Frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA) has become increasingly common since it was first described in 1994.¹ A positive correlation between FFA and the use of sunscreens was reported in an observational study.² The geographic distribution of this association has spanned the United Kingdom (UK), Europe, and Asia, though data from the United States are lacking. Various international studies have demonstrated an association between FFA and sunscreen use, further exemplifying this stark contrast.

In the United Kingdom (UK), Aldoori et al² found that women who used sunscreen at least twice weekly had 2 times the likelihood of developing FFA compared with women who did not use sunscreen regularly. Kidambi et al³ found similar results in UK men with FFA who had higher rates of primary sunscreen use and higher rates of at least twice-weekly use of facial moisturizer with unspecified sunscreen content.

These associations between FFA and sunscreen use are not unique to the UK. A study conducted in Spain identified a statistical association between FFA and use of facial sunscreen in women (odds ratio, 1.6 [95% CI, 1.06-2.41]) and men (odds ratio, 1.84 [95% CI, 1.04-3.23]).⁴ In Thailand, FFA was nearly twice as likely to be present in patients with regular sunscreen use compared to controls who did not apply sunscreen regularly.⁵ Interestingly, a Brazilian study showed no connection between sunscreen use and FFA. Instead, FFA was associated with hair straightening with formalin or use of facial soap orfacial moisturizer.⁶ An international systematic review of 1248 patients with FFA and 1459 controls determined that sunscreen users were 2.21 times more likely to develop FFA than their counterparts who did not use sunscreen regularly.⁷

Quite glaring is the lack of data from the United States, which could be used to compare FFA and sunscreen associations to other nations. It is possible that certain regions of the world such as the United States may not have an increased risk for FFA in sunscreen users due to other environmental factors, differing sunscreen application practices, or differing chemical ingredients. At the same time, many other countries cannot afford or lack access to sunscreens or facial moisturizers, which is an additional variable that may complicate this association. These populations need to be studied to determine whether they are as susceptible to FFA as those who use sunscreen regularly around the world.

Another underlying factor supporting this association is the inherent need for sunscreen use. For instance, research has shown that patients with FFA had higher rates of actinic skin damage, which could explain increased sunscreen use.⁸

To make more clear and distinct claims, further studies are needed in regions that are known to use sunscreen extensively (eg, United States) to compare with their European, Asian, and South American counterparts. Moreover, it also is important to study regions where sunscreen access is limited and whether there is FFA development in these populations.

Given the potential association between sunscreen use and FFA, dermatologists can take a cautious approach tailored to the patient by recommending noncomedogenic mineral sunscreens with zinc or titanium oxide, which are less irritating than chemical sunscreens. Avoidance of sunscreen application to the hairline and use of additional sun-protection methods such as broad-brimmed hats also should be emphasized.

Frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA) has become increasingly common since it was first described in 1994.¹ A positive correlation between FFA and the use of sunscreens was reported in an observational study.² The geographic distribution of this association has spanned the United Kingdom (UK), Europe, and Asia, though data from the United States are lacking. Various international studies have demonstrated an association between FFA and sunscreen use, further exemplifying this stark contrast.

In the United Kingdom (UK), Aldoori et al² found that women who used sunscreen at least twice weekly had 2 times the likelihood of developing FFA compared with women who did not use sunscreen regularly. Kidambi et al³ found similar results in UK men with FFA who had higher rates of primary sunscreen use and higher rates of at least twice-weekly use of facial moisturizer with unspecified sunscreen content.

These associations between FFA and sunscreen use are not unique to the UK. A study conducted in Spain identified a statistical association between FFA and use of facial sunscreen in women (odds ratio, 1.6 [95% CI, 1.06-2.41]) and men (odds ratio, 1.84 [95% CI, 1.04-3.23]).⁴ In Thailand, FFA was nearly twice as likely to be present in patients with regular sunscreen use compared to controls who did not apply sunscreen regularly.⁵ Interestingly, a Brazilian study showed no connection between sunscreen use and FFA. Instead, FFA was associated with hair straightening with formalin or use of facial soap orfacial moisturizer.⁶ An international systematic review of 1248 patients with FFA and 1459 controls determined that sunscreen users were 2.21 times more likely to develop FFA than their counterparts who did not use sunscreen regularly.⁷

Quite glaring is the lack of data from the United States, which could be used to compare FFA and sunscreen associations to other nations. It is possible that certain regions of the world such as the United States may not have an increased risk for FFA in sunscreen users due to other environmental factors, differing sunscreen application practices, or differing chemical ingredients. At the same time, many other countries cannot afford or lack access to sunscreens or facial moisturizers, which is an additional variable that may complicate this association. These populations need to be studied to determine whether they are as susceptible to FFA as those who use sunscreen regularly around the world.

Another underlying factor supporting this association is the inherent need for sunscreen use. For instance, research has shown that patients with FFA had higher rates of actinic skin damage, which could explain increased sunscreen use.⁸

To make more clear and distinct claims, further studies are needed in regions that are known to use sunscreen extensively (eg, United States) to compare with their European, Asian, and South American counterparts. Moreover, it also is important to study regions where sunscreen access is limited and whether there is FFA development in these populations.

Given the potential association between sunscreen use and FFA, dermatologists can take a cautious approach tailored to the patient by recommending noncomedogenic mineral sunscreens with zinc or titanium oxide, which are less irritating than chemical sunscreens. Avoidance of sunscreen application to the hairline and use of additional sun-protection methods such as broad-brimmed hats also should be emphasized.

Frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA) has become increasingly common since it was first described in 1994.¹ A positive correlation between FFA and the use of sunscreens was reported in an observational study.² The geographic distribution of this association has spanned the United Kingdom (UK), Europe, and Asia, though data from the United States are lacking. Various international studies have demonstrated an association between FFA and sunscreen use, further exemplifying this stark contrast.

In the United Kingdom (UK), Aldoori et al² found that women who used sunscreen at least twice weekly had 2 times the likelihood of developing FFA compared with women who did not use sunscreen regularly. Kidambi et al³ found similar results in UK men with FFA who had higher rates of primary sunscreen use and higher rates of at least twice-weekly use of facial moisturizer with unspecified sunscreen content.

These associations between FFA and sunscreen use are not unique to the UK. A study conducted in Spain identified a statistical association between FFA and use of facial sunscreen in women (odds ratio, 1.6 [95% CI, 1.06-2.41]) and men (odds ratio, 1.84 [95% CI, 1.04-3.23]).⁴ In Thailand, FFA was nearly twice as likely to be present in patients with regular sunscreen use compared to controls who did not apply sunscreen regularly.⁵ Interestingly, a Brazilian study showed no connection between sunscreen use and FFA. Instead, FFA was associated with hair straightening with formalin or use of facial soap orfacial moisturizer.⁶ An international systematic review of 1248 patients with FFA and 1459 controls determined that sunscreen users were 2.21 times more likely to develop FFA than their counterparts who did not use sunscreen regularly.⁷

Quite glaring is the lack of data from the United States, which could be used to compare FFA and sunscreen associations to other nations. It is possible that certain regions of the world such as the United States may not have an increased risk for FFA in sunscreen users due to other environmental factors, differing sunscreen application practices, or differing chemical ingredients. At the same time, many other countries cannot afford or lack access to sunscreens or facial moisturizers, which is an additional variable that may complicate this association. These populations need to be studied to determine whether they are as susceptible to FFA as those who use sunscreen regularly around the world.

Another underlying factor supporting this association is the inherent need for sunscreen use. For instance, research has shown that patients with FFA had higher rates of actinic skin damage, which could explain increased sunscreen use.⁸

To make more clear and distinct claims, further studies are needed in regions that are known to use sunscreen extensively (eg, United States) to compare with their European, Asian, and South American counterparts. Moreover, it also is important to study regions where sunscreen access is limited and whether there is FFA development in these populations.

Given the potential association between sunscreen use and FFA, dermatologists can take a cautious approach tailored to the patient by recommending noncomedogenic mineral sunscreens with zinc or titanium oxide, which are less irritating than chemical sunscreens. Avoidance of sunscreen application to the hairline and use of additional sun-protection methods such as broad-brimmed hats also should be emphasized.

VIENNA — Simply relying on clinical symptoms is insufficient to predict which children with wheezing will develop asthma and respond to treatments. More objective tests like blood eosinophil counts are needed for early diagnosis and to avoid unnecessary medication use in children unlikely to develop asthma.

Sejal Saglani, MD, PhD, a professor of pediatric respiratory medicine at the National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College, London, England, said that preschool wheezing has long-term adverse consequences through to adulthood. “We need to prevent that downward trajectory of low lung function,” she said, presenting the latest research in the field at the annual European Respiratory Society International Congress.

