhibitors and anti-CD20 antibodies are especially likely to have poorer responses to COVID-19 vaccines, no surprise considering that their job is to dampen the immune system. But there’s an unanswered question, according to Dr. Wendtner: Does “just measuring B-cell response tell us everything about the immune response?”

The new prospective, single-institution study aims to answer that question in patients who each received two types of vaccines. Researchers compared peripheral blood mononuclear cell transcriptional response with antibody and T-cell response rates in 15 patients with CLL/small lymphocytic lymphoma following vaccination with both the Pfizer-BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines.

The average antibody response was limited. “Overall, 7/15 of patients failed to mount a humoral response even after three-dose vaccination,” the researchers reported. All of the patients were “heavily pretreated” with CLL medications such as venetoclax, an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody.

By contrast, the T-cell response was much stronger: 80% of patients (12/15) had a robust response, a number that grew to 90% (14/15) after a booster. This response is “almost ideal” considering that the response in a nonimmunocompromised person would be about 99%, Dr. Wendtner said.

The study also revealed that vaccine responses were weaker in patients who took a combination of a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor and venetoclax within a year.

Four patients developed COVID-19 infections with the Omicron variant about 6 months after vaccination. All had mild symptoms. A lone patient had a history of COVID-19 infection prior to vaccination.

The researchers noted that the study had several limitations, including its small size, its reliance on a single institution, and the differences in treatments and vaccination protocols among the patient population.

Broadly speaking, the study showed that “a vaccine is not in vain” in patients with CLL, “although the doctor might not detect an antibody response,” Dr. Wendtner said. He added that mixing vaccine types should provide more protection. Start with a viral vector vaccine followed by an mRNA vaccine or vice versa, he suggested.

In an interview, infectious disease physician Joshua A. Hill, MD, from Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, who wasn’t involved with the study, said it makes “important and interesting observations to reinforce other studies with similar findings.”

Specifically, Dr. Hill said, “despite the absence of a robust antibody response some of these patients who are on active treatment, patients can still generate robust cellular immune responses in the form of T-cell immunity. Our understanding is that having T cell immunity will provide important additional protection for developing severe disease, although is less easily tested.”

As for the best vaccination strategies, Dr. Hill said “patients should get vaccinated as soon as they are eligible, according to standard guidelines. If patients have not yet started therapy, they should get their indicated vaccines before starting treatment whenever possible.”

The German study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the Bavarian State Ministry of Science and Art. Dr. Wendtner disclosed consultant fees from AstraZeneca and BioNTech, and another author disclosed consultant fees from AstraZeneca. The other authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Hill disclosed consultant fees from Moderna, Pfizer, and Gilead.

While it’s well known that COVID-19 vaccines are less effective in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who take immunity-lowering drugs, a new study offers fresh insight into what’s happening inside the body. In these patients, the vaccines often don’t boost B cells, which produce antibodies, but they do strengthen T cells, potentially providing crucial protection against severe illness and death.

These findings don’t reveal whether the T-cell boost actually provides extra protection against COVID-19. Still, the study suggests that patients with CLL should be vaccinated no matter which medications they’re taking, coauthor and hematologist/oncologist Clemens-Martin Wendtner, MD, of the Munich (Germany) Clinic, said in an interview.

“Do not defer or pause treatment,” said Dr. Wendtner, whose study was published in Blood Advances.

Patients with CLL appear to have among the weakest responses to the COVID-19 vaccine among people with various types of blood cancer. A meta-analysis published in 2022 found that seropositivity rates following vaccination were just 51% in patients with CLL, compared with 80%-90% in those with acute leukemia and 76%-80% of those with myeloma.

“Usually, the response rate to vaccination among the nonimmunocompromised would be 95%,” Dr. Wendtner said.

Research has also suggested that patients treated with B-cell pathway inhibitors and anti-CD20 antibodies are especially likely to have poorer responses to COVID-19 vaccines, no surprise considering that their job is to dampen the immune system. But there’s an unanswered question, according to Dr. Wendtner: Does “just measuring B-cell response tell us everything about the immune response?”

The new prospective, single-institution study aims to answer that question in patients who each received two types of vaccines. Researchers compared peripheral blood mononuclear cell transcriptional response with antibody and T-cell response rates in 15 patients with CLL/small lymphocytic lymphoma following vaccination with both the Pfizer-BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines.

The average antibody response was limited. “Overall, 7/15 of patients failed to mount a humoral response even after three-dose vaccination,” the researchers reported. All of the patients were “heavily pretreated” with CLL medications such as venetoclax, an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody.

By contrast, the T-cell response was much stronger: 80% of patients (12/15) had a robust response, a number that grew to 90% (14/15) after a booster. This response is “almost ideal” considering that the response in a nonimmunocompromised person would be about 99%, Dr. Wendtner said.

The study also revealed that vaccine responses were weaker in patients who took a combination of a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor and venetoclax within a year.

Four patients developed COVID-19 infections with the Omicron variant about 6 months after vaccination. All had mild symptoms. A lone patient had a history of COVID-19 infection prior to vaccination.

The researchers noted that the study had several limitations, including its small size, its reliance on a single institution, and the differences in treatments and vaccination protocols among the patient population.

Broadly speaking, the study showed that “a vaccine is not in vain” in patients with CLL, “although the doctor might not detect an antibody response,” Dr. Wendtner said. He added that mixing vaccine types should provide more protection. Start with a viral vector vaccine followed by an mRNA vaccine or vice versa, he suggested.

In an interview, infectious disease physician Joshua A. Hill, MD, from Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, who wasn’t involved with the study, said it makes “important and interesting observations to reinforce other studies with similar findings.”

Specifically, Dr. Hill said, “despite the absence of a robust antibody response some of these patients who are on active treatment, patients can still generate robust cellular immune responses in the form of T-cell immunity. Our understanding is that having T cell immunity will provide important additional protection for developing severe disease, although is less easily tested.”

As for the best vaccination strategies, Dr. Hill said “patients should get vaccinated as soon as they are eligible, according to standard guidelines. If patients have not yet started therapy, they should get their indicated vaccines before starting treatment whenever possible.”

The German study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the Bavarian State Ministry of Science and Art. Dr. Wendtner disclosed consultant fees from AstraZeneca and BioNTech, and another author disclosed consultant fees from AstraZeneca. The other authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Hill disclosed consultant fees from Moderna, Pfizer, and Gilead.

“Congratulations on the baby. You look great!” I enthusiastically proclaimed to my classmate. It was the start of the fall semester of my sophomore year of college.

At my small women’s college, the previous semester’s gossip had been about our classmate, S*. She had gone from being very thin to noticeably gaining a lot of weight in a few months. The rumors were that S was pregnant and gave birth over summer break. As a busy biology premed major, this was my first time hearing the news. So when I saw her standing in the hallway, back to her previous weight, I was excited for her.

In true extravert fashion, I commented on the baby and her new size. But no sooner had the words left my mouth than I regretted them.

The hall grew awkwardly silent as S’s face flushed and she asked, “Excuse me?!” Instantly I knew that the rumors weren’t true.

Thankfully, at that moment, the classroom opened and we walked in. Whew! After class, S asked if we could talk. She explained that she had a thyroid tumor and struggled to adjust to the treatments, which caused her weight fluctuations. She had never been pregnant.

My awkward statement had been the first time anyone on campus had directly mentioned her weight, though she suspected that people were talking about her. We became fast friends after this rocky beginning. Although we lost touch after college, S taught me an invaluable lesson about making assumptions about people’s weight: Ask before you assume.

Now, years later, as an internist and obesity specialist, this lesson continues to be reinforced daily.

In daily life, comments about weight can be perceived as rude. In the clinical setting, however, assumptions about weight are a form of weight bias. Weight bias can lead to weight stigma and even be dangerous to health care.

Let’s discuss the insidious influence of weight bias in health care through two commonly used phrases and then look at a few solutions to address weight bias in health care individually and systematically.
 

Common weight bias assumptions

“Great job, you lost weight!” In checking your patient’s vital signs, you notice that this patient with obesity has a significant weight change. You congratulate them upon entering the room. Unfortunately, their weight loss was a result of minimal eating after losing a loved one. This isn’t healthy weight loss. One of the adverse effects of weight bias is that it infers that weight loss is always a good thing, especially in people with larger bodies. This is a dangerous presumption. Let’s remember that the body favors fat storage, hence why “unintentional weight loss” is a recognized medical condition prompting evaluation. We have to be careful not to celebrate weight loss “at all costs,” such as fad diets that haven’t been shown to improve health outcomes.

Furthermore, patients who lose weight quickly (more than 4-8 lb/month) require closer follow-up and evaluation for secondary causes of weight loss. Patients may lose weight at a faster rate with the new antiobesity medications, but clinicians still should ensure that age-appropriate health maintenance screening is done and be vigilant for secondary causes of weight changes.

“Have you tried losing weight yet?” Three times. That’s how many times Chanté Burkett went to her doctor about her painful, enlarging firm stomach. She was advised to continue working on weight loss, which she did diligently. But Ms. Burkett’s abdomen kept growing and her concerns were dismissed. A visit to urgent care and a CT scan revealed that Ms. Burkett’s excess abdominal “fat” was a 13-lb mucinous cystadenoma. Sadly, cases like hers aren’t rare, isolated events. Weight bias can cause anchoring on one diagnosis, preventing consideration of other diagnostic possibilities. Even worse, anchoring will lead to the wrong intervention, such as prescribing weight loss for presumed increased adiposity instead of ordering the appropriate testing.

It’s also essential to recognize that, even if someone does have the disease of obesity, weight loss isn’t the solution to every medical concern. Even if weight loss is helpful, other, more pressing treatments may still be necessary. Telling a person with obesity who has an acute complaint to “just lose weight” is comparable to telling a patient with coronary artery disease who presents with an 80% vessel occlusion and chest pain to follow a low-fat diet. In both cases, you need to address the acute concern appropriately, then focus on the chronic treatment.
 

Ways to reduce clinical weight bias

How do you reduce clinical weight bias?

Ask, don’t assume. The information from the scale is simply data. Instead of judging it positively or negatively and creating a story, ask the patient. An unbiased way to approach the conversation is to say, “Great to see you. You seem [positive adjective of choice]. How have you been?” Wait until the vitals section to objectively discuss weight unless the patient offers the discussion earlier or their chief complaint lists a weight-related concern.

Order necessary tests to evaluate weight. Weight is the vital sign that people wear externally, so we feel that we can readily interpret it without any further assessment. However, resist the urge to interpret scale data without context. Keeping an open mind helps prevent anchoring and missing critical clues in the clinical history.

Address weight changes effectively. Sometimes there is an indication to prescribe weight loss as part of the treatment plan. However, remember that weight loss isn’t simply “calories in vs. calories out.” Obesity is a complex medical disease that requires a multimodal treatment approach. As clinicians, we have access to the most powerful tools for weight loss. Unfortunately, weight bias contributes to limited prescribing of metabolic medications (“antiobesity medications” or AOMs). In addition, systemic weight bias prevents insurance coverage of AOMs. The Treat and Reduce Obesity Act has been introduced into Congress to help improve life-transforming access to AOMs.

Acknowledge your bias. Our experiences make us all susceptible to bias. The Harvard Weight Implicit Association Test is free and a helpful way to assess your level of weight bias. I take it annually to ensure that I remain objective in my practice.

Addressing weight bias needs to extend beyond the individual level.

Systemically, health care needs to address the following:

Language. Use people-centered language. For example, “People aren’t obese. They have obesity.”