Wheezing affects up to one third of all infants and preschool children, with one third developing asthma later in life. “It’s important to identify those kids because then we can treat them with the right medication,” said Mariëlle W.H. Pijnenburg, MD, PhD, a pulmonary specialist at Erasmus University Rotterdam in the Netherlands.

“We cannot just use clinical phenotype to decide what treatment a child should get. We need to run tests to identify the endotype of preschool wheeze and intervene appropriately,” Dr. Saglani added.
 

Eosinophilia as a Biomarker for Predicting Exacerbations and Steroid Responsiveness 

In a cluster analysis, Dr. Saglani and colleagues classified preschool children with wheezing into two main subgroups: Those who experience frequent exacerbations and those who experience sporadic attacks. Frequent exacerbators were more likely to develop asthma, use asthma medications, and show signs of reduced lung function and airway inflammation, such as higher fractional exhaled nitric oxide and allergic sensitization. “Severe and frequent exacerbators are the kids that get in trouble,” she said. “They’re the ones we must identify at preschool age and really try to minimize their exacerbations.”

Research has shown that eosinophilia is a valuable biomarker in predicting both asthma exacerbations and responsiveness to inhaled corticosteroids. Children with elevated blood eosinophils are more likely to experience frequent and severe exacerbations. These children often demonstrate an inflammatory profile more responsive to corticosteroids, making eosinophilia a predictor of treatment success. Children with eosinophilia are also more likely to have underlying allergic sensitizations, which further supports the use of corticosteroids as part of their management strategy.

Dr. Saglani said a simple blood test can provide a window into the child’s inflammatory status, allowing physicians to make more targeted and personalized treatment plans.

Traditionally, identifying eosinophilia required venipuncture and laboratory analysis, which can be time consuming and impractical in a busy clinical setting. Dr. Saglani’s research group is developing a point-of-care test designed to quickly and efficiently measure blood eosinophil levels in children with asthma or wheezing symptoms from a finger-prick test. Preliminary data presented at the congress show that children with higher eosinophil counts in the clinic were more likely to experience an asthma attack within 3 months.

“The problem is the majority of the children we see are either not atopic or do not have high blood eosinophils. What are we going to do with those?”
 

How to Treat Those Who Don’t Have Eosinophilia

Most children with wheezing are not atopic and do not exhibit eosinophilic inflammation, and these children may not respond as effectively to corticosteroids. How to treat them remains the “1-billion-dollar question,” Dr. Saglani said.

Respiratory syncytial virus and rhinovirus play a crucial role in triggering wheezing episodes in these children. Research has shown that viral-induced wheezing is a common feature in this phenotype, and repeated viral infections can lead to an increased severity and frequency of exacerbations. However, there are currently no effective antiviral therapies or vaccines for rhinovirus, which limits the ability to address the viral component of the disease directly.

Up to 50% of children with severe, recurrent wheezing also have bacterial pathogens like Moraxella catarrhalis and Haemophilus influenzae in their lower airways. For these children, addressing the bacterial infection is the best treatment option to mitigate the wheezing. “We now have something that we can target with antibiotics for those who don’t respond to corticosteroids,” Dr. Saglani said.

Dr. Pijnenburg said that this body of research is helping pulmonary specialists and general pediatricians navigate the complexity of childhood wheezing beyond phenotyping and symptoms. “We need to dive more deeply into those kids with preschool wheezing to see what’s happening in their lungs.”

Dr. Pijnenburg and Dr. Saglani reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Simply relying on clinical symptoms is insufficient to predict which children with wheezing will develop asthma and respond to treatments. More objective tests like blood eosinophil counts are needed for early diagnosis and to avoid unnecessary medication use in children unlikely to develop asthma.

Sejal Saglani, MD, PhD, a professor of pediatric respiratory medicine at the National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College, London, England, said that preschool wheezing has long-term adverse consequences through to adulthood. “We need to prevent that downward trajectory of low lung function,” she said, presenting the latest research in the field at the annual European Respiratory Society International Congress.

Wheezing affects up to one third of all infants and preschool children, with one third developing asthma later in life. “It’s important to identify those kids because then we can treat them with the right medication,” said Mariëlle W.H. Pijnenburg, MD, PhD, a pulmonary specialist at Erasmus University Rotterdam in the Netherlands.

“We cannot just use clinical phenotype to decide what treatment a child should get. We need to run tests to identify the endotype of preschool wheeze and intervene appropriately,” Dr. Saglani added.
 

Eosinophilia as a Biomarker for Predicting Exacerbations and Steroid Responsiveness 

In a cluster analysis, Dr. Saglani and colleagues classified preschool children with wheezing into two main subgroups: Those who experience frequent exacerbations and those who experience sporadic attacks. Frequent exacerbators were more likely to develop asthma, use asthma medications, and show signs of reduced lung function and airway inflammation, such as higher fractional exhaled nitric oxide and allergic sensitization. “Severe and frequent exacerbators are the kids that get in trouble,” she said. “They’re the ones we must identify at preschool age and really try to minimize their exacerbations.”

Research has shown that eosinophilia is a valuable biomarker in predicting both asthma exacerbations and responsiveness to inhaled corticosteroids. Children with elevated blood eosinophils are more likely to experience frequent and severe exacerbations. These children often demonstrate an inflammatory profile more responsive to corticosteroids, making eosinophilia a predictor of treatment success. Children with eosinophilia are also more likely to have underlying allergic sensitizations, which further supports the use of corticosteroids as part of their management strategy.

Dr. Saglani said a simple blood test can provide a window into the child’s inflammatory status, allowing physicians to make more targeted and personalized treatment plans.

Traditionally, identifying eosinophilia required venipuncture and laboratory analysis, which can be time consuming and impractical in a busy clinical setting. Dr. Saglani’s research group is developing a point-of-care test designed to quickly and efficiently measure blood eosinophil levels in children with asthma or wheezing symptoms from a finger-prick test. Preliminary data presented at the congress show that children with higher eosinophil counts in the clinic were more likely to experience an asthma attack within 3 months.

“The problem is the majority of the children we see are either not atopic or do not have high blood eosinophils. What are we going to do with those?”
 

How to Treat Those Who Don’t Have Eosinophilia

Most children with wheezing are not atopic and do not exhibit eosinophilic inflammation, and these children may not respond as effectively to corticosteroids. How to treat them remains the “1-billion-dollar question,” Dr. Saglani said.

Respiratory syncytial virus and rhinovirus play a crucial role in triggering wheezing episodes in these children. Research has shown that viral-induced wheezing is a common feature in this phenotype, and repeated viral infections can lead to an increased severity and frequency of exacerbations. However, there are currently no effective antiviral therapies or vaccines for rhinovirus, which limits the ability to address the viral component of the disease directly.

Up to 50% of children with severe, recurrent wheezing also have bacterial pathogens like Moraxella catarrhalis and Haemophilus influenzae in their lower airways. For these children, addressing the bacterial infection is the best treatment option to mitigate the wheezing. “We now have something that we can target with antibiotics for those who don’t respond to corticosteroids,” Dr. Saglani said.

Dr. Pijnenburg said that this body of research is helping pulmonary specialists and general pediatricians navigate the complexity of childhood wheezing beyond phenotyping and symptoms. “We need to dive more deeply into those kids with preschool wheezing to see what’s happening in their lungs.”

Dr. Pijnenburg and Dr. Saglani reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Simply relying on clinical symptoms is insufficient to predict which children with wheezing will develop asthma and respond to treatments. More objective tests like blood eosinophil counts are needed for early diagnosis and to avoid unnecessary medication use in children unlikely to develop asthma.

Sejal Saglani, MD, PhD, a professor of pediatric respiratory medicine at the National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College, London, England, said that preschool wheezing has long-term adverse consequences through to adulthood. “We need to prevent that downward trajectory of low lung function,” she said, presenting the latest research in the field at the annual European Respiratory Society International Congress.

Wheezing affects up to one third of all infants and preschool children, with one third developing asthma later in life. “It’s important to identify those kids because then we can treat them with the right medication,” said Mariëlle W.H. Pijnenburg, MD, PhD, a pulmonary specialist at Erasmus University Rotterdam in the Netherlands.

“We cannot just use clinical phenotype to decide what treatment a child should get. We need to run tests to identify the endotype of preschool wheeze and intervene appropriately,” Dr. Saglani added.
 

Eosinophilia as a Biomarker for Predicting Exacerbations and Steroid Responsiveness 

In a cluster analysis, Dr. Saglani and colleagues classified preschool children with wheezing into two main subgroups: Those who experience frequent exacerbations and those who experience sporadic attacks. Frequent exacerbators were more likely to develop asthma, use asthma medications, and show signs of reduced lung function and airway inflammation, such as higher fractional exhaled nitric oxide and allergic sensitization. “Severe and frequent exacerbators are the kids that get in trouble,” she said. “They’re the ones we must identify at preschool age and really try to minimize their exacerbations.”