Accessibility. Health care settings must be comfortable and accessible for people of all sizes. Furthermore, improvements to access the services that comprehensive obesity care requires, such as AOMs, bariatric procedures and bariatric surgery, mental health care, nutrition, fitness specialists, health coaches, and more, are needed.

Education. Medical students and trainees have to learn the newest obesity science and know how to treat obesity effectively. Acknowledge and address biased tools. Recent data have shown that some of our screening tools, such as body mass index, have inherent bias. It’s time to focus on using improved diagnostic tools and personalized treatments.

We are at a pivotal time in our scientific understanding of body weight regulation and the disease of obesity. Clinical weight bias is primarily rooted in flawed science influenced by biased cultural norms and other forms of discrimination, such as racial and gender bias. We must move past assumptions to give our patients the optimal individualized care they need. So next time you observe a weight change, instead of commenting on their weight, say, “Great to see you! How have you been?”

S*: Initial has been changed to protect privacy.

Dr. Gonsahn-Bollie is an integrative obesity specialist focused on individualized solutions for emotional and biological overeating. Connect with her at www.embraceyouweightloss.com or on Instagram @embraceyoumd. Her bestselling book, “Embrace You: Your Guide to Transforming Weight Loss Misconceptions Into Lifelong Wellness”, was Healthline.com’s Best Overall Weight Loss Book of 2022 and one of Livestrong.com’s 8 Best Weight-Loss Books to Read in 2022. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

“Congratulations on the baby. You look great!” I enthusiastically proclaimed to my classmate. It was the start of the fall semester of my sophomore year of college.

At my small women’s college, the previous semester’s gossip had been about our classmate, S*. She had gone from being very thin to noticeably gaining a lot of weight in a few months. The rumors were that S was pregnant and gave birth over summer break. As a busy biology premed major, this was my first time hearing the news. So when I saw her standing in the hallway, back to her previous weight, I was excited for her.

In true extravert fashion, I commented on the baby and her new size. But no sooner had the words left my mouth than I regretted them.

The hall grew awkwardly silent as S’s face flushed and she asked, “Excuse me?!” Instantly I knew that the rumors weren’t true.

Thankfully, at that moment, the classroom opened and we walked in. Whew! After class, S asked if we could talk. She explained that she had a thyroid tumor and struggled to adjust to the treatments, which caused her weight fluctuations. She had never been pregnant.

My awkward statement had been the first time anyone on campus had directly mentioned her weight, though she suspected that people were talking about her. We became fast friends after this rocky beginning. Although we lost touch after college, S taught me an invaluable lesson about making assumptions about people’s weight: Ask before you assume.

Now, years later, as an internist and obesity specialist, this lesson continues to be reinforced daily.

In daily life, comments about weight can be perceived as rude. In the clinical setting, however, assumptions about weight are a form of weight bias. Weight bias can lead to weight stigma and even be dangerous to health care.

Let’s discuss the insidious influence of weight bias in health care through two commonly used phrases and then look at a few solutions to address weight bias in health care individually and systematically.
 

Common weight bias assumptions

“Great job, you lost weight!” In checking your patient’s vital signs, you notice that this patient with obesity has a significant weight change. You congratulate them upon entering the room. Unfortunately, their weight loss was a result of minimal eating after losing a loved one. This isn’t healthy weight loss. One of the adverse effects of weight bias is that it infers that weight loss is always a good thing, especially in people with larger bodies. This is a dangerous presumption. Let’s remember that the body favors fat storage, hence why “unintentional weight loss” is a recognized medical condition prompting evaluation. We have to be careful not to celebrate weight loss “at all costs,” such as fad diets that haven’t been shown to improve health outcomes.

Furthermore, patients who lose weight quickly (more than 4-8 lb/month) require closer follow-up and evaluation for secondary causes of weight loss. Patients may lose weight at a faster rate with the new antiobesity medications, but clinicians still should ensure that age-appropriate health maintenance screening is done and be vigilant for secondary causes of weight changes.

“Have you tried losing weight yet?” Three times. That’s how many times Chanté Burkett went to her doctor about her painful, enlarging firm stomach. She was advised to continue working on weight loss, which she did diligently. But Ms. Burkett’s abdomen kept growing and her concerns were dismissed. A visit to urgent care and a CT scan revealed that Ms. Burkett’s excess abdominal “fat” was a 13-lb mucinous cystadenoma. Sadly, cases like hers aren’t rare, isolated events. Weight bias can cause anchoring on one diagnosis, preventing consideration of other diagnostic possibilities. Even worse, anchoring will lead to the wrong intervention, such as prescribing weight loss for presumed increased adiposity instead of ordering the appropriate testing.

It’s also essential to recognize that, even if someone does have the disease of obesity, weight loss isn’t the solution to every medical concern. Even if weight loss is helpful, other, more pressing treatments may still be necessary. Telling a person with obesity who has an acute complaint to “just lose weight” is comparable to telling a patient with coronary artery disease who presents with an 80% vessel occlusion and chest pain to follow a low-fat diet. In both cases, you need to address the acute concern appropriately, then focus on the chronic treatment.
 

Ways to reduce clinical weight bias

How do you reduce clinical weight bias?

Ask, don’t assume. The information from the scale is simply data. Instead of judging it positively or negatively and creating a story, ask the patient. An unbiased way to approach the conversation is to say, “Great to see you. You seem [positive adjective of choice]. How have you been?” Wait until the vitals section to objectively discuss weight unless the patient offers the discussion earlier or their chief complaint lists a weight-related concern.

Order necessary tests to evaluate weight. Weight is the vital sign that people wear externally, so we feel that we can readily interpret it without any further assessment. However, resist the urge to interpret scale data without context. Keeping an open mind helps prevent anchoring and missing critical clues in the clinical history.

Address weight changes effectively. Sometimes there is an indication to prescribe weight loss as part of the treatment plan. However, remember that weight loss isn’t simply “calories in vs. calories out.” Obesity is a complex medical disease that requires a multimodal treatment approach. As clinicians, we have access to the most powerful tools for weight loss. Unfortunately, weight bias contributes to limited prescribing of metabolic medications (“antiobesity medications” or AOMs). In addition, systemic weight bias prevents insurance coverage of AOMs. The Treat and Reduce Obesity Act has been introduced into Congress to help improve life-transforming access to AOMs.

Acknowledge your bias. Our experiences make us all susceptible to bias. The Harvard Weight Implicit Association Test is free and a helpful way to assess your level of weight bias. I take it annually to ensure that I remain objective in my practice.

Addressing weight bias needs to extend beyond the individual level.

Systemically, health care needs to address the following:

Language. Use people-centered language. For example, “People aren’t obese. They have obesity.”

Accessibility. Health care settings must be comfortable and accessible for people of all sizes. Furthermore, improvements to access the services that comprehensive obesity care requires, such as AOMs, bariatric procedures and bariatric surgery, mental health care, nutrition, fitness specialists, health coaches, and more, are needed.

Education. Medical students and trainees have to learn the newest obesity science and know how to treat obesity effectively. Acknowledge and address biased tools. Recent data have shown that some of our screening tools, such as body mass index, have inherent bias. It’s time to focus on using improved diagnostic tools and personalized treatments.

We are at a pivotal time in our scientific understanding of body weight regulation and the disease of obesity. Clinical weight bias is primarily rooted in flawed science influenced by biased cultural norms and other forms of discrimination, such as racial and gender bias. We must move past assumptions to give our patients the optimal individualized care they need. So next time you observe a weight change, instead of commenting on their weight, say, “Great to see you! How have you been?”

S*: Initial has been changed to protect privacy.

Dr. Gonsahn-Bollie is an integrative obesity specialist focused on individualized solutions for emotional and biological overeating. Connect with her at www.embraceyouweightloss.com or on Instagram @embraceyoumd. Her bestselling book, “Embrace You: Your Guide to Transforming Weight Loss Misconceptions Into Lifelong Wellness”, was Healthline.com’s Best Overall Weight Loss Book of 2022 and one of Livestrong.com’s 8 Best Weight-Loss Books to Read in 2022. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

“Congratulations on the baby. You look great!” I enthusiastically proclaimed to my classmate. It was the start of the fall semester of my sophomore year of college.

At my small women’s college, the previous semester’s gossip had been about our classmate, S*. She had gone from being very thin to noticeably gaining a lot of weight in a few months. The rumors were that S was pregnant and gave birth over summer break. As a busy biology premed major, this was my first time hearing the news. So when I saw her standing in the hallway, back to her previous weight, I was excited for her.

In true extravert fashion, I commented on the baby and her new size. But no sooner had the words left my mouth than I regretted them.

The hall grew awkwardly silent as S’s face flushed and she asked, “Excuse me?!” Instantly I knew that the rumors weren’t true.

Thankfully, at that moment, the classroom opened and we walked in. Whew! After class, S asked if we could talk. She explained that she had a thyroid tumor and struggled to adjust to the treatments, which caused her weight fluctuations. She had never been pregnant.

My awkward statement had been the first time anyone on campus had directly mentioned her weight, though she suspected that people were talking about her. We became fast friends after this rocky beginning. Although we lost touch after college, S taught me an invaluable lesson about making assumptions about people’s weight: Ask before you assume.

Now, years later, as an internist and obesity specialist, this lesson continues to be reinforced daily.

In daily life, comments about weight can be perceived as rude. In the clinical setting, however, assumptions about weight are a form of weight bias. Weight bias can lead to weight stigma and even be dangerous to health care.

Let’s discuss the insidious influence of weight bias in health care through two commonly used phrases and then look at a few solutions to address weight bias in health care individually and systematically.
 

Common weight bias assumptions

“Great job, you lost weight!” In checking your patient’s vital signs, you notice that this patient with obesity has a significant weight change. You congratulate them upon entering the room. Unfortunately, their weight loss was a result of minimal eating after losing a loved one. This isn’t healthy weight loss. One of the adverse effects of weight bias is that it infers that weight loss is always a good thing, especially in people with larger bodies. This is a dangerous presumption. Let’s remember that the body favors fat storage, hence why “unintentional weight loss” is a recognized medical condition prompting evaluation. We have to be careful not to celebrate weight loss “at all costs,” such as fad diets that haven’t been shown to improve health outcomes.

Furthermore, patients who lose weight quickly (more than 4-8 lb/month) require closer follow-up and evaluation for secondary causes of weight loss. Patients may lose weight at a faster rate with the new antiobesity medications, but clinicians still should ensure that age-appropriate health maintenance screening is done and be vigilant for secondary causes of weight changes.

“Have you tried losing weight yet?” Three times. That’s how many times Chanté Burkett went to her doctor about her painful, enlarging firm stomach. She was advised to continue working on weight loss, which she did diligently. But Ms. Burkett’s abdomen kept growing and her concerns were dismissed. A visit to urgent care and a CT scan revealed that Ms. Burkett’s excess abdominal “fat” was a 13-lb mucinous cystadenoma. Sadly, cases like hers aren’t rare, isolated events. Weight bias can cause anchoring on one diagnosis, preventing consideration of other diagnostic possibilities. Even worse, anchoring will lead to the wrong intervention, such as prescribing weight loss for presumed increased adiposity instead of ordering the appropriate testing.

It’s also essential to recognize that, even if someone does have the disease of obesity, weight loss isn’t the solution to every medical concern. Even if weight loss is helpful, other, more pressing treatments may still be necessary. Telling a person with obesity who has an acute complaint to “just lose weight” is comparable to telling a patient with coronary artery disease who presents with an 80% vessel occlusion and chest pain to follow a low-fat diet. In both cases, you need to address the acute concern appropriately, then focus on the chronic treatment.
 