Research has shown that eosinophilia is a valuable biomarker in predicting both asthma exacerbations and responsiveness to inhaled corticosteroids. Children with elevated blood eosinophils are more likely to experience frequent and severe exacerbations. These children often demonstrate an inflammatory profile more responsive to corticosteroids, making eosinophilia a predictor of treatment success. Children with eosinophilia are also more likely to have underlying allergic sensitizations, which further supports the use of corticosteroids as part of their management strategy.

Dr. Saglani said a simple blood test can provide a window into the child’s inflammatory status, allowing physicians to make more targeted and personalized treatment plans.

Traditionally, identifying eosinophilia required venipuncture and laboratory analysis, which can be time consuming and impractical in a busy clinical setting. Dr. Saglani’s research group is developing a point-of-care test designed to quickly and efficiently measure blood eosinophil levels in children with asthma or wheezing symptoms from a finger-prick test. Preliminary data presented at the congress show that children with higher eosinophil counts in the clinic were more likely to experience an asthma attack within 3 months.

“The problem is the majority of the children we see are either not atopic or do not have high blood eosinophils. What are we going to do with those?”
 

How to Treat Those Who Don’t Have Eosinophilia

Most children with wheezing are not atopic and do not exhibit eosinophilic inflammation, and these children may not respond as effectively to corticosteroids. How to treat them remains the “1-billion-dollar question,” Dr. Saglani said.

Respiratory syncytial virus and rhinovirus play a crucial role in triggering wheezing episodes in these children. Research has shown that viral-induced wheezing is a common feature in this phenotype, and repeated viral infections can lead to an increased severity and frequency of exacerbations. However, there are currently no effective antiviral therapies or vaccines for rhinovirus, which limits the ability to address the viral component of the disease directly.

Up to 50% of children with severe, recurrent wheezing also have bacterial pathogens like Moraxella catarrhalis and Haemophilus influenzae in their lower airways. For these children, addressing the bacterial infection is the best treatment option to mitigate the wheezing. “We now have something that we can target with antibiotics for those who don’t respond to corticosteroids,” Dr. Saglani said.

Dr. Pijnenburg said that this body of research is helping pulmonary specialists and general pediatricians navigate the complexity of childhood wheezing beyond phenotyping and symptoms. “We need to dive more deeply into those kids with preschool wheezing to see what’s happening in their lungs.”

Dr. Pijnenburg and Dr. Saglani reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

To the Editor:

We read with interest the case reported by Yanovsky et al¹ (Cutis. 2023;112:E23-E25). We thank the authors for updating our knowledge about atopic dermatitis (AD) and omalizumab and improving our understanding of the various wanted and unwanted effects that may manifest with omalizumab. We wish to clarify a few points on omalizumab use.

First, Yanovsky et al¹ reported that their patient’s AD flares occurred within a few days after omalizumab injections to control asthma, possibly because omalizumab may have caused a paradoxical increase in sensitivity to other cytokines such as IL-33 in basophils and increased IL-4/IL-13 production in the skin. The authors cited Imai² to explain that IL-33 plays a role in the pathogenesis of AD, increases itching, and disrupts the skin barrier. However, Imai² did not discuss a relationship with omalizumab. As a recombinant humanized IgG1 monoclonal anti-IgE antibody, omalizumab works by interacting with the high-affinity receptor Fc epsilon RI that typically is found on eosinophils, mast cells, and basophils and plays a critical role in preventing the allergic cascade.³ We could not find any studies in the literature regarding omalizumab having a specific effect on the skin, causing cytokine imbalance, or increasing IL-4/IL-13 levels.

Second, the case report indicated that AD lesions improved with the biologic dupilumab,¹ which seems amazing. Dupilumab is a monoclonal antibody used in patients with moderate to severe AD that blocks IL-4/IL-13 signaling and thus inhibits receptor signaling downstream of the Janus kinase signal transducer and activator of transcription protein pathway.⁴ It also has been shown to be beneficial in children with moderate to severe uncontrolled asthma.⁵ In vivo studies are needed to learn about the effects of these biologics on asthma and AD, whose complex immunologic effects are increasingly well understood by real patient experience.

Third, omalizumab has been found to relieve AD, not exacerbate it, in our own experience with 7 patients (unpublished data, 2024) and randomized controlled trials.⁶

Fourth, Yanovsky et al¹ reported that the patient’s lesions flared up within a few days after taking omalizumab, which suggests a non-IgE delayed reaction. Could this reaction be related to polysorbate 20 used as an excipient in the commercial preparation? When we examined both preparations, the presence of polysorbate 80 in dupilumab was noteworthy,⁷ unlike omalizumab. We suggest the authors perform a patch test including polysorbate 20 and polysorbate 80.

Finally, the authors mentioned that omalizumab may cause a paradoxical exacerbation of AD in certain patients, as in tumor necrosis factor α inhibitor–induced psoriasis.⁸ This has been reported,⁸ but tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors are cytokine inhibitors and can lead to cytokine imbalance, while omalizumab is an IgE inhibitor.

Yanovsky et al¹ described AD flares as “triggered by omalizumab,” which we believe was not the case. Because this patient had chronic AD, other causes of AD exacerbation in this patient could include stress or infection. Also, when they say that AD is triggered or induced, it implies that they are attributing the occurrence/development of AD in this patient to omalizumab. Of course, this also is not true.

Author’s Response

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Although we agree that we cannot prove omalizumab was the cause of our patient’s AD flares, the new onset of severely worsening disease that was exacerbated by each dose of omalizumab as well as subsequent resolution upon switching to dupilumab was highly suggestive for a causal relationship. Our goal was to alert physicians to the possibility of this phenomenon and to encourage further study.

Karen A. Chernoff, MD
From the Department of Dermatology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York.
The author has no relevant financial disclosures to report.

To the Editor:

We read with interest the case reported by Yanovsky et al¹ (Cutis. 2023;112:E23-E25). We thank the authors for updating our knowledge about atopic dermatitis (AD) and omalizumab and improving our understanding of the various wanted and unwanted effects that may manifest with omalizumab. We wish to clarify a few points on omalizumab use.

First, Yanovsky et al¹ reported that their patient’s AD flares occurred within a few days after omalizumab injections to control asthma, possibly because omalizumab may have caused a paradoxical increase in sensitivity to other cytokines such as IL-33 in basophils and increased IL-4/IL-13 production in the skin. The authors cited Imai² to explain that IL-33 plays a role in the pathogenesis of AD, increases itching, and disrupts the skin barrier. However, Imai² did not discuss a relationship with omalizumab. As a recombinant humanized IgG1 monoclonal anti-IgE antibody, omalizumab works by interacting with the high-affinity receptor Fc epsilon RI that typically is found on eosinophils, mast cells, and basophils and plays a critical role in preventing the allergic cascade.³ We could not find any studies in the literature regarding omalizumab having a specific effect on the skin, causing cytokine imbalance, or increasing IL-4/IL-13 levels.

Second, the case report indicated that AD lesions improved with the biologic dupilumab,¹ which seems amazing. Dupilumab is a monoclonal antibody used in patients with moderate to severe AD that blocks IL-4/IL-13 signaling and thus inhibits receptor signaling downstream of the Janus kinase signal transducer and activator of transcription protein pathway.⁴ It also has been shown to be beneficial in children with moderate to severe uncontrolled asthma.⁵ In vivo studies are needed to learn about the effects of these biologics on asthma and AD, whose complex immunologic effects are increasingly well understood by real patient experience.

Third, omalizumab has been found to relieve AD, not exacerbate it, in our own experience with 7 patients (unpublished data, 2024) and randomized controlled trials.⁶

Fourth, Yanovsky et al¹ reported that the patient’s lesions flared up within a few days after taking omalizumab, which suggests a non-IgE delayed reaction. Could this reaction be related to polysorbate 20 used as an excipient in the commercial preparation? When we examined both preparations, the presence of polysorbate 80 in dupilumab was noteworthy,⁷ unlike omalizumab. We suggest the authors perform a patch test including polysorbate 20 and polysorbate 80.

Finally, the authors mentioned that omalizumab may cause a paradoxical exacerbation of AD in certain patients, as in tumor necrosis factor α inhibitor–induced psoriasis.⁸ This has been reported,⁸ but tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors are cytokine inhibitors and can lead to cytokine imbalance, while omalizumab is an IgE inhibitor.

Yanovsky et al¹ described AD flares as “triggered by omalizumab,” which we believe was not the case. Because this patient had chronic AD, other causes of AD exacerbation in this patient could include stress or infection. Also, when they say that AD is triggered or induced, it implies that they are attributing the occurrence/development of AD in this patient to omalizumab. Of course, this also is not true.

Author’s Response

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Although we agree that we cannot prove omalizumab was the cause of our patient’s AD flares, the new onset of severely worsening disease that was exacerbated by each dose of omalizumab as well as subsequent resolution upon switching to dupilumab was highly suggestive for a causal relationship. Our goal was to alert physicians to the possibility of this phenomenon and to encourage further study.

Karen A. Chernoff, MD
From the Department of Dermatology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York.
The author has no relevant financial disclosures to report.

To the Editor:

We read with interest the case reported by Yanovsky et al¹ (Cutis. 2023;112:E23-E25). We thank the authors for updating our knowledge about atopic dermatitis (AD) and omalizumab and improving our understanding of the various wanted and unwanted effects that may manifest with omalizumab. We wish to clarify a few points on omalizumab use.

First, Yanovsky et al¹ reported that their patient’s AD flares occurred within a few days after omalizumab injections to control asthma, possibly because omalizumab may have caused a paradoxical increase in sensitivity to other cytokines such as IL-33 in basophils and increased IL-4/IL-13 production in the skin. The authors cited Imai² to explain that IL-33 plays a role in the pathogenesis of AD, increases itching, and disrupts the skin barrier. However, Imai² did not discuss a relationship with omalizumab. As a recombinant humanized IgG1 monoclonal anti-IgE antibody, omalizumab works by interacting with the high-affinity receptor Fc epsilon RI that typically is found on eosinophils, mast cells, and basophils and plays a critical role in preventing the allergic cascade.³ We could not find any studies in the literature regarding omalizumab having a specific effect on the skin, causing cytokine imbalance, or increasing IL-4/IL-13 levels.

Second, the case report indicated that AD lesions improved with the biologic dupilumab,¹ which seems amazing. Dupilumab is a monoclonal antibody used in patients with moderate to severe AD that blocks IL-4/IL-13 signaling and thus inhibits receptor signaling downstream of the Janus kinase signal transducer and activator of transcription protein pathway.⁴ It also has been shown to be beneficial in children with moderate to severe uncontrolled asthma.⁵ In vivo studies are needed to learn about the effects of these biologics on asthma and AD, whose complex immunologic effects are increasingly well understood by real patient experience.

Third, omalizumab has been found to relieve AD, not exacerbate it, in our own experience with 7 patients (unpublished data, 2024) and randomized controlled trials.⁶

Fourth, Yanovsky et al¹ reported that the patient’s lesions flared up within a few days after taking omalizumab, which suggests a non-IgE delayed reaction. Could this reaction be related to polysorbate 20 used as an excipient in the commercial preparation? When we examined both preparations, the presence of polysorbate 80 in dupilumab was noteworthy,⁷ unlike omalizumab. We suggest the authors perform a patch test including polysorbate 20 and polysorbate 80.

Finally, the authors mentioned that omalizumab may cause a paradoxical exacerbation of AD in certain patients, as in tumor necrosis factor α inhibitor–induced psoriasis.⁸ This has been reported,⁸ but tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors are cytokine inhibitors and can lead to cytokine imbalance, while omalizumab is an IgE inhibitor.

Yanovsky et al¹ described AD flares as “triggered by omalizumab,” which we believe was not the case. Because this patient had chronic AD, other causes of AD exacerbation in this patient could include stress or infection. Also, when they say that AD is triggered or induced, it implies that they are attributing the occurrence/development of AD in this patient to omalizumab. Of course, this also is not true.

Author’s Response

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Although we agree that we cannot prove omalizumab was the cause of our patient’s AD flares, the new onset of severely worsening disease that was exacerbated by each dose of omalizumab as well as subsequent resolution upon switching to dupilumab was highly suggestive for a causal relationship. Our goal was to alert physicians to the possibility of this phenomenon and to encourage further study.

Karen A. Chernoff, MD
From the Department of Dermatology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York.
The author has no relevant financial disclosures to report.

TOPLINE:

Addressing vision impairments could help with dementia prevention, as vision impairment is linked to 19% of dementia cases in older adults.
 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis using data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS).
• The analysis included 2767 US adults aged 71 years or older (54.7% female and 45.3% male).
• Vision impairments were defined using 2019 World Health Organization criteria. Near and distance vision impairments were defined as greater than 0.30 logMAR, and contrast sensitivity impairment was identified by scores below 1.55 logCS.
• Dementia was classified using a standardized algorithm developed in NHATS, which incorporated a series of tests measuring cognition, memory and orientation, reports of Alzheimer’s disease, or a dementia diagnosis from the patient or a proxy, and an informant questionnaire (Ascertain Dementia-8 Dementia Screening Interview).
• The study analyzed data from 2021, with the primary outcome being the population attributable fraction (PAF) of dementia from vision impairment.

TAKEAWAY:

• The PAF of dementia associated with at least one vision impairment was 19% (95% CI, 8.2-29.7).
• Impairment in contrast sensitivity had the highest PAF among all other vision issues, at 15% (95% CI, 6.6-23.6). This figure was higher than that for impairment of near acuity, at 9.7% (95% CI, 2.6-17.0), or distance acuity, at 4.9% (95% CI, 0.1-9.9).
• The highest PAFs for dementia due to vision impairment was among participants aged 71-79 years (24.3%; 95% CI, 6.6-41.8), women (26.8%; 95% CI, 12.2-39.9), and non-Hispanic White participants (22.3%; 95% CI, 9.6-34.5).

IN PRACTICE:

“While not proving a cause-and-effect relationship, these findings support inclusion of multiple objective measures of vision impairments, including contrast sensitivity and visual acuity, to capture the total potential impact of addressing vision impairment on dementia,” study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Jason R. Smith, ScM, of the Department of Epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. It was published online in JAMA Ophthalmology.

LIMITATIONS:

The limited sample sizes for American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, and Hispanic groups prevented researchers from calculating PAFs for these populations. The cross-sectional design prevented the researchers from examining the timing of vision impairment in relation to a diagnosis of dementia. The study did not explore links between other measures of vision and dementia. Those with early cognitive impairment may not have updated glasses, affecting visual performance. The findings from the study may not apply to institutionalized older adults.

DISCLOSURES:

Jennifer A. Deal, PhD, MHS, reported receiving personal fees from Frontiers in Epidemiology, Velux Stiftung, and Medical Education Speakers Network outside the submitted work. Nicholas S. Reed, AuD, PhD, reported receiving stock options from Neosensory outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

TOPLINE:

Addressing vision impairments could help with dementia prevention, as vision impairment is linked to 19% of dementia cases in older adults.
 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis using data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS).
• The analysis included 2767 US adults aged 71 years or older (54.7% female and 45.3% male).
• Vision impairments were defined using 2019 World Health Organization criteria. Near and distance vision impairments were defined as greater than 0.30 logMAR, and contrast sensitivity impairment was identified by scores below 1.55 logCS.
• Dementia was classified using a standardized algorithm developed in NHATS, which incorporated a series of tests measuring cognition, memory and orientation, reports of Alzheimer’s disease, or a dementia diagnosis from the patient or a proxy, and an informant questionnaire (Ascertain Dementia-8 Dementia Screening Interview).
• The study analyzed data from 2021, with the primary outcome being the population attributable fraction (PAF) of dementia from vision impairment.

TAKEAWAY:

• The PAF of dementia associated with at least one vision impairment was 19% (95% CI, 8.2-29.7).
• Impairment in contrast sensitivity had the highest PAF among all other vision issues, at 15% (95% CI, 6.6-23.6). This figure was higher than that for impairment of near acuity, at 9.7% (95% CI, 2.6-17.0), or distance acuity, at 4.9% (95% CI, 0.1-9.9).
• The highest PAFs for dementia due to vision impairment was among participants aged 71-79 years (24.3%; 95% CI, 6.6-41.8), women (26.8%; 95% CI, 12.2-39.9), and non-Hispanic White participants (22.3%; 95% CI, 9.6-34.5).

IN PRACTICE:

“While not proving a cause-and-effect relationship, these findings support inclusion of multiple objective measures of vision impairments, including contrast sensitivity and visual acuity, to capture the total potential impact of addressing vision impairment on dementia,” study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Jason R. Smith, ScM, of the Department of Epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. It was published online in JAMA Ophthalmology.

LIMITATIONS:

The limited sample sizes for American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, and Hispanic groups prevented researchers from calculating PAFs for these populations. The cross-sectional design prevented the researchers from examining the timing of vision impairment in relation to a diagnosis of dementia. The study did not explore links between other measures of vision and dementia. Those with early cognitive impairment may not have updated glasses, affecting visual performance. The findings from the study may not apply to institutionalized older adults.