Ways to reduce clinical weight bias

How do you reduce clinical weight bias?

Ask, don’t assume. The information from the scale is simply data. Instead of judging it positively or negatively and creating a story, ask the patient. An unbiased way to approach the conversation is to say, “Great to see you. You seem [positive adjective of choice]. How have you been?” Wait until the vitals section to objectively discuss weight unless the patient offers the discussion earlier or their chief complaint lists a weight-related concern.

Order necessary tests to evaluate weight. Weight is the vital sign that people wear externally, so we feel that we can readily interpret it without any further assessment. However, resist the urge to interpret scale data without context. Keeping an open mind helps prevent anchoring and missing critical clues in the clinical history.

Address weight changes effectively. Sometimes there is an indication to prescribe weight loss as part of the treatment plan. However, remember that weight loss isn’t simply “calories in vs. calories out.” Obesity is a complex medical disease that requires a multimodal treatment approach. As clinicians, we have access to the most powerful tools for weight loss. Unfortunately, weight bias contributes to limited prescribing of metabolic medications (“antiobesity medications” or AOMs). In addition, systemic weight bias prevents insurance coverage of AOMs. The Treat and Reduce Obesity Act has been introduced into Congress to help improve life-transforming access to AOMs.

Acknowledge your bias. Our experiences make us all susceptible to bias. The Harvard Weight Implicit Association Test is free and a helpful way to assess your level of weight bias. I take it annually to ensure that I remain objective in my practice.

Addressing weight bias needs to extend beyond the individual level.

Systemically, health care needs to address the following:

Language. Use people-centered language. For example, “People aren’t obese. They have obesity.”

Accessibility. Health care settings must be comfortable and accessible for people of all sizes. Furthermore, improvements to access the services that comprehensive obesity care requires, such as AOMs, bariatric procedures and bariatric surgery, mental health care, nutrition, fitness specialists, health coaches, and more, are needed.

Education. Medical students and trainees have to learn the newest obesity science and know how to treat obesity effectively. Acknowledge and address biased tools. Recent data have shown that some of our screening tools, such as body mass index, have inherent bias. It’s time to focus on using improved diagnostic tools and personalized treatments.

We are at a pivotal time in our scientific understanding of body weight regulation and the disease of obesity. Clinical weight bias is primarily rooted in flawed science influenced by biased cultural norms and other forms of discrimination, such as racial and gender bias. We must move past assumptions to give our patients the optimal individualized care they need. So next time you observe a weight change, instead of commenting on their weight, say, “Great to see you! How have you been?”

S*: Initial has been changed to protect privacy.

Dr. Gonsahn-Bollie is an integrative obesity specialist focused on individualized solutions for emotional and biological overeating. Connect with her at www.embraceyouweightloss.com or on Instagram @embraceyoumd. Her bestselling book, “Embrace You: Your Guide to Transforming Weight Loss Misconceptions Into Lifelong Wellness”, was Healthline.com’s Best Overall Weight Loss Book of 2022 and one of Livestrong.com’s 8 Best Weight-Loss Books to Read in 2022. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Montrouge, France – Four in five women will be infected by one or more human papillomavirus (HPV) strains during their lifetimes. For most of these women, the HPV will be cleared from the body, but 5% of them will develop precancerous lesions in the cervix. The role of vaginal flora in persistent HPV has been brought into focus by research studies carried out over the past few years.

At a press conference ahead of the 46th meeting of the French Colposcopy and Cervical and Vaginal Diseases Society, Julia Maruani, MD, a medical gynecologist in Marseille, France, took the opportunity to discuss the importance of vaginal flora and the need to treat cases of bacterial vaginosis.
 

Striking a balance

Essential for reducing the risk of sexually transmitted infections, a healthy vaginal flora is made up of millions of microorganisms, mainly lactobacilli, as well as other bacteria (Gardnerella vaginalis, Atopobium vaginae, Prevotella, streptococcus, gonococcus), HPV, and fungi.

Lactobacilli produce lactic acid, which reduces the vagina’s pH, as well as hydrogen peroxide, which is toxic to the other bacteria.

Different factors, such as alcohol, a diet rich in polyunsaturated fatty acids and sugar, and especially smoking, can lead to an imbalance of the bacteria in the vaginal flora and thus result in vaginosis. What occurs is an abnormal multiplication of different types of anaerobic bacteria that are normally present in much lower numbers. There is a relative reduction in lactobacilli, which results in an increased vaginal pH, a greater risk of contracting an STI, and reduced clearance of the HPV infection. “Women who smoke probably experience persistent HPV infections due to an imbalance in vaginal flora,” said Dr. Maruani.
 

Vaginosis and HPV

When there are fewer lactobacilli than there should be, these bacteria can no longer protect the vaginal mucosa, which is disrupted by other bacteria. “HPV then has access to the basal cells,” said Dr. Maruani, acknowledging that the relationship between bacterial vaginosis and persistent HPV infections has been the subject of numerous research studies over the past decade or so. “For years, I would see this same link in my patients. Those with persistent vaginosis were also the ones with persistent HPV. And I’m not the only one to notice this. Studies have also been carried out investigating this exact correlation,” she added.

These studies have shown that HPV infections persist in cases of vaginosis, resulting in the appearance of epithelial lesions. Additionally, the lesions are more severe when dysbiosis is more severe.

What about probiotics? Can they treat dysbiosis and an HPV infection at the same time? “Probiotics work very well for vaginosis, provided they are used for a long time. We know that they lessen HPV infections and low-grade lesions,” said Dr. Maruani, although no randomized studies support this conclusion. “It’s not a one size fits all. We aren’t about to treat patients with precancerous lesions with probiotics.” There are currently no data concerning the efficacy of probiotics on high-grade lesions. These days, Dr. Maruani has been thinking about a new issue: the benefit of diagnosing cases of asymptomatic vaginosis – because treating them would reduce the risk of persistent HPV infection.

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Montrouge, France – Four in five women will be infected by one or more human papillomavirus (HPV) strains during their lifetimes. For most of these women, the HPV will be cleared from the body, but 5% of them will develop precancerous lesions in the cervix. The role of vaginal flora in persistent HPV has been brought into focus by research studies carried out over the past few years.

At a press conference ahead of the 46th meeting of the French Colposcopy and Cervical and Vaginal Diseases Society, Julia Maruani, MD, a medical gynecologist in Marseille, France, took the opportunity to discuss the importance of vaginal flora and the need to treat cases of bacterial vaginosis.
 

Striking a balance

Essential for reducing the risk of sexually transmitted infections, a healthy vaginal flora is made up of millions of microorganisms, mainly lactobacilli, as well as other bacteria (Gardnerella vaginalis, Atopobium vaginae, Prevotella, streptococcus, gonococcus), HPV, and fungi.

Lactobacilli produce lactic acid, which reduces the vagina’s pH, as well as hydrogen peroxide, which is toxic to the other bacteria.

Different factors, such as alcohol, a diet rich in polyunsaturated fatty acids and sugar, and especially smoking, can lead to an imbalance of the bacteria in the vaginal flora and thus result in vaginosis. What occurs is an abnormal multiplication of different types of anaerobic bacteria that are normally present in much lower numbers. There is a relative reduction in lactobacilli, which results in an increased vaginal pH, a greater risk of contracting an STI, and reduced clearance of the HPV infection. “Women who smoke probably experience persistent HPV infections due to an imbalance in vaginal flora,” said Dr. Maruani.
 

Vaginosis and HPV

When there are fewer lactobacilli than there should be, these bacteria can no longer protect the vaginal mucosa, which is disrupted by other bacteria. “HPV then has access to the basal cells,” said Dr. Maruani, acknowledging that the relationship between bacterial vaginosis and persistent HPV infections has been the subject of numerous research studies over the past decade or so. “For years, I would see this same link in my patients. Those with persistent vaginosis were also the ones with persistent HPV. And I’m not the only one to notice this. Studies have also been carried out investigating this exact correlation,” she added.

These studies have shown that HPV infections persist in cases of vaginosis, resulting in the appearance of epithelial lesions. Additionally, the lesions are more severe when dysbiosis is more severe.

What about probiotics? Can they treat dysbiosis and an HPV infection at the same time? “Probiotics work very well for vaginosis, provided they are used for a long time. We know that they lessen HPV infections and low-grade lesions,” said Dr. Maruani, although no randomized studies support this conclusion. “It’s not a one size fits all. We aren’t about to treat patients with precancerous lesions with probiotics.” There are currently no data concerning the efficacy of probiotics on high-grade lesions. These days, Dr. Maruani has been thinking about a new issue: the benefit of diagnosing cases of asymptomatic vaginosis – because treating them would reduce the risk of persistent HPV infection.

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Montrouge, France – Four in five women will be infected by one or more human papillomavirus (HPV) strains during their lifetimes. For most of these women, the HPV will be cleared from the body, but 5% of them will develop precancerous lesions in the cervix. The role of vaginal flora in persistent HPV has been brought into focus by research studies carried out over the past few years.

At a press conference ahead of the 46th meeting of the French Colposcopy and Cervical and Vaginal Diseases Society, Julia Maruani, MD, a medical gynecologist in Marseille, France, took the opportunity to discuss the importance of vaginal flora and the need to treat cases of bacterial vaginosis.
 

Striking a balance

Essential for reducing the risk of sexually transmitted infections, a healthy vaginal flora is made up of millions of microorganisms, mainly lactobacilli, as well as other bacteria (Gardnerella vaginalis, Atopobium vaginae, Prevotella, streptococcus, gonococcus), HPV, and fungi.

Lactobacilli produce lactic acid, which reduces the vagina’s pH, as well as hydrogen peroxide, which is toxic to the other bacteria.

Different factors, such as alcohol, a diet rich in polyunsaturated fatty acids and sugar, and especially smoking, can lead to an imbalance of the bacteria in the vaginal flora and thus result in vaginosis. What occurs is an abnormal multiplication of different types of anaerobic bacteria that are normally present in much lower numbers. There is a relative reduction in lactobacilli, which results in an increased vaginal pH, a greater risk of contracting an STI, and reduced clearance of the HPV infection. “Women who smoke probably experience persistent HPV infections due to an imbalance in vaginal flora,” said Dr. Maruani.
 

Vaginosis and HPV

When there are fewer lactobacilli than there should be, these bacteria can no longer protect the vaginal mucosa, which is disrupted by other bacteria. “HPV then has access to the basal cells,” said Dr. Maruani, acknowledging that the relationship between bacterial vaginosis and persistent HPV infections has been the subject of numerous research studies over the past decade or so. “For years, I would see this same link in my patients. Those with persistent vaginosis were also the ones with persistent HPV. And I’m not the only one to notice this. Studies have also been carried out investigating this exact correlation,” she added.

These studies have shown that HPV infections persist in cases of vaginosis, resulting in the appearance of epithelial lesions. Additionally, the lesions are more severe when dysbiosis is more severe.

What about probiotics? Can they treat dysbiosis and an HPV infection at the same time? “Probiotics work very well for vaginosis, provided they are used for a long time. We know that they lessen HPV infections and low-grade lesions,” said Dr. Maruani, although no randomized studies support this conclusion. “It’s not a one size fits all. We aren’t about to treat patients with precancerous lesions with probiotics.” There are currently no data concerning the efficacy of probiotics on high-grade lesions. These days, Dr. Maruani has been thinking about a new issue: the benefit of diagnosing cases of asymptomatic vaginosis – because treating them would reduce the risk of persistent HPV infection.