DISCLOSURES:

Jennifer A. Deal, PhD, MHS, reported receiving personal fees from Frontiers in Epidemiology, Velux Stiftung, and Medical Education Speakers Network outside the submitted work. Nicholas S. Reed, AuD, PhD, reported receiving stock options from Neosensory outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

TOPLINE:

Addressing vision impairments could help with dementia prevention, as vision impairment is linked to 19% of dementia cases in older adults.
 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis using data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS).
• The analysis included 2767 US adults aged 71 years or older (54.7% female and 45.3% male).
• Vision impairments were defined using 2019 World Health Organization criteria. Near and distance vision impairments were defined as greater than 0.30 logMAR, and contrast sensitivity impairment was identified by scores below 1.55 logCS.
• Dementia was classified using a standardized algorithm developed in NHATS, which incorporated a series of tests measuring cognition, memory and orientation, reports of Alzheimer’s disease, or a dementia diagnosis from the patient or a proxy, and an informant questionnaire (Ascertain Dementia-8 Dementia Screening Interview).
• The study analyzed data from 2021, with the primary outcome being the population attributable fraction (PAF) of dementia from vision impairment.

TAKEAWAY:

• The PAF of dementia associated with at least one vision impairment was 19% (95% CI, 8.2-29.7).
• Impairment in contrast sensitivity had the highest PAF among all other vision issues, at 15% (95% CI, 6.6-23.6). This figure was higher than that for impairment of near acuity, at 9.7% (95% CI, 2.6-17.0), or distance acuity, at 4.9% (95% CI, 0.1-9.9).
• The highest PAFs for dementia due to vision impairment was among participants aged 71-79 years (24.3%; 95% CI, 6.6-41.8), women (26.8%; 95% CI, 12.2-39.9), and non-Hispanic White participants (22.3%; 95% CI, 9.6-34.5).

IN PRACTICE:

“While not proving a cause-and-effect relationship, these findings support inclusion of multiple objective measures of vision impairments, including contrast sensitivity and visual acuity, to capture the total potential impact of addressing vision impairment on dementia,” study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Jason R. Smith, ScM, of the Department of Epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. It was published online in JAMA Ophthalmology.

LIMITATIONS:

The limited sample sizes for American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, and Hispanic groups prevented researchers from calculating PAFs for these populations. The cross-sectional design prevented the researchers from examining the timing of vision impairment in relation to a diagnosis of dementia. The study did not explore links between other measures of vision and dementia. Those with early cognitive impairment may not have updated glasses, affecting visual performance. The findings from the study may not apply to institutionalized older adults.

DISCLOSURES:

Jennifer A. Deal, PhD, MHS, reported receiving personal fees from Frontiers in Epidemiology, Velux Stiftung, and Medical Education Speakers Network outside the submitted work. Nicholas S. Reed, AuD, PhD, reported receiving stock options from Neosensory outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

There is a well-established connection between the mind and the skin, and it is clear that this relationship is bidirectional—not only does skin disease increase the risk for depression, anxiety, sleep disturbance, and suicidality, but psychologic stress actually can worsen skin disease through multiple mechanisms, including direct damage to the skin barrier.^1,2 Psychologic stress also impacts the microbiome, another critical driver of skin disease.^3,4 The concept of the itch-scratch cycle vividly illustrates the vicious interplay between the mind and body in atopic dermatitis (AD).

However, patients with AD are not the only ones impacted—caregivers also experience psychologic stress. Remarkably, one study of patients with AD and their caregivers found that the caregivers actually reported significantly worse mental health and anxiety (P=.01 and P=.03, respectively) than patients themselves, even when controlling for the severity of disease.⁵

Thus, it would seem obvious for mental health to be a central component of AD care—to improve patient and caregiver quality of life while also improving symptoms. Research has actually borne this out, with one systematic review and meta-analysis concluding that psychological intervention has a beneficial effect on AD,⁶ and another that the addition of psychological and educational interventions to conventional treatment provided better therapeutic results in alleviating eczema severity and psychological symptoms.⁷ One study demonstrated that patients with AD who received cognitive behavioral therapy via the internet displayed a statistically significant improvement in their disease (P<.001) as measured by the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure compared with those in the control group who received standard care alone. They also reported improvements in perceived stress, sleep problems, and depression in the intervention group that were sustained at 1-year follow-up.⁸ These findings are particularly impactful because clinical results were achieved while leveraging an internet-based approach to therapy.

Regrettably, despite the preponderance of evidence supporting the connection between mental health and AD, there remain considerable unmet needs. A recent cross-sectional survey of 954 adults with AD and caregivers of children with AD (N=954) conducted by the National Eczema Association found that half of patients were never asked about mental health during any of their visits, and of those referred for mental health resources, only 57% utilized the recommended services.⁹ Importantly, patients aged 18 to 34 years reported wanting to be asked about mental health. Of those who did receive referrals, most were for counseling services (23%), followed by alternative mental health therapy such as music or art therapy (15%), cognitive behavioral therapy (13%), or peer/social support groups (12%). Approximately 10% reported receiving a pamphlet or a brochure only.⁹

Physicians who treat patients with AD can and must do better, but first we must explore why these referral rates are so low. As with many complex problems, there is unlikely to be one simple unifying reason. As expected, the answer is nuanced and multifaceted, and—most importantly—staggeringly incomplete.

For starters, mental health interventions rarely are as easy as applying a cream or taking a pill. Hedman-Lagerlöf et al⁸ specifically pointed out that although their approach—using internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy—was explicitly designed to be more accessible with fewer resources, it required approximately 35 hours of treatment over 12 weeks, requiring both substantial time and commitment from patients who often are already burned out and exhausted due to AD. They even underscored that the most commonly reported adverse effect of therapy was increased stress or worry, making it a difficult sell.⁸

Even before most patients have a chance to consider the time required and the potential adverse effects of mental health interventions for AD, greater hurdles exist. Finances, medical insurance, and wait times were highlighted as barriers to care in a systematic review.¹⁰ These are deep-seated problems in the United States; while they may be surmountable in certain geo­graphic areas, the frequency with which these concerns arise means that it does not take too many failed attempts at referring patients for mental health services before clinicians just give up—similar to any form of operant conditioning.

A more elusive concept is stigmatization. Although it may not be quantifiable, the idea is that patients may encounter additional challenges when seeking mental health care, either because the interactions themselves may worsen their symptoms (eg, increased anxiety) or they may be more likely to have a negative perception of the experience.¹¹ A 2020 systematic review of barriers to addressing common mental health problems found that stigma was the most prominent barrier in adolescents, with the second most prominent being negative attitudes and beliefs about mental health services and professionals.¹² As a clinician, I can attest that I have sometimes detected skepticism when I have suggested mental health services to patients and have even been asked outright if I thought the problem was all in their head. My patients with AD generally have been much more open to the idea of mental health support, especially after I explain the powerful mind-body connection, than patients with other conditions—most notably delusions of parasitosis—who have been much more dismissive of such overtures. An oft-cited paper from 1976 frames the problem perfectly, describing what can happen after a referral for mental health services.¹³ The authors stated that the suggestion of mental health makes patients feel that the dermatologist does not believe them in the first place. Beyond this, the authors pointed out that referring the patient elsewhere reduces their hopes for dermatologic treatment.¹³

Knowing now—perhaps more than ever before—that the mind and skin are intimately connected compels us to solve these problems and find ways around these obstacles. Selecting the optimal forms of mental health services for each patient, having the structural support of the health care system, and winning the trust of patients and caregivers while combating stigma are undoubtedly tall orders; however, understanding the stakes for patients with AD, their caregivers, and society as a whole should inspire us to keep pushing forward.

There is a well-established connection between the mind and the skin, and it is clear that this relationship is bidirectional—not only does skin disease increase the risk for depression, anxiety, sleep disturbance, and suicidality, but psychologic stress actually can worsen skin disease through multiple mechanisms, including direct damage to the skin barrier.^1,2 Psychologic stress also impacts the microbiome, another critical driver of skin disease.^3,4 The concept of the itch-scratch cycle vividly illustrates the vicious interplay between the mind and body in atopic dermatitis (AD).

However, patients with AD are not the only ones impacted—caregivers also experience psychologic stress. Remarkably, one study of patients with AD and their caregivers found that the caregivers actually reported significantly worse mental health and anxiety (P=.01 and P=.03, respectively) than patients themselves, even when controlling for the severity of disease.⁵

Thus, it would seem obvious for mental health to be a central component of AD care—to improve patient and caregiver quality of life while also improving symptoms. Research has actually borne this out, with one systematic review and meta-analysis concluding that psychological intervention has a beneficial effect on AD,⁶ and another that the addition of psychological and educational interventions to conventional treatment provided better therapeutic results in alleviating eczema severity and psychological symptoms.⁷ One study demonstrated that patients with AD who received cognitive behavioral therapy via the internet displayed a statistically significant improvement in their disease (P<.001) as measured by the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure compared with those in the control group who received standard care alone. They also reported improvements in perceived stress, sleep problems, and depression in the intervention group that were sustained at 1-year follow-up.⁸ These findings are particularly impactful because clinical results were achieved while leveraging an internet-based approach to therapy.

Regrettably, despite the preponderance of evidence supporting the connection between mental health and AD, there remain considerable unmet needs. A recent cross-sectional survey of 954 adults with AD and caregivers of children with AD (N=954) conducted by the National Eczema Association found that half of patients were never asked about mental health during any of their visits, and of those referred for mental health resources, only 57% utilized the recommended services.⁹ Importantly, patients aged 18 to 34 years reported wanting to be asked about mental health. Of those who did receive referrals, most were for counseling services (23%), followed by alternative mental health therapy such as music or art therapy (15%), cognitive behavioral therapy (13%), or peer/social support groups (12%). Approximately 10% reported receiving a pamphlet or a brochure only.⁹

Physicians who treat patients with AD can and must do better, but first we must explore why these referral rates are so low. As with many complex problems, there is unlikely to be one simple unifying reason. As expected, the answer is nuanced and multifaceted, and—most importantly—staggeringly incomplete.

For starters, mental health interventions rarely are as easy as applying a cream or taking a pill. Hedman-Lagerlöf et al⁸ specifically pointed out that although their approach—using internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy—was explicitly designed to be more accessible with fewer resources, it required approximately 35 hours of treatment over 12 weeks, requiring both substantial time and commitment from patients who often are already burned out and exhausted due to AD. They even underscored that the most commonly reported adverse effect of therapy was increased stress or worry, making it a difficult sell.⁸

Even before most patients have a chance to consider the time required and the potential adverse effects of mental health interventions for AD, greater hurdles exist. Finances, medical insurance, and wait times were highlighted as barriers to care in a systematic review.¹⁰ These are deep-seated problems in the United States; while they may be surmountable in certain geo­graphic areas, the frequency with which these concerns arise means that it does not take too many failed attempts at referring patients for mental health services before clinicians just give up—similar to any form of operant conditioning.

A more elusive concept is stigmatization. Although it may not be quantifiable, the idea is that patients may encounter additional challenges when seeking mental health care, either because the interactions themselves may worsen their symptoms (eg, increased anxiety) or they may be more likely to have a negative perception of the experience.¹¹ A 2020 systematic review of barriers to addressing common mental health problems found that stigma was the most prominent barrier in adolescents, with the second most prominent being negative attitudes and beliefs about mental health services and professionals.¹² As a clinician, I can attest that I have sometimes detected skepticism when I have suggested mental health services to patients and have even been asked outright if I thought the problem was all in their head. My patients with AD generally have been much more open to the idea of mental health support, especially after I explain the powerful mind-body connection, than patients with other conditions—most notably delusions of parasitosis—who have been much more dismissive of such overtures. An oft-cited paper from 1976 frames the problem perfectly, describing what can happen after a referral for mental health services.¹³ The authors stated that the suggestion of mental health makes patients feel that the dermatologist does not believe them in the first place. Beyond this, the authors pointed out that referring the patient elsewhere reduces their hopes for dermatologic treatment.¹³

Knowing now—perhaps more than ever before—that the mind and skin are intimately connected compels us to solve these problems and find ways around these obstacles. Selecting the optimal forms of mental health services for each patient, having the structural support of the health care system, and winning the trust of patients and caregivers while combating stigma are undoubtedly tall orders; however, understanding the stakes for patients with AD, their caregivers, and society as a whole should inspire us to keep pushing forward.

There is a well-established connection between the mind and the skin, and it is clear that this relationship is bidirectional—not only does skin disease increase the risk for depression, anxiety, sleep disturbance, and suicidality, but psychologic stress actually can worsen skin disease through multiple mechanisms, including direct damage to the skin barrier.^1,2 Psychologic stress also impacts the microbiome, another critical driver of skin disease.^3,4 The concept of the itch-scratch cycle vividly illustrates the vicious interplay between the mind and body in atopic dermatitis (AD).

However, patients with AD are not the only ones impacted—caregivers also experience psychologic stress. Remarkably, one study of patients with AD and their caregivers found that the caregivers actually reported significantly worse mental health and anxiety (P=.01 and P=.03, respectively) than patients themselves, even when controlling for the severity of disease.⁵

Thus, it would seem obvious for mental health to be a central component of AD care—to improve patient and caregiver quality of life while also improving symptoms. Research has actually borne this out, with one systematic review and meta-analysis concluding that psychological intervention has a beneficial effect on AD,⁶ and another that the addition of psychological and educational interventions to conventional treatment provided better therapeutic results in alleviating eczema severity and psychological symptoms.⁷ One study demonstrated that patients with AD who received cognitive behavioral therapy via the internet displayed a statistically significant improvement in their disease (P<.001) as measured by the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure compared with those in the control group who received standard care alone. They also reported improvements in perceived stress, sleep problems, and depression in the intervention group that were sustained at 1-year follow-up.⁸ These findings are particularly impactful because clinical results were achieved while leveraging an internet-based approach to therapy.

Regrettably, despite the preponderance of evidence supporting the connection between mental health and AD, there remain considerable unmet needs. A recent cross-sectional survey of 954 adults with AD and caregivers of children with AD (N=954) conducted by the National Eczema Association found that half of patients were never asked about mental health during any of their visits, and of those referred for mental health resources, only 57% utilized the recommended services.⁹ Importantly, patients aged 18 to 34 years reported wanting to be asked about mental health. Of those who did receive referrals, most were for counseling services (23%), followed by alternative mental health therapy such as music or art therapy (15%), cognitive behavioral therapy (13%), or peer/social support groups (12%). Approximately 10% reported receiving a pamphlet or a brochure only.⁹

Physicians who treat patients with AD can and must do better, but first we must explore why these referral rates are so low. As with many complex problems, there is unlikely to be one simple unifying reason. As expected, the answer is nuanced and multifaceted, and—most importantly—staggeringly incomplete.

For starters, mental health interventions rarely are as easy as applying a cream or taking a pill. Hedman-Lagerlöf et al⁸ specifically pointed out that although their approach—using internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy—was explicitly designed to be more accessible with fewer resources, it required approximately 35 hours of treatment over 12 weeks, requiring both substantial time and commitment from patients who often are already burned out and exhausted due to AD. They even underscored that the most commonly reported adverse effect of therapy was increased stress or worry, making it a difficult sell.⁸

Even before most patients have a chance to consider the time required and the potential adverse effects of mental health interventions for AD, greater hurdles exist. Finances, medical insurance, and wait times were highlighted as barriers to care in a systematic review.¹⁰ These are deep-seated problems in the United States; while they may be surmountable in certain geo­graphic areas, the frequency with which these concerns arise means that it does not take too many failed attempts at referring patients for mental health services before clinicians just give up—similar to any form of operant conditioning.

A more elusive concept is stigmatization. Although it may not be quantifiable, the idea is that patients may encounter additional challenges when seeking mental health care, either because the interactions themselves may worsen their symptoms (eg, increased anxiety) or they may be more likely to have a negative perception of the experience.¹¹ A 2020 systematic review of barriers to addressing common mental health problems found that stigma was the most prominent barrier in adolescents, with the second most prominent being negative attitudes and beliefs about mental health services and professionals.¹² As a clinician, I can attest that I have sometimes detected skepticism when I have suggested mental health services to patients and have even been asked outright if I thought the problem was all in their head. My patients with AD generally have been much more open to the idea of mental health support, especially after I explain the powerful mind-body connection, than patients with other conditions—most notably delusions of parasitosis—who have been much more dismissive of such overtures. An oft-cited paper from 1976 frames the problem perfectly, describing what can happen after a referral for mental health services.¹³ The authors stated that the suggestion of mental health makes patients feel that the dermatologist does not believe them in the first place. Beyond this, the authors pointed out that referring the patient elsewhere reduces their hopes for dermatologic treatment.¹³

Knowing now—perhaps more than ever before—that the mind and skin are intimately connected compels us to solve these problems and find ways around these obstacles. Selecting the optimal forms of mental health services for each patient, having the structural support of the health care system, and winning the trust of patients and caregivers while combating stigma are undoubtedly tall orders; however, understanding the stakes for patients with AD, their caregivers, and society as a whole should inspire us to keep pushing forward.

TOPLINE:

A higher alcohol consumption is associated with an increased risk for gout, more strongly in men than in women. This sex-specific difference may be attributed to the different types of alcohol consumed by men and women, rather than biologic variations.