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians working within the U.S. health care system order CTs; it’s just what we do, and we do it a lot. This isn’t necessarily bad, but an inevitable byproduct is the pandemic of incidental findings. One underrecognized but frequent “incidentaloma” on CT is an interstitial lung abnormality (ILA). The Fleischner Society defines an ILA as honeycombing, traction bronchiectasis, parenchymal distortions, and reticular abnormalities that take up more than 5% of a particular lung zone in a patient without a clinical diagnosis of interstitial lung disease (ILD). In essence, ILAs are both a radiographic and a clinical diagnosis.

ILAs are common. Depending on population characteristics, ILAs occur at a prevalence of up to 10%. With the advent of lung cancer screening and advances in CT technology, we’re now inundated with detailed images of lung parenchyma in older smokers who are at high risk for respiratory disease. The resulting opportunity for early identification of disease is as exciting as the risk for overdiagnosis, excessive testing, and unnecessary treatment is frightening. Early diagnosis remains critical for preventing irreversible respiratory disease. But as with any disease process, when we attempt to detect pathology before it has become apparent, the line between benign change and true abnormality is blurred.

Such is the challenge with ILAs. Past studies have shown an association between ILAs and morbidity and mortality, but considerable uncertainty persists over what the ILAs represent and how they should be managed. A recent study published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine  provides some clarity. The authors used data from the COPDGene cohort to correlate ILAs with lung testing, and functional and respiratory outcomes. As with other studies, they found that approximately 10% of the COPDGene patients that they examined had ILAs on CT and half of those met their criteria for “suspected ILD.” Suspected ILD was defined radiographically (definite fibrosis) and on lung function testing (abnormal forced vital capacity [FVC] or diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide [DLCO]). The patients with suspected ILD had worse clinical outcomes; being a Black individual, pack-years of smoking, and GOLD stage on spirometry were independently associated with suspected ILD.

This type of study is urgently needed. Given their high prevalence, we’re in dire need of a valid model for risk stratifying ILAs. The authors of this study have moved us closer, but we’ve still got a long way to go. The study has significant limitations. First, although patients with previous documentation of ILD were excluded from COPDGene, no formal, multidisciplinary assessment was performed; therefore, some of the patients labeled as having ILA probably had diagnosable ILD. Their possible inclusion would falsely increase the prevalence of clinically important ILAs and exaggerate the relationship between ILAs and clinical outcomes.

The rhetorical gymnastics performed throughout the paper are necessary yet problematic. “Suspected ILD” is not a recognized diagnosis and the definition is therefore arbitrary. To the extent that “suspected ILD” requires an abnormality on spirometry or DLCO, one could argue it’s the lung function changes and not the radiographic findings that are driving the differences. In fact, “suspected ILD” was defined by lung function more often than radiographic criteria (16% had definite fibrosis on CT, 57% had an abnormal FVC, and 67% had an abnormal DLCO). Patients with ILAs without suspected ILD had outcomes that weren’t statistically different from those with no ILAs at all, implying that the lung testing and not the ILA is the better discriminator. Regardless, this leads us back to where we started before this paper was published: ILAs require lung function testing and referral to a pulmonologist for proper risk stratification. An accompanying editorial highlights these and other limitations.

One particular problem that isn’t addressed by the authors or the editorial is their findings on race. The authors concluded that Black persons with ILAs are more likely to have “suspected ILD.” However, their definition suffers from an insidious form of incorporation bias generated by the way they handled their DLCO reference values. The Global Lung Function Initiative equations they used were derived exclusively from White persons. In accordance with the recent American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society (ATS/ERS) statement on lung testing, the authors did not apply a fixed correction factor to adjust for race. Without such an adjustment, Black persons would be biased toward having lower percent predicted values for DLCO. In short, self-identified Black individuals would be more likely to have a predicted DLCO of less than 70% and to therefore meet criteria for “suspected ILD.” The resulting effects on biologic plausibility, causal inference, and the strength of the relationship between “suspected ILD” and clinical outcomes will vary by whether the association between race and lung function is considered a product of inherent biologic variability or a result of external (socioeconomic and environmental) effects.

In summary, ILAs remain a challenge for radiologists, primary care providers, pulmonologists, and anyone else who orders a CT of the lungs. Despite its limitations, I believe the recently published paper pushes us forward conceptually. Perhaps its most important contribution is showing that 50% of ILAs are clinically insignificant by definition. This offers further reassurance that a subset of ILAs can be dismissed. Now, all we need is an easy, cost-effective, and efficient way to identify this subset.
 

Dr. Holley is professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Md., and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington. He covers a wide range of topics in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. He disclosed ties to Metapharm Inc., CHEST College, and WebMD. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians working within the U.S. health care system order CTs; it’s just what we do, and we do it a lot. This isn’t necessarily bad, but an inevitable byproduct is the pandemic of incidental findings. One underrecognized but frequent “incidentaloma” on CT is an interstitial lung abnormality (ILA). The Fleischner Society defines an ILA as honeycombing, traction bronchiectasis, parenchymal distortions, and reticular abnormalities that take up more than 5% of a particular lung zone in a patient without a clinical diagnosis of interstitial lung disease (ILD). In essence, ILAs are both a radiographic and a clinical diagnosis.

ILAs are common. Depending on population characteristics, ILAs occur at a prevalence of up to 10%. With the advent of lung cancer screening and advances in CT technology, we’re now inundated with detailed images of lung parenchyma in older smokers who are at high risk for respiratory disease. The resulting opportunity for early identification of disease is as exciting as the risk for overdiagnosis, excessive testing, and unnecessary treatment is frightening. Early diagnosis remains critical for preventing irreversible respiratory disease. But as with any disease process, when we attempt to detect pathology before it has become apparent, the line between benign change and true abnormality is blurred.

Such is the challenge with ILAs. Past studies have shown an association between ILAs and morbidity and mortality, but considerable uncertainty persists over what the ILAs represent and how they should be managed. A recent study published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine  provides some clarity. The authors used data from the COPDGene cohort to correlate ILAs with lung testing, and functional and respiratory outcomes. As with other studies, they found that approximately 10% of the COPDGene patients that they examined had ILAs on CT and half of those met their criteria for “suspected ILD.” Suspected ILD was defined radiographically (definite fibrosis) and on lung function testing (abnormal forced vital capacity [FVC] or diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide [DLCO]). The patients with suspected ILD had worse clinical outcomes; being a Black individual, pack-years of smoking, and GOLD stage on spirometry were independently associated with suspected ILD.

This type of study is urgently needed. Given their high prevalence, we’re in dire need of a valid model for risk stratifying ILAs. The authors of this study have moved us closer, but we’ve still got a long way to go. The study has significant limitations. First, although patients with previous documentation of ILD were excluded from COPDGene, no formal, multidisciplinary assessment was performed; therefore, some of the patients labeled as having ILA probably had diagnosable ILD. Their possible inclusion would falsely increase the prevalence of clinically important ILAs and exaggerate the relationship between ILAs and clinical outcomes.

The rhetorical gymnastics performed throughout the paper are necessary yet problematic. “Suspected ILD” is not a recognized diagnosis and the definition is therefore arbitrary. To the extent that “suspected ILD” requires an abnormality on spirometry or DLCO, one could argue it’s the lung function changes and not the radiographic findings that are driving the differences. In fact, “suspected ILD” was defined by lung function more often than radiographic criteria (16% had definite fibrosis on CT, 57% had an abnormal FVC, and 67% had an abnormal DLCO). Patients with ILAs without suspected ILD had outcomes that weren’t statistically different from those with no ILAs at all, implying that the lung testing and not the ILA is the better discriminator. Regardless, this leads us back to where we started before this paper was published: ILAs require lung function testing and referral to a pulmonologist for proper risk stratification. An accompanying editorial highlights these and other limitations.

One particular problem that isn’t addressed by the authors or the editorial is their findings on race. The authors concluded that Black persons with ILAs are more likely to have “suspected ILD.” However, their definition suffers from an insidious form of incorporation bias generated by the way they handled their DLCO reference values. The Global Lung Function Initiative equations they used were derived exclusively from White persons. In accordance with the recent American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society (ATS/ERS) statement on lung testing, the authors did not apply a fixed correction factor to adjust for race. Without such an adjustment, Black persons would be biased toward having lower percent predicted values for DLCO. In short, self-identified Black individuals would be more likely to have a predicted DLCO of less than 70% and to therefore meet criteria for “suspected ILD.” The resulting effects on biologic plausibility, causal inference, and the strength of the relationship between “suspected ILD” and clinical outcomes will vary by whether the association between race and lung function is considered a product of inherent biologic variability or a result of external (socioeconomic and environmental) effects.

In summary, ILAs remain a challenge for radiologists, primary care providers, pulmonologists, and anyone else who orders a CT of the lungs. Despite its limitations, I believe the recently published paper pushes us forward conceptually. Perhaps its most important contribution is showing that 50% of ILAs are clinically insignificant by definition. This offers further reassurance that a subset of ILAs can be dismissed. Now, all we need is an easy, cost-effective, and efficient way to identify this subset.
 

Dr. Holley is professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Md., and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington. He covers a wide range of topics in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. He disclosed ties to Metapharm Inc., CHEST College, and WebMD. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians working within the U.S. health care system order CTs; it’s just what we do, and we do it a lot. This isn’t necessarily bad, but an inevitable byproduct is the pandemic of incidental findings. One underrecognized but frequent “incidentaloma” on CT is an interstitial lung abnormality (ILA). The Fleischner Society defines an ILA as honeycombing, traction bronchiectasis, parenchymal distortions, and reticular abnormalities that take up more than 5% of a particular lung zone in a patient without a clinical diagnosis of interstitial lung disease (ILD). In essence, ILAs are both a radiographic and a clinical diagnosis.

ILAs are common. Depending on population characteristics, ILAs occur at a prevalence of up to 10%. With the advent of lung cancer screening and advances in CT technology, we’re now inundated with detailed images of lung parenchyma in older smokers who are at high risk for respiratory disease. The resulting opportunity for early identification of disease is as exciting as the risk for overdiagnosis, excessive testing, and unnecessary treatment is frightening. Early diagnosis remains critical for preventing irreversible respiratory disease. But as with any disease process, when we attempt to detect pathology before it has become apparent, the line between benign change and true abnormality is blurred.

Such is the challenge with ILAs. Past studies have shown an association between ILAs and morbidity and mortality, but considerable uncertainty persists over what the ILAs represent and how they should be managed. A recent study published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine  provides some clarity. The authors used data from the COPDGene cohort to correlate ILAs with lung testing, and functional and respiratory outcomes. As with other studies, they found that approximately 10% of the COPDGene patients that they examined had ILAs on CT and half of those met their criteria for “suspected ILD.” Suspected ILD was defined radiographically (definite fibrosis) and on lung function testing (abnormal forced vital capacity [FVC] or diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide [DLCO]). The patients with suspected ILD had worse clinical outcomes; being a Black individual, pack-years of smoking, and GOLD stage on spirometry were independently associated with suspected ILD.

This type of study is urgently needed. Given their high prevalence, we’re in dire need of a valid model for risk stratifying ILAs. The authors of this study have moved us closer, but we’ve still got a long way to go. The study has significant limitations. First, although patients with previous documentation of ILD were excluded from COPDGene, no formal, multidisciplinary assessment was performed; therefore, some of the patients labeled as having ILA probably had diagnosable ILD. Their possible inclusion would falsely increase the prevalence of clinically important ILAs and exaggerate the relationship between ILAs and clinical outcomes.

The rhetorical gymnastics performed throughout the paper are necessary yet problematic. “Suspected ILD” is not a recognized diagnosis and the definition is therefore arbitrary. To the extent that “suspected ILD” requires an abnormality on spirometry or DLCO, one could argue it’s the lung function changes and not the radiographic findings that are driving the differences. In fact, “suspected ILD” was defined by lung function more often than radiographic criteria (16% had definite fibrosis on CT, 57% had an abnormal FVC, and 67% had an abnormal DLCO). Patients with ILAs without suspected ILD had outcomes that weren’t statistically different from those with no ILAs at all, implying that the lung testing and not the ILA is the better discriminator. Regardless, this leads us back to where we started before this paper was published: ILAs require lung function testing and referral to a pulmonologist for proper risk stratification. An accompanying editorial highlights these and other limitations.

One particular problem that isn’t addressed by the authors or the editorial is their findings on race. The authors concluded that Black persons with ILAs are more likely to have “suspected ILD.” However, their definition suffers from an insidious form of incorporation bias generated by the way they handled their DLCO reference values. The Global Lung Function Initiative equations they used were derived exclusively from White persons. In accordance with the recent American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society (ATS/ERS) statement on lung testing, the authors did not apply a fixed correction factor to adjust for race. Without such an adjustment, Black persons would be biased toward having lower percent predicted values for DLCO. In short, self-identified Black individuals would be more likely to have a predicted DLCO of less than 70% and to therefore meet criteria for “suspected ILD.” The resulting effects on biologic plausibility, causal inference, and the strength of the relationship between “suspected ILD” and clinical outcomes will vary by whether the association between race and lung function is considered a product of inherent biologic variability or a result of external (socioeconomic and environmental) effects.

In summary, ILAs remain a challenge for radiologists, primary care providers, pulmonologists, and anyone else who orders a CT of the lungs. Despite its limitations, I believe the recently published paper pushes us forward conceptually. Perhaps its most important contribution is showing that 50% of ILAs are clinically insignificant by definition. This offers further reassurance that a subset of ILAs can be dismissed. Now, all we need is an easy, cost-effective, and efficient way to identify this subset.
 

Dr. Holley is professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Md., and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington. He covers a wide range of topics in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. He disclosed ties to Metapharm Inc., CHEST College, and WebMD. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Last week, a number of patients emailed me regarding their concerns about this phenomenon known as Ozempic face. I went on to read about what this meant. I live in Los Angeles, where most people appear to be on semaglutide (Ozempic). It’s the phenomenon where people lose weight relatively rapidly, making their faces thin out. Then what happens, apparently, is they look older because their face is more wrinkled and baggier. They might have to have further plastic surgery. I say that with slight sarcasm because of where I live.

I want to talk about what I think about this, living here where there’s a great pressure to prescribe semaglutide off label, and what I think about it for my patients with diabetes.

Historically, we haven’t had much in terms of effective medication for treating obesity, and frankly, now we do. We now have agents that are effective, that have relatively few side effects, and that have become part of what’s out there. People now want to use these agents, semaglutide, and there’s been a great need for these agents.

The problem, however, is twofold. One, as we all know, is that it has basically caused a shortage of medication for treating our patients who actually have type 2 diabetes and really need these medications to manage their disease. Then we have people who want these medications who can’t pay for them. Insurance doesn’t cover obesity medications, which is problematic and actually quite frustrating for people who, I think, really would benefit from using these medications.

What I tell people, frankly, is that until I have enough supply for my patients with type 2 diabetes, who need these agents to control their blood sugars, I want to keep this class of drugs available to them. I also hope we’re able to expand it more and more with improving insurance coverage – and that’s a big if, if you ask me – both for people who have prediabetes and for patients who are overweight and obese, because I think it’s really hard for people to lose weight.

It’s frustrating, and for many people, being overweight and obese causes all sorts of other health issues, not only diabetes. I believe that these drugs are both safe and effective and should be more available. I do think we need to be careful in terms of who we prescribe them to, at least at the moment. Hopefully, we’ll be able to expand their use.

Anything that can encourage our population to lose weight and maintain that weight loss is very important. We need to couple weight loss medications with lifestyle interventions. I think people can out-eat any medication; therefore, it’s very important to encourage our patients to eat better, to exercise more, and to do all the other things they need to do to reduce their risks for other comorbidities.

I am incredibly happy to have these newer agents on the market. I tell my patients – at least those who have diabetes – that they have to accept looking a little bit too thin for the benefits that we can see in using these medications.

Thank you.

Dr. Peters is professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes programs. She has published more than 200 articles, reviews, and abstracts, and three books, on diabetes, and has been an investigator for more than 40 research studies. She has spoken internationally at over 400 programs and serves on many committees of several professional organizations. She has ties with Abbott Diabetes Care, AstraZeneca Becton Dickinson, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Livongo, MannKind Corporation, Medscape, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Omada Health, OptumHealth, Sanofi, and Zafgen. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Last week, a number of patients emailed me regarding their concerns about this phenomenon known as Ozempic face. I went on to read about what this meant. I live in Los Angeles, where most people appear to be on semaglutide (Ozempic). It’s the phenomenon where people lose weight relatively rapidly, making their faces thin out. Then what happens, apparently, is they look older because their face is more wrinkled and baggier. They might have to have further plastic surgery. I say that with slight sarcasm because of where I live.

I want to talk about what I think about this, living here where there’s a great pressure to prescribe semaglutide off label, and what I think about it for my patients with diabetes.

Historically, we haven’t had much in terms of effective medication for treating obesity, and frankly, now we do. We now have agents that are effective, that have relatively few side effects, and that have become part of what’s out there. People now want to use these agents, semaglutide, and there’s been a great need for these agents.

The problem, however, is twofold. One, as we all know, is that it has basically caused a shortage of medication for treating our patients who actually have type 2 diabetes and really need these medications to manage their disease. Then we have people who want these medications who can’t pay for them. Insurance doesn’t cover obesity medications, which is problematic and actually quite frustrating for people who, I think, really would benefit from using these medications.

What I tell people, frankly, is that until I have enough supply for my patients with type 2 diabetes, who need these agents to control their blood sugars, I want to keep this class of drugs available to them. I also hope we’re able to expand it more and more with improving insurance coverage – and that’s a big if, if you ask me – both for people who have prediabetes and for patients who are overweight and obese, because I think it’s really hard for people to lose weight.

It’s frustrating, and for many people, being overweight and obese causes all sorts of other health issues, not only diabetes. I believe that these drugs are both safe and effective and should be more available. I do think we need to be careful in terms of who we prescribe them to, at least at the moment. Hopefully, we’ll be able to expand their use.

Anything that can encourage our population to lose weight and maintain that weight loss is very important. We need to couple weight loss medications with lifestyle interventions. I think people can out-eat any medication; therefore, it’s very important to encourage our patients to eat better, to exercise more, and to do all the other things they need to do to reduce their risks for other comorbidities.

I am incredibly happy to have these newer agents on the market. I tell my patients – at least those who have diabetes – that they have to accept looking a little bit too thin for the benefits that we can see in using these medications.

Thank you.

Dr. Peters is professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes programs. She has published more than 200 articles, reviews, and abstracts, and three books, on diabetes, and has been an investigator for more than 40 research studies. She has spoken internationally at over 400 programs and serves on many committees of several professional organizations. She has ties with Abbott Diabetes Care, AstraZeneca Becton Dickinson, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Livongo, MannKind Corporation, Medscape, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Omada Health, OptumHealth, Sanofi, and Zafgen. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Last week, a number of patients emailed me regarding their concerns about this phenomenon known as Ozempic face. I went on to read about what this meant. I live in Los Angeles, where most people appear to be on semaglutide (Ozempic). It’s the phenomenon where people lose weight relatively rapidly, making their faces thin out. Then what happens, apparently, is they look older because their face is more wrinkled and baggier. They might have to have further plastic surgery. I say that with slight sarcasm because of where I live.

I want to talk about what I think about this, living here where there’s a great pressure to prescribe semaglutide off label, and what I think about it for my patients with diabetes.

Historically, we haven’t had much in terms of effective medication for treating obesity, and frankly, now we do. We now have agents that are effective, that have relatively few side effects, and that have become part of what’s out there. People now want to use these agents, semaglutide, and there’s been a great need for these agents.

The problem, however, is twofold. One, as we all know, is that it has basically caused a shortage of medication for treating our patients who actually have type 2 diabetes and really need these medications to manage their disease. Then we have people who want these medications who can’t pay for them. Insurance doesn’t cover obesity medications, which is problematic and actually quite frustrating for people who, I think, really would benefit from using these medications.

What I tell people, frankly, is that until I have enough supply for my patients with type 2 diabetes, who need these agents to control their blood sugars, I want to keep this class of drugs available to them. I also hope we’re able to expand it more and more with improving insurance coverage – and that’s a big if, if you ask me – both for people who have prediabetes and for patients who are overweight and obese, because I think it’s really hard for people to lose weight.

It’s frustrating, and for many people, being overweight and obese causes all sorts of other health issues, not only diabetes. I believe that these drugs are both safe and effective and should be more available. I do think we need to be careful in terms of who we prescribe them to, at least at the moment. Hopefully, we’ll be able to expand their use.

Anything that can encourage our population to lose weight and maintain that weight loss is very important. We need to couple weight loss medications with lifestyle interventions. I think people can out-eat any medication; therefore, it’s very important to encourage our patients to eat better, to exercise more, and to do all the other things they need to do to reduce their risks for other comorbidities.

I am incredibly happy to have these newer agents on the market. I tell my patients – at least those who have diabetes – that they have to accept looking a little bit too thin for the benefits that we can see in using these medications.

Thank you.

Dr. Peters is professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes programs. She has published more than 200 articles, reviews, and abstracts, and three books, on diabetes, and has been an investigator for more than 40 research studies. She has spoken internationally at over 400 programs and serves on many committees of several professional organizations. She has ties with Abbott Diabetes Care, AstraZeneca Becton Dickinson, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Livongo, MannKind Corporation, Medscape, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Omada Health, OptumHealth, Sanofi, and Zafgen. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Evidence supporting medications that slow the heart rate (HR), notably beta-blockers, is overwhelming in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction. Underwhelming, however, is clinical trial support for such agents in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).
 

Indeed, at least for some such patients, a treatment that modestly accelerates resting HR may be a more promising strategy, suggests an early line of research that challenges prevalent thinking about HFpEF therapy.

In a small, randomized test of the idea, patients with HFpEF and standard pacemakers set to a backup resting HR a bit higher than a standard of care 60 bpm, usually to about 75 bpm, reaped important quality of life benefits.

More strikingly, their natriuretic peptide levels and burden of atrial fibrillation (AFib) fell significantly, the latter by 27% over 1 year.

The trial enrolled only HFpEF patients with pacemakers previously implanted for sick sinus syndrome or atrioventricular block. But researchers say their 107-patient study called myPACE – if confirmed in larger, multicenter trials – lays the groundwork for a device therapy that is broadly useful, potentially, in patients with “preclinical or overt” HFpEF.

Indeed, some of the intervention’s “quite substantial” benefits rivaled or surpassed what his group has observed with available HFpEF drug therapies, including the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, observed Markus Meyer, MD, PhD, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Moreover, the study may be “the first to show that, with this approach, we can actually also reduce atrial fibrillation,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Meyer said his group is “confident” that the HR-modulation strategy will be successful in appropriate clinical trials and that “pacemakers, in the end, will become a treatment modality for HFpEF.”