METHODOLOGY:

• This prospective cohort study investigated the association between total and specific alcohol consumption and the long-term risk for incident gout in 179,828 men (mean age, 56.0 years) and 221,300 women (mean age, 56.0 years) from the UK Biobank who did not have gout at baseline.
• Alcohol consumption was assessed using a computer-assisted touch screen system. Among men, 2.9%, 3.6%, and 93.6% were identified as never, former, and current drinkers, respectively. Among women, 5.9%, 3.6%, and 90.5% were identified as never, former, and current drinkers, respectively.
• Participants were also required to share details about their weekly alcohol intake and the types of alcoholic beverages they consumed (red wine, champagne or white wine, beer or cider, spirits, or fortified wine).
• The median follow-up duration of this study was 12.7 years.
• Cases of incident gout during the follow-up period were identified using hospital records and the International Classification of Diseases codes.

TAKEAWAY:

• The risk for gout was 69% higher in men who were current drinkers than in those who were never drinkers (hazard ratio [HR], 1.69; 95% CI, 1.30-2.18), while an inverse association was observed in women who were current drinkers, although it was not statistically significant. A significant interaction was observed between drinking status and sex (P < .001 for interaction).
• Among current drinkers, more frequent alcohol consumption was associated with a higher risk for gout among both sexes, with the association being stronger in men (HR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.84-2.30) than in women (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.12-1.61).
• The consumption of beer or cider was higher in men than in women (4.2 vs 0.4 pints/wk).
• Among all alcoholic beverages, the consumption of beer or cider (per 1 pint/d) showed the strongest association with the risk for gout in both men (HR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.53-1.67) and women (HR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.02-2.57).

IN PRACTICE:

“The observed sex-specific difference in the association of total alcohol consumption with incident gout may be owing to differences between men and women in the types of alcohol consumed rather than biological differences,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jie-Qiong Lyu, MPH, Department of Nutrition and Food Hygiene, School of Public Health, Suzhou Medical College of Soochow University in China. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The frequency of alcohol consumption was self-reported, leading to potential misclassification. Incident cases of gout were identified from hospital records, which may have caused some undiagnosed cases or those diagnosed only in primary care settings to be missed. Most participants were of European descent and relatively healthier than the general population, limiting generalizability.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by the Gusu Leading Talent Plan for Scientific and Technological Innovation and Entrepreneurship. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

A higher alcohol consumption is associated with an increased risk for gout, more strongly in men than in women. This sex-specific difference may be attributed to the different types of alcohol consumed by men and women, rather than biologic variations.

METHODOLOGY:

• This prospective cohort study investigated the association between total and specific alcohol consumption and the long-term risk for incident gout in 179,828 men (mean age, 56.0 years) and 221,300 women (mean age, 56.0 years) from the UK Biobank who did not have gout at baseline.
• Alcohol consumption was assessed using a computer-assisted touch screen system. Among men, 2.9%, 3.6%, and 93.6% were identified as never, former, and current drinkers, respectively. Among women, 5.9%, 3.6%, and 90.5% were identified as never, former, and current drinkers, respectively.
• Participants were also required to share details about their weekly alcohol intake and the types of alcoholic beverages they consumed (red wine, champagne or white wine, beer or cider, spirits, or fortified wine).
• The median follow-up duration of this study was 12.7 years.
• Cases of incident gout during the follow-up period were identified using hospital records and the International Classification of Diseases codes.

TAKEAWAY:

• The risk for gout was 69% higher in men who were current drinkers than in those who were never drinkers (hazard ratio [HR], 1.69; 95% CI, 1.30-2.18), while an inverse association was observed in women who were current drinkers, although it was not statistically significant. A significant interaction was observed between drinking status and sex (P < .001 for interaction).
• Among current drinkers, more frequent alcohol consumption was associated with a higher risk for gout among both sexes, with the association being stronger in men (HR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.84-2.30) than in women (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.12-1.61).
• The consumption of beer or cider was higher in men than in women (4.2 vs 0.4 pints/wk).
• Among all alcoholic beverages, the consumption of beer or cider (per 1 pint/d) showed the strongest association with the risk for gout in both men (HR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.53-1.67) and women (HR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.02-2.57).

IN PRACTICE:

“The observed sex-specific difference in the association of total alcohol consumption with incident gout may be owing to differences between men and women in the types of alcohol consumed rather than biological differences,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jie-Qiong Lyu, MPH, Department of Nutrition and Food Hygiene, School of Public Health, Suzhou Medical College of Soochow University in China. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The frequency of alcohol consumption was self-reported, leading to potential misclassification. Incident cases of gout were identified from hospital records, which may have caused some undiagnosed cases or those diagnosed only in primary care settings to be missed. Most participants were of European descent and relatively healthier than the general population, limiting generalizability.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by the Gusu Leading Talent Plan for Scientific and Technological Innovation and Entrepreneurship. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

A higher alcohol consumption is associated with an increased risk for gout, more strongly in men than in women. This sex-specific difference may be attributed to the different types of alcohol consumed by men and women, rather than biologic variations.

METHODOLOGY:

• This prospective cohort study investigated the association between total and specific alcohol consumption and the long-term risk for incident gout in 179,828 men (mean age, 56.0 years) and 221,300 women (mean age, 56.0 years) from the UK Biobank who did not have gout at baseline.
• Alcohol consumption was assessed using a computer-assisted touch screen system. Among men, 2.9%, 3.6%, and 93.6% were identified as never, former, and current drinkers, respectively. Among women, 5.9%, 3.6%, and 90.5% were identified as never, former, and current drinkers, respectively.
• Participants were also required to share details about their weekly alcohol intake and the types of alcoholic beverages they consumed (red wine, champagne or white wine, beer or cider, spirits, or fortified wine).
• The median follow-up duration of this study was 12.7 years.
• Cases of incident gout during the follow-up period were identified using hospital records and the International Classification of Diseases codes.

TAKEAWAY:

• The risk for gout was 69% higher in men who were current drinkers than in those who were never drinkers (hazard ratio [HR], 1.69; 95% CI, 1.30-2.18), while an inverse association was observed in women who were current drinkers, although it was not statistically significant. A significant interaction was observed between drinking status and sex (P < .001 for interaction).
• Among current drinkers, more frequent alcohol consumption was associated with a higher risk for gout among both sexes, with the association being stronger in men (HR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.84-2.30) than in women (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.12-1.61).
• The consumption of beer or cider was higher in men than in women (4.2 vs 0.4 pints/wk).
• Among all alcoholic beverages, the consumption of beer or cider (per 1 pint/d) showed the strongest association with the risk for gout in both men (HR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.53-1.67) and women (HR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.02-2.57).

IN PRACTICE:

“The observed sex-specific difference in the association of total alcohol consumption with incident gout may be owing to differences between men and women in the types of alcohol consumed rather than biological differences,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jie-Qiong Lyu, MPH, Department of Nutrition and Food Hygiene, School of Public Health, Suzhou Medical College of Soochow University in China. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The frequency of alcohol consumption was self-reported, leading to potential misclassification. Incident cases of gout were identified from hospital records, which may have caused some undiagnosed cases or those diagnosed only in primary care settings to be missed. Most participants were of European descent and relatively healthier than the general population, limiting generalizability.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by the Gusu Leading Talent Plan for Scientific and Technological Innovation and Entrepreneurship. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

New COVID-19 vaccines formulated for better protection against the currently circulating variants have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration.

The COVID vaccines available this fall have been updated to better match the currently circulating COVID strains, said William Schaffner, MD, professor of medicine in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, in an interview.

“The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines — both mRNA vaccines — target the KP.2 variant, while the Novavax vaccine targets the JN.1 variant, which is a predecessor to KP.2,” said Dr. Schaffner, who also serves as a spokesperson for the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases. “The Novavax vaccine is a protein adjuvant vaccine made in a more traditional fashion and may appeal to those who remain hesitant about receiving an mRNA vaccine,” he explained. However, all three vaccines are designed to protect against severe COVID illness and reduce the likelihood of hospitalization, he said.
 

Who Needs It?

“The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) continues to recommend that everyone in the United States who is age 6 months and older receive the updated COVID vaccine this fall, along with influenza vaccine,” Dr. Schaffner said.

“This was not a surprise because COVID will produce a sizable winter outbreak,” he predicted. Although older people and those who have chronic medical conditions such as heart or lung disease, diabetes, or other immunocompromising conditions suffer the most serious impact of COVID, he said. “The virus can strike anyone, even the young and healthy.” The risk for long COVID persists as well, he pointed out.

The ACIP recommendation is endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics and other professional organizations, Dr. Shaffner said.

A frequently asked question is whether the COVID and flu vaccines can be given at the same time, and the answer is yes, according to a statement from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

“The optimal time to be vaccinated is late September and anytime during October in order to get the benefit of protection through the winter,” Dr. Schaffner said.