Meyer is senior author on the trial’s publication in JAMA Cardiology in JAMA Cardiology (2023 Feb 1. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2022.5320), with lead author Margaret Infeld, MD, University of Vermont, Burlington.

The trial entered pacemaker patients with HFpEF of stage B or C – that is, either asymptomatic with structural disease or fully symptomatic. But, Dr. Meyer said, “we saw that the treatment effect was much more pronounced in the patients who had overt heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.”
 

Challenging beta-blocker dogma

The study, the report states, “contradicts canonical thinking” by suggesting HFpEF patients may benefit from a higher resting heart rate, which would presumably shorten diastolic filling time. It also “may help reduce the overprescription of beta-blockers to allow higher heart rates in this population.”

Indeed, Dr. Meyer observed, no one really knows whether beta-blockers work in HFpEF, “because they really have never been studied in a sufficiently powered randomized controlled trial.”

The current study “basically rewrites what we know about the pathophysiology of this form of clinical heart failure,” said Michael R. Zile, MD, Medical University of South Carolina and Veterans Affairs Medical Center, both in Charleston, who was not part of the trial or report.

Previously in HFpEF, Dr. Zile said in an interview, “everybody thought you needed to make diastole longer to give the ventricle a longer time to fill. And none of that really made any sense. It was just sort of accepted as dogma.”

The idea led to widespread use of beta-blockers in HFpEF but “turned out just not to be true.” Indeed, European and North American guidelines, Dr. Zile observed, “have all taken beta-blockers out of the equation for HFpEF” except for treating comorbidities that can be associated with HFpEF, like hypertension or AFib.

Many patients with HFpEF and chronotropic incompetence could be provided with standard pacemakers with primarily conduction-system pacing but are not getting them, he observed.

The current study might help change that. No one is suggesting, based on the current study, “that we start putting pacemakers in every single patient with HFpEF,” Dr. Zile said. Still, for HFpEF patients already with a pacemaker, the study provides “reasonable assurance” that its criteria for elevated resting HR may well improve symptoms.

Moreover, it suggests such pacemakers, programmed as in the study, might potentially give a boost to HFpEF patients without chronotropic incompetence but with persisting symptoms despite guideline-directed drug therapy. That’s certainly worth exploring in further trials, Dr. Zile said.
 

How the study worked

The single-center trial entered 107 participants with HFpEF and pacemakers set, at baseline, to a backup resting HR of 60 bpm; their age averaged 75 and 48% were women. Only patients with devices for atrial pacing, conduction-system pacing, or biventricular pacing – which are unlikely to promote ventricular dyssynchrony – were included.

They were randomly assigned, double-blind, to have their devices set to an accelerated backup rate or to be continued at 60 bpm. The backup resting rate set for the intervention group’s 50 patients was individualized based on height and other factors; the median was 75 bpm.

Scores on the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire, the primary endpoint, improved in the intervention group, compared with baseline, by about 11 points after 1 month and by 15 points after 1 year (P < .001).

The scores in the usual-care group deteriorated by half a point and by 3.5 points at 1 month and 1 year (P = .03), respectively.

Consistent advantages for the accelerated-HR strategy were evident throughout the major secondary endpoints. For example, levels of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide fell an average 109 pg/dL after 1 month in the accelerated-HR group and rose a mean of 128 pg/dL in the usual-care group (P = .02).

Mean daily pacemaker-monitored activity level rose by 47 minutes by 1 year in the accelerated-HR group, compared with a drop of 22 minutes for those assigned to the standard-care rate (P < .001).

AFib was detected in 18% of intervention patients at the 1-year follow-up, down from 31% at baseline. Their risk ratio for AFib at 1 year was 0.73 (95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.99, P = .04), compared with the control group.

In other patients with HFpEF “we have done pacing studies where we just ramped up the pacing rate, and we see that these pressures in the left atrium actually drop immediately,” Dr. Meyer said. It’s that “unburdening of the atria,” he added, that probably leads to the reduction in AFib.

Dr. Meyer reported holding a patent for pacemakers for HFpEF licensed to Medtronic. Dr. Zile said he consults for Medtronic and has no other relevant financial relationships.

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

Evidence supporting medications that slow the heart rate (HR), notably beta-blockers, is overwhelming in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction. Underwhelming, however, is clinical trial support for such agents in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).
 

Indeed, at least for some such patients, a treatment that modestly accelerates resting HR may be a more promising strategy, suggests an early line of research that challenges prevalent thinking about HFpEF therapy.

In a small, randomized test of the idea, patients with HFpEF and standard pacemakers set to a backup resting HR a bit higher than a standard of care 60 bpm, usually to about 75 bpm, reaped important quality of life benefits.

More strikingly, their natriuretic peptide levels and burden of atrial fibrillation (AFib) fell significantly, the latter by 27% over 1 year.

The trial enrolled only HFpEF patients with pacemakers previously implanted for sick sinus syndrome or atrioventricular block. But researchers say their 107-patient study called myPACE – if confirmed in larger, multicenter trials – lays the groundwork for a device therapy that is broadly useful, potentially, in patients with “preclinical or overt” HFpEF.

Indeed, some of the intervention’s “quite substantial” benefits rivaled or surpassed what his group has observed with available HFpEF drug therapies, including the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, observed Markus Meyer, MD, PhD, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Moreover, the study may be “the first to show that, with this approach, we can actually also reduce atrial fibrillation,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Meyer said his group is “confident” that the HR-modulation strategy will be successful in appropriate clinical trials and that “pacemakers, in the end, will become a treatment modality for HFpEF.”

Meyer is senior author on the trial’s publication in JAMA Cardiology in JAMA Cardiology (2023 Feb 1. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2022.5320), with lead author Margaret Infeld, MD, University of Vermont, Burlington.

The trial entered pacemaker patients with HFpEF of stage B or C – that is, either asymptomatic with structural disease or fully symptomatic. But, Dr. Meyer said, “we saw that the treatment effect was much more pronounced in the patients who had overt heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.”
 

Challenging beta-blocker dogma

The study, the report states, “contradicts canonical thinking” by suggesting HFpEF patients may benefit from a higher resting heart rate, which would presumably shorten diastolic filling time. It also “may help reduce the overprescription of beta-blockers to allow higher heart rates in this population.”

Indeed, Dr. Meyer observed, no one really knows whether beta-blockers work in HFpEF, “because they really have never been studied in a sufficiently powered randomized controlled trial.”

The current study “basically rewrites what we know about the pathophysiology of this form of clinical heart failure,” said Michael R. Zile, MD, Medical University of South Carolina and Veterans Affairs Medical Center, both in Charleston, who was not part of the trial or report.

Previously in HFpEF, Dr. Zile said in an interview, “everybody thought you needed to make diastole longer to give the ventricle a longer time to fill. And none of that really made any sense. It was just sort of accepted as dogma.”

The idea led to widespread use of beta-blockers in HFpEF but “turned out just not to be true.” Indeed, European and North American guidelines, Dr. Zile observed, “have all taken beta-blockers out of the equation for HFpEF” except for treating comorbidities that can be associated with HFpEF, like hypertension or AFib.

Many patients with HFpEF and chronotropic incompetence could be provided with standard pacemakers with primarily conduction-system pacing but are not getting them, he observed.

The current study might help change that. No one is suggesting, based on the current study, “that we start putting pacemakers in every single patient with HFpEF,” Dr. Zile said. Still, for HFpEF patients already with a pacemaker, the study provides “reasonable assurance” that its criteria for elevated resting HR may well improve symptoms.

Moreover, it suggests such pacemakers, programmed as in the study, might potentially give a boost to HFpEF patients without chronotropic incompetence but with persisting symptoms despite guideline-directed drug therapy. That’s certainly worth exploring in further trials, Dr. Zile said.
 

How the study worked

The single-center trial entered 107 participants with HFpEF and pacemakers set, at baseline, to a backup resting HR of 60 bpm; their age averaged 75 and 48% were women. Only patients with devices for atrial pacing, conduction-system pacing, or biventricular pacing – which are unlikely to promote ventricular dyssynchrony – were included.

They were randomly assigned, double-blind, to have their devices set to an accelerated backup rate or to be continued at 60 bpm. The backup resting rate set for the intervention group’s 50 patients was individualized based on height and other factors; the median was 75 bpm.

Scores on the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire, the primary endpoint, improved in the intervention group, compared with baseline, by about 11 points after 1 month and by 15 points after 1 year (P < .001).

The scores in the usual-care group deteriorated by half a point and by 3.5 points at 1 month and 1 year (P = .03), respectively.

Consistent advantages for the accelerated-HR strategy were evident throughout the major secondary endpoints. For example, levels of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide fell an average 109 pg/dL after 1 month in the accelerated-HR group and rose a mean of 128 pg/dL in the usual-care group (P = .02).

Mean daily pacemaker-monitored activity level rose by 47 minutes by 1 year in the accelerated-HR group, compared with a drop of 22 minutes for those assigned to the standard-care rate (P < .001).

AFib was detected in 18% of intervention patients at the 1-year follow-up, down from 31% at baseline. Their risk ratio for AFib at 1 year was 0.73 (95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.99, P = .04), compared with the control group.

In other patients with HFpEF “we have done pacing studies where we just ramped up the pacing rate, and we see that these pressures in the left atrium actually drop immediately,” Dr. Meyer said. It’s that “unburdening of the atria,” he added, that probably leads to the reduction in AFib.

Dr. Meyer reported holding a patent for pacemakers for HFpEF licensed to Medtronic. Dr. Zile said he consults for Medtronic and has no other relevant financial relationships.

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

Evidence supporting medications that slow the heart rate (HR), notably beta-blockers, is overwhelming in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction. Underwhelming, however, is clinical trial support for such agents in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).
 

Indeed, at least for some such patients, a treatment that modestly accelerates resting HR may be a more promising strategy, suggests an early line of research that challenges prevalent thinking about HFpEF therapy.

In a small, randomized test of the idea, patients with HFpEF and standard pacemakers set to a backup resting HR a bit higher than a standard of care 60 bpm, usually to about 75 bpm, reaped important quality of life benefits.

More strikingly, their natriuretic peptide levels and burden of atrial fibrillation (AFib) fell significantly, the latter by 27% over 1 year.

The trial enrolled only HFpEF patients with pacemakers previously implanted for sick sinus syndrome or atrioventricular block. But researchers say their 107-patient study called myPACE – if confirmed in larger, multicenter trials – lays the groundwork for a device therapy that is broadly useful, potentially, in patients with “preclinical or overt” HFpEF.

Indeed, some of the intervention’s “quite substantial” benefits rivaled or surpassed what his group has observed with available HFpEF drug therapies, including the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, observed Markus Meyer, MD, PhD, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Moreover, the study may be “the first to show that, with this approach, we can actually also reduce atrial fibrillation,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Meyer said his group is “confident” that the HR-modulation strategy will be successful in appropriate clinical trials and that “pacemakers, in the end, will become a treatment modality for HFpEF.”

Meyer is senior author on the trial’s publication in JAMA Cardiology in JAMA Cardiology (2023 Feb 1. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2022.5320), with lead author Margaret Infeld, MD, University of Vermont, Burlington.

The trial entered pacemaker patients with HFpEF of stage B or C – that is, either asymptomatic with structural disease or fully symptomatic. But, Dr. Meyer said, “we saw that the treatment effect was much more pronounced in the patients who had overt heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.”
 

Challenging beta-blocker dogma

The study, the report states, “contradicts canonical thinking” by suggesting HFpEF patients may benefit from a higher resting heart rate, which would presumably shorten diastolic filling time. It also “may help reduce the overprescription of beta-blockers to allow higher heart rates in this population.”

Indeed, Dr. Meyer observed, no one really knows whether beta-blockers work in HFpEF, “because they really have never been studied in a sufficiently powered randomized controlled trial.”

The current study “basically rewrites what we know about the pathophysiology of this form of clinical heart failure,” said Michael R. Zile, MD, Medical University of South Carolina and Veterans Affairs Medical Center, both in Charleston, who was not part of the trial or report.

Previously in HFpEF, Dr. Zile said in an interview, “everybody thought you needed to make diastole longer to give the ventricle a longer time to fill. And none of that really made any sense. It was just sort of accepted as dogma.”

The idea led to widespread use of beta-blockers in HFpEF but “turned out just not to be true.” Indeed, European and North American guidelines, Dr. Zile observed, “have all taken beta-blockers out of the equation for HFpEF” except for treating comorbidities that can be associated with HFpEF, like hypertension or AFib.

Many patients with HFpEF and chronotropic incompetence could be provided with standard pacemakers with primarily conduction-system pacing but are not getting them, he observed.

The current study might help change that. No one is suggesting, based on the current study, “that we start putting pacemakers in every single patient with HFpEF,” Dr. Zile said. Still, for HFpEF patients already with a pacemaker, the study provides “reasonable assurance” that its criteria for elevated resting HR may well improve symptoms.

Moreover, it suggests such pacemakers, programmed as in the study, might potentially give a boost to HFpEF patients without chronotropic incompetence but with persisting symptoms despite guideline-directed drug therapy. That’s certainly worth exploring in further trials, Dr. Zile said.
 

How the study worked

The single-center trial entered 107 participants with HFpEF and pacemakers set, at baseline, to a backup resting HR of 60 bpm; their age averaged 75 and 48% were women. Only patients with devices for atrial pacing, conduction-system pacing, or biventricular pacing – which are unlikely to promote ventricular dyssynchrony – were included.

They were randomly assigned, double-blind, to have their devices set to an accelerated backup rate or to be continued at 60 bpm. The backup resting rate set for the intervention group’s 50 patients was individualized based on height and other factors; the median was 75 bpm.

Scores on the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire, the primary endpoint, improved in the intervention group, compared with baseline, by about 11 points after 1 month and by 15 points after 1 year (P < .001).

The scores in the usual-care group deteriorated by half a point and by 3.5 points at 1 month and 1 year (P = .03), respectively.

Consistent advantages for the accelerated-HR strategy were evident throughout the major secondary endpoints. For example, levels of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide fell an average 109 pg/dL after 1 month in the accelerated-HR group and rose a mean of 128 pg/dL in the usual-care group (P = .02).

Mean daily pacemaker-monitored activity level rose by 47 minutes by 1 year in the accelerated-HR group, compared with a drop of 22 minutes for those assigned to the standard-care rate (P < .001).

AFib was detected in 18% of intervention patients at the 1-year follow-up, down from 31% at baseline. Their risk ratio for AFib at 1 year was 0.73 (95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.99, P = .04), compared with the control group.

In other patients with HFpEF “we have done pacing studies where we just ramped up the pacing rate, and we see that these pressures in the left atrium actually drop immediately,” Dr. Meyer said. It’s that “unburdening of the atria,” he added, that probably leads to the reduction in AFib.

Dr. Meyer reported holding a patent for pacemakers for HFpEF licensed to Medtronic. Dr. Zile said he consults for Medtronic and has no other relevant financial relationships.

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

The longer people had diabetes, the greater their rate of incident heart failure, suggests a recently published review of prospectively collected observational data from nearly 24,000 people with diabetes in the UK Biobank.

The findings “add to the growing body of evidence suggesting that duration of diabetes is an important and independent determinant of heart failure among patients with diabetes,” comments Justin B. Echouffo-Tcheugui, MD, PhD, in an accompanying editorial.

Collectively, the new UK Biobank results and prior findings, “provide additional persuasive evidence that the link between duration of diabetes and heart failure is real,” although the physiological mechanisms behind the relationship remain incompletely understood, wrote Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui, an endocrinologist at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.

“The duration of diabetes may reflect cumulative effects of various adverse processes in the setting of diabetes” that result in “intrinsic myocardial lesions,” he suggested. These adverse processes might include not only hyperglycemia, but also glucotoxicity, lipotoxicity, hyperinsulinemia, advanced glycosylation end products, oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, cardiac autonomic neuropathy, and coronary microvascular dysfunction. Long-duration diabetes may also contribute to declining kidney function, which can further worsen heart failure risk.

The upshot is that clinicians may need to consider more systematically the duration of diabetes when assessing people with diabetes for heart failure.

Existing risk-assessment tools for predicting heart failure in people with diabetes “have not always accounted for diabetes duration,” Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui noted.
 

Intensify heart failure detection with longer diabetes duration

“Active heart failure detection should perhaps be intensified with increased diabetes duration,” Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui suggested in his editorial. He noted that a 2022 consensus report by the American Diabetes Association recommends clinicians measure natriuretic peptide or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin in all people with diabetes “on at least a yearly basis to identify the earliest heart failure stages and implement strategies to prevent transition to symptomatic heart failure.”

The UK Biobank study was run by investigators primarily based in China and included data from 23,754 people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and no heart failure at baseline. The prospectively collected data allowed for a median follow-up of 11.7 years, during which time 2,081 people developed incident heart failure.

In an analysis that divided participants into four categories of diabetes duration (< 5 years, 5-9 years, 10-14 years, and ≥ 15 years) and adjusted for potential confounders, heart failure incidence showed a significant 32% increased incidence among those with diabetes for at least 15 years, compared with those with diabetes for less than 5 years. People with a diabetes duration of 5-14 years showed a trend toward having more incident heart failure, compared with those with diabetes for less than 5 years, but the difference was not significant. 

An adjusted analysis also showed poor glycemic control at baseline (hemoglobin A1c ≥ 8.0%) significantly linked with a 46% increased incidence of heart failure, compared with those with baseline A1c less than 7.0%.
 

Additive effect?

When the authors analyzed the effect of both these variables, they saw a roughly additive effect.

Patients with diabetes for at least 15 years and a baseline A1c of at least 8.0% had a 98% increased incidence of heart failure, compared with those who had diabetes for less than 5 years and a baseline A1c less than 7.0%, after adjustment. This association was independent of age, sex, and race.

These findings “highlight the paramount role of the duration of diabetes and its interaction with glycemic control in the development of heart failure,” the authors concluded. “Long duration of diabetes and poor glycemic control may result in structural and functional changes in the myocardium, which is likely to underlie the pathogenesis of heart failure among individuals with diabetes.”

In his editorial, Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui lauded the report for its “robust” analyses that included a large sample and accounted for key confounders, such as glycemic control. However, he also cited eight “shortcomings” of the study, including its sole reliance on A1c levels to identify diabetes, a likely underestimation of diabetes duration, the lumping together of people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and lack of a subanalysis of incident heart failure in those with preserved or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.

Among prior reports of evidence also suggesting an effect of diabetes duration on incident heart failure, Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui cited a study he led, published in 2021, that analyzed prospective, longitudinal, observational data from 9,734 adults enrolled in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study. The results showed that, compared with those without diabetes, the incidence of heart failure rose with longer diabetes duration, with the highest risk among those with diabetes for at least 15 years, who had a 2.8-fold increase in heart failure versus the reference group. Each 5-year increase in diabetes duration was associated with a significant 17% relative increase in heart failure incidence.

The study received no commercial funding. The authors and editorialist reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The longer people had diabetes, the greater their rate of incident heart failure, suggests a recently published review of prospectively collected observational data from nearly 24,000 people with diabetes in the UK Biobank.

The findings “add to the growing body of evidence suggesting that duration of diabetes is an important and independent determinant of heart failure among patients with diabetes,” comments Justin B. Echouffo-Tcheugui, MD, PhD, in an accompanying editorial.

Collectively, the new UK Biobank results and prior findings, “provide additional persuasive evidence that the link between duration of diabetes and heart failure is real,” although the physiological mechanisms behind the relationship remain incompletely understood, wrote Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui, an endocrinologist at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.

“The duration of diabetes may reflect cumulative effects of various adverse processes in the setting of diabetes” that result in “intrinsic myocardial lesions,” he suggested. These adverse processes might include not only hyperglycemia, but also glucotoxicity, lipotoxicity, hyperinsulinemia, advanced glycosylation end products, oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, cardiac autonomic neuropathy, and coronary microvascular dysfunction. Long-duration diabetes may also contribute to declining kidney function, which can further worsen heart failure risk.

The upshot is that clinicians may need to consider more systematically the duration of diabetes when assessing people with diabetes for heart failure.

Existing risk-assessment tools for predicting heart failure in people with diabetes “have not always accounted for diabetes duration,” Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui noted.
 

Intensify heart failure detection with longer diabetes duration

“Active heart failure detection should perhaps be intensified with increased diabetes duration,” Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui suggested in his editorial. He noted that a 2022 consensus report by the American Diabetes Association recommends clinicians measure natriuretic peptide or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin in all people with diabetes “on at least a yearly basis to identify the earliest heart failure stages and implement strategies to prevent transition to symptomatic heart failure.”

The UK Biobank study was run by investigators primarily based in China and included data from 23,754 people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and no heart failure at baseline. The prospectively collected data allowed for a median follow-up of 11.7 years, during which time 2,081 people developed incident heart failure.

In an analysis that divided participants into four categories of diabetes duration (< 5 years, 5-9 years, 10-14 years, and ≥ 15 years) and adjusted for potential confounders, heart failure incidence showed a significant 32% increased incidence among those with diabetes for at least 15 years, compared with those with diabetes for less than 5 years. People with a diabetes duration of 5-14 years showed a trend toward having more incident heart failure, compared with those with diabetes for less than 5 years, but the difference was not significant. 

An adjusted analysis also showed poor glycemic control at baseline (hemoglobin A1c ≥ 8.0%) significantly linked with a 46% increased incidence of heart failure, compared with those with baseline A1c less than 7.0%.
 

Additive effect?

When the authors analyzed the effect of both these variables, they saw a roughly additive effect.

Patients with diabetes for at least 15 years and a baseline A1c of at least 8.0% had a 98% increased incidence of heart failure, compared with those who had diabetes for less than 5 years and a baseline A1c less than 7.0%, after adjustment. This association was independent of age, sex, and race.

These findings “highlight the paramount role of the duration of diabetes and its interaction with glycemic control in the development of heart failure,” the authors concluded. “Long duration of diabetes and poor glycemic control may result in structural and functional changes in the myocardium, which is likely to underlie the pathogenesis of heart failure among individuals with diabetes.”

In his editorial, Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui lauded the report for its “robust” analyses that included a large sample and accounted for key confounders, such as glycemic control. However, he also cited eight “shortcomings” of the study, including its sole reliance on A1c levels to identify diabetes, a likely underestimation of diabetes duration, the lumping together of people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and lack of a subanalysis of incident heart failure in those with preserved or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.