As with earlier versions of the COVID-19 vaccine, side effects vary from person to person. Reported side effects of the updated vaccine are similar to those seen with earlier versions and may include injection site pain, redness and swelling, fatigue, headache, muscle pain, chills, nausea, and fever, but most of these are short-lived, according to the CDC.
 

Clinical Guidance

The CDC’s clinical guidance for COVID-19 vaccination outlines more specific guidance for vaccination based on age, vaccination history, and immunocompromised status and will be updated as needed.

A notable difference in the latest guidance is the recommendation of only one shot for adults aged 65 years and older who are NOT moderately or severely immunocompromised. For those who are moderately or severely immunocompromised, the CDC recommends two to three doses of the same brand of vaccine.

Dr. Schaffner strongly encouraged clinicians to recommend the COVID-19 vaccination for all eligible patients. “COVID is a nasty virus that can cause serious disease in anyone,” and protection from previous vaccination or prior infection has likely waned, he said.

Dr. Schaffner also encouraged healthcare professionals and their families to lead by example. “We should all be vaccinated and let our patients know that we are vaccinated and that we want all our patents to be protected,” he said.

The updated COVID-19 vaccination recommendations have become much simpler for clinicians and patients, with a single messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine required for anyone older than 5 years, said David J. Cennimo, MD, associate professor of medicine and pediatrics in the Division of Infectious Disease at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, in an interview.

“The recommendations are a bit more complex for children under 5 years old receiving their first vaccination; they require two to three doses depending on the brand,” he said. “It is important to review the latest recommendations to plan the doses with the correct interval timing. Considering the doses may be 3-4 weeks apart, start early,” he advised.
 

One-Time Dosing

Although the updated mRNA vaccine is currently recommended as a one-time dose, Dr. Cennimo said he can envision a scenario later in the season when a second dose is recommended for the elderly and those at high risk for severe illness. Dr. Cennimo said that he strongly agrees with the recommendations that everyone aged 6 months and older receive an updated COVID-19 vaccine. Older age remains the prime risk factor, but anyone can become infected, he said.

Predicting a prime time to get vaccinated is tricky because no one knows when the expected rise in winter cases will occur, said Dr. Cennimo.

“We know from years of flu vaccine data that some number of people who delay the vaccine will never return and will miss protection,” he said. Therefore, delaying vaccination is not recommended. Dr. Cennimo plans to follow his habit of getting vaccinated in early October. “I anticipate the maximal effectiveness of the vaccine will carry me through the winter,” he said.

Data support the safety and effectiveness for both flu and COVID vaccines if they are given together, and some research on earlier versions of COVID vaccines suggested that receiving flu and COVID vaccines together might increase the antibody response against COVID, but similar studies of the updated version have not been done, Dr. Cennimo said.

Clinicians may have to overcome the barrier of COVID fatigue to encourage vaccination, Dr. Cennimo said. Many people say they “want it to be over,” he said, but SARS-CoV-2, established as a viral respiratory infection, shows no signs of disappearing. In addition, new data continue to show higher mortality associated with COVID-19 than with influenza, he said.

“We need to explain to our patients that COVID-19 is still here and is still dangerous. The yearly influenza vaccination campaigns should have established and normalized the idea of an updated vaccine targeted for the season’s predicated strains is expected,” he emphasized. “We now have years of safety data behind these vaccines, and we need to make a strong recommendation for this protection,” he said.

COVID-19 vaccines are covered by private insurance, as well as by Medicare and Medicaid, according to the CDC. Vaccination for uninsured children is covered through the Vaccines for Children Program.

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

New COVID-19 vaccines formulated for better protection against the currently circulating variants have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration.

The COVID vaccines available this fall have been updated to better match the currently circulating COVID strains, said William Schaffner, MD, professor of medicine in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, in an interview.

“The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines — both mRNA vaccines — target the KP.2 variant, while the Novavax vaccine targets the JN.1 variant, which is a predecessor to KP.2,” said Dr. Schaffner, who also serves as a spokesperson for the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases. “The Novavax vaccine is a protein adjuvant vaccine made in a more traditional fashion and may appeal to those who remain hesitant about receiving an mRNA vaccine,” he explained. However, all three vaccines are designed to protect against severe COVID illness and reduce the likelihood of hospitalization, he said.
 

Who Needs It?

“The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) continues to recommend that everyone in the United States who is age 6 months and older receive the updated COVID vaccine this fall, along with influenza vaccine,” Dr. Schaffner said.

“This was not a surprise because COVID will produce a sizable winter outbreak,” he predicted. Although older people and those who have chronic medical conditions such as heart or lung disease, diabetes, or other immunocompromising conditions suffer the most serious impact of COVID, he said. “The virus can strike anyone, even the young and healthy.” The risk for long COVID persists as well, he pointed out.

The ACIP recommendation is endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics and other professional organizations, Dr. Shaffner said.

A frequently asked question is whether the COVID and flu vaccines can be given at the same time, and the answer is yes, according to a statement from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

“The optimal time to be vaccinated is late September and anytime during October in order to get the benefit of protection through the winter,” Dr. Schaffner said.

As with earlier versions of the COVID-19 vaccine, side effects vary from person to person. Reported side effects of the updated vaccine are similar to those seen with earlier versions and may include injection site pain, redness and swelling, fatigue, headache, muscle pain, chills, nausea, and fever, but most of these are short-lived, according to the CDC.
 

Clinical Guidance

The CDC’s clinical guidance for COVID-19 vaccination outlines more specific guidance for vaccination based on age, vaccination history, and immunocompromised status and will be updated as needed.

A notable difference in the latest guidance is the recommendation of only one shot for adults aged 65 years and older who are NOT moderately or severely immunocompromised. For those who are moderately or severely immunocompromised, the CDC recommends two to three doses of the same brand of vaccine.

Dr. Schaffner strongly encouraged clinicians to recommend the COVID-19 vaccination for all eligible patients. “COVID is a nasty virus that can cause serious disease in anyone,” and protection from previous vaccination or prior infection has likely waned, he said.

Dr. Schaffner also encouraged healthcare professionals and their families to lead by example. “We should all be vaccinated and let our patients know that we are vaccinated and that we want all our patents to be protected,” he said.

The updated COVID-19 vaccination recommendations have become much simpler for clinicians and patients, with a single messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine required for anyone older than 5 years, said David J. Cennimo, MD, associate professor of medicine and pediatrics in the Division of Infectious Disease at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, in an interview.

“The recommendations are a bit more complex for children under 5 years old receiving their first vaccination; they require two to three doses depending on the brand,” he said. “It is important to review the latest recommendations to plan the doses with the correct interval timing. Considering the doses may be 3-4 weeks apart, start early,” he advised.
 

One-Time Dosing

Although the updated mRNA vaccine is currently recommended as a one-time dose, Dr. Cennimo said he can envision a scenario later in the season when a second dose is recommended for the elderly and those at high risk for severe illness. Dr. Cennimo said that he strongly agrees with the recommendations that everyone aged 6 months and older receive an updated COVID-19 vaccine. Older age remains the prime risk factor, but anyone can become infected, he said.

Predicting a prime time to get vaccinated is tricky because no one knows when the expected rise in winter cases will occur, said Dr. Cennimo.

“We know from years of flu vaccine data that some number of people who delay the vaccine will never return and will miss protection,” he said. Therefore, delaying vaccination is not recommended. Dr. Cennimo plans to follow his habit of getting vaccinated in early October. “I anticipate the maximal effectiveness of the vaccine will carry me through the winter,” he said.

Data support the safety and effectiveness for both flu and COVID vaccines if they are given together, and some research on earlier versions of COVID vaccines suggested that receiving flu and COVID vaccines together might increase the antibody response against COVID, but similar studies of the updated version have not been done, Dr. Cennimo said.

Clinicians may have to overcome the barrier of COVID fatigue to encourage vaccination, Dr. Cennimo said. Many people say they “want it to be over,” he said, but SARS-CoV-2, established as a viral respiratory infection, shows no signs of disappearing. In addition, new data continue to show higher mortality associated with COVID-19 than with influenza, he said.

“We need to explain to our patients that COVID-19 is still here and is still dangerous. The yearly influenza vaccination campaigns should have established and normalized the idea of an updated vaccine targeted for the season’s predicated strains is expected,” he emphasized. “We now have years of safety data behind these vaccines, and we need to make a strong recommendation for this protection,” he said.

COVID-19 vaccines are covered by private insurance, as well as by Medicare and Medicaid, according to the CDC. Vaccination for uninsured children is covered through the Vaccines for Children Program.

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

New COVID-19 vaccines formulated for better protection against the currently circulating variants have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration.

The COVID vaccines available this fall have been updated to better match the currently circulating COVID strains