Among prior reports of evidence also suggesting an effect of diabetes duration on incident heart failure, Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui cited a study he led, published in 2021, that analyzed prospective, longitudinal, observational data from 9,734 adults enrolled in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study. The results showed that, compared with those without diabetes, the incidence of heart failure rose with longer diabetes duration, with the highest risk among those with diabetes for at least 15 years, who had a 2.8-fold increase in heart failure versus the reference group. Each 5-year increase in diabetes duration was associated with a significant 17% relative increase in heart failure incidence.

The study received no commercial funding. The authors and editorialist reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The longer people had diabetes, the greater their rate of incident heart failure, suggests a recently published review of prospectively collected observational data from nearly 24,000 people with diabetes in the UK Biobank.

The findings “add to the growing body of evidence suggesting that duration of diabetes is an important and independent determinant of heart failure among patients with diabetes,” comments Justin B. Echouffo-Tcheugui, MD, PhD, in an accompanying editorial.

Collectively, the new UK Biobank results and prior findings, “provide additional persuasive evidence that the link between duration of diabetes and heart failure is real,” although the physiological mechanisms behind the relationship remain incompletely understood, wrote Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui, an endocrinologist at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.

“The duration of diabetes may reflect cumulative effects of various adverse processes in the setting of diabetes” that result in “intrinsic myocardial lesions,” he suggested. These adverse processes might include not only hyperglycemia, but also glucotoxicity, lipotoxicity, hyperinsulinemia, advanced glycosylation end products, oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, cardiac autonomic neuropathy, and coronary microvascular dysfunction. Long-duration diabetes may also contribute to declining kidney function, which can further worsen heart failure risk.

The upshot is that clinicians may need to consider more systematically the duration of diabetes when assessing people with diabetes for heart failure.

Existing risk-assessment tools for predicting heart failure in people with diabetes “have not always accounted for diabetes duration,” Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui noted.
 

Intensify heart failure detection with longer diabetes duration

“Active heart failure detection should perhaps be intensified with increased diabetes duration,” Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui suggested in his editorial. He noted that a 2022 consensus report by the American Diabetes Association recommends clinicians measure natriuretic peptide or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin in all people with diabetes “on at least a yearly basis to identify the earliest heart failure stages and implement strategies to prevent transition to symptomatic heart failure.”

The UK Biobank study was run by investigators primarily based in China and included data from 23,754 people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and no heart failure at baseline. The prospectively collected data allowed for a median follow-up of 11.7 years, during which time 2,081 people developed incident heart failure.

In an analysis that divided participants into four categories of diabetes duration (< 5 years, 5-9 years, 10-14 years, and ≥ 15 years) and adjusted for potential confounders, heart failure incidence showed a significant 32% increased incidence among those with diabetes for at least 15 years, compared with those with diabetes for less than 5 years. People with a diabetes duration of 5-14 years showed a trend toward having more incident heart failure, compared with those with diabetes for less than 5 years, but the difference was not significant. 

An adjusted analysis also showed poor glycemic control at baseline (hemoglobin A1c ≥ 8.0%) significantly linked with a 46% increased incidence of heart failure, compared with those with baseline A1c less than 7.0%.
 

Additive effect?

When the authors analyzed the effect of both these variables, they saw a roughly additive effect.

Patients with diabetes for at least 15 years and a baseline A1c of at least 8.0% had a 98% increased incidence of heart failure, compared with those who had diabetes for less than 5 years and a baseline A1c less than 7.0%, after adjustment. This association was independent of age, sex, and race.

These findings “highlight the paramount role of the duration of diabetes and its interaction with glycemic control in the development of heart failure,” the authors concluded. “Long duration of diabetes and poor glycemic control may result in structural and functional changes in the myocardium, which is likely to underlie the pathogenesis of heart failure among individuals with diabetes.”

In his editorial, Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui lauded the report for its “robust” analyses that included a large sample and accounted for key confounders, such as glycemic control. However, he also cited eight “shortcomings” of the study, including its sole reliance on A1c levels to identify diabetes, a likely underestimation of diabetes duration, the lumping together of people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and lack of a subanalysis of incident heart failure in those with preserved or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.

Among prior reports of evidence also suggesting an effect of diabetes duration on incident heart failure, Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui cited a study he led, published in 2021, that analyzed prospective, longitudinal, observational data from 9,734 adults enrolled in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study. The results showed that, compared with those without diabetes, the incidence of heart failure rose with longer diabetes duration, with the highest risk among those with diabetes for at least 15 years, who had a 2.8-fold increase in heart failure versus the reference group. Each 5-year increase in diabetes duration was associated with a significant 17% relative increase in heart failure incidence.

The study received no commercial funding. The authors and editorialist reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among adults with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), 11.8% required at least one musculoskeletal surgery related to their disease, based on data from more than 1,500 individuals at the University of Toronto’s Psoriatic Arthritis Clinic.

“Despite optimal medical therapy to control systemic inflammation and preserve joint function, a subset of patients with PsA still require musculoskeletal (MSK) surgery for disease-related morbidity,” but data on the prevalence of MSK surgeries and the associated risk factors are lacking, wrote Timothy S.H. Kwok, MD, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues.

In a study published in The Journal of Rheumatology, the researchers reviewed data from a longitudinal cohort of 1,574 adults aged 18 years and older with PsA established at the Toronto clinic during 1978-2019.

Overall, 185 patients had 379 MSK surgeries related to PsA during the study period for a prevalence of 11.8%.

The most common procedures were arthrodesis and arthroplasty (27% for both). More than half (59%) of the surgeries were joint sacrificing, and 41% were joint retaining, and 57 procedures were revisions related to the primary surgery.

Among 1,018 patients with data complete enough for a multivariate analysis, including 71 PsA surgeries, factors significantly associated with an increased risk for surgery were a higher number of damaged joints (hazard ratio [HR], 1.03; P < .001), tender or swollen joints (HR, 1.04; P = .01), and the presence of nail lesions (HR, 2.08; P < .01). Other predictors of surgery were higher scores on the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HR, 2.01; P < .001), elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate (HR, 2.37; P = .02), and HLA-B27 positivity (HR, 2.22; P = .048).

However, a higher score on the Psoriasis Area Severity Index was significantly associated with lower risk of surgery (HR, 0.88; P < .002) The use of biologics had no significant impact on MSK surgery, the researchers noted.

The high percentage of joint sacrificing surgeries suggests a high burden of MSK surgery in patients with PsA, the researchers wrote in their discussion. The current study supports findings from previous studies and highlights the potential limitations and need for improvement in the current medical treatment paradigm for PsA, they said.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the potential for referral bias of complex cases to the center, which might have caused overestimation of the number of surgeries. The similarity in surgeries specifically related to PsA and degenerative arthritis also makes overestimation of surgeries possible, the researchers noted.

However, the study is one of the largest known to evaluate the prevalence of risk factors for MSK surgery in PsA patients over a long period of time, and identified surgeries directly attributable to PsA, they said. The study ended prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which increased the external validity of the findings, they added.

The study was supported by the Krembil Foundation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Among adults with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), 11.8% required at least one musculoskeletal surgery related to their disease, based on data from more than 1,500 individuals at the University of Toronto’s Psoriatic Arthritis Clinic.

“Despite optimal medical therapy to control systemic inflammation and preserve joint function, a subset of patients with PsA still require musculoskeletal (MSK) surgery for disease-related morbidity,” but data on the prevalence of MSK surgeries and the associated risk factors are lacking, wrote Timothy S.H. Kwok, MD, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues.

In a study published in The Journal of Rheumatology, the researchers reviewed data from a longitudinal cohort of 1,574 adults aged 18 years and older with PsA established at the Toronto clinic during 1978-2019.

Overall, 185 patients had 379 MSK surgeries related to PsA during the study period for a prevalence of 11.8%.

The most common procedures were arthrodesis and arthroplasty (27% for both). More than half (59%) of the surgeries were joint sacrificing, and 41% were joint retaining, and 57 procedures were revisions related to the primary surgery.

Among 1,018 patients with data complete enough for a multivariate analysis, including 71 PsA surgeries, factors significantly associated with an increased risk for surgery were a higher number of damaged joints (hazard ratio [HR], 1.03; P < .001), tender or swollen joints (HR, 1.04; P = .01), and the presence of nail lesions (HR, 2.08; P < .01). Other predictors of surgery were higher scores on the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HR, 2.01; P < .001), elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate (HR, 2.37; P = .02), and HLA-B27 positivity (HR, 2.22; P = .048).

However, a higher score on the Psoriasis Area Severity Index was significantly associated with lower risk of surgery (HR, 0.88; P < .002) The use of biologics had no significant impact on MSK surgery, the researchers noted.

The high percentage of joint sacrificing surgeries suggests a high burden of MSK surgery in patients with PsA, the researchers wrote in their discussion. The current study supports findings from previous studies and highlights the potential limitations and need for improvement in the current medical treatment paradigm for PsA, they said.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the potential for referral bias of complex cases to the center, which might have caused overestimation of the number of surgeries. The similarity in surgeries specifically related to PsA and degenerative arthritis also makes overestimation of surgeries possible, the researchers noted.

However, the study is one of the largest known to evaluate the prevalence of risk factors for MSK surgery in PsA patients over a long period of time, and identified surgeries directly attributable to PsA, they said. The study ended prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which increased the external validity of the findings, they added.

The study was supported by the Krembil Foundation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Among adults with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), 11.8% required at least one musculoskeletal surgery related to their disease, based on data from more than 1,500 individuals at the University of Toronto’s Psoriatic Arthritis Clinic.

“Despite optimal medical therapy to control systemic inflammation and preserve joint function, a subset of patients with PsA still require musculoskeletal (MSK) surgery for disease-related morbidity,” but data on the prevalence of MSK surgeries and the associated risk factors are lacking, wrote Timothy S.H. Kwok, MD, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues.

In a study published in The Journal of Rheumatology, the researchers reviewed data from a longitudinal cohort of 1,574 adults aged 18 years and older with PsA established at the Toronto clinic during 1978-2019.

Overall, 185 patients had 379 MSK surgeries related to PsA during the study period for a prevalence of 11.8%.

The most common procedures were arthrodesis and arthroplasty (27% for both). More than half (59%) of the surgeries were joint sacrificing, and 41% were joint retaining, and 57 procedures were revisions related to the primary surgery.

Among 1,018 patients with data complete enough for a multivariate analysis, including 71 PsA surgeries, factors significantly associated with an increased risk for surgery were a higher number of damaged joints (hazard ratio [HR], 1.03; P < .001), tender or swollen joints (HR, 1.04; P = .01), and the presence of nail lesions (HR, 2.08; P < .01). Other predictors of surgery were higher scores on the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HR, 2.01; P < .001), elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate (HR, 2.37; P = .02), and HLA-B27 positivity (HR, 2.22; P = .048).

However, a higher score on the Psoriasis Area Severity Index was significantly associated with lower risk of surgery (HR, 0.88; P < .002) The use of biologics had no significant impact on MSK surgery, the researchers noted.

The high percentage of joint sacrificing surgeries suggests a high burden of MSK surgery in patients with PsA, the researchers wrote in their discussion. The current study supports findings from previous studies and highlights the potential limitations and need for improvement in the current medical treatment paradigm for PsA, they said.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the potential for referral bias of complex cases to the center, which might have caused overestimation of the number of surgeries. The similarity in surgeries specifically related to PsA and degenerative arthritis also makes overestimation of surgeries possible, the researchers noted.

However, the study is one of the largest known to evaluate the prevalence of risk factors for MSK surgery in PsA patients over a long period of time, and identified surgeries directly attributable to PsA, they said. The study ended prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which increased the external validity of the findings, they added.

The study was supported by the Krembil Foundation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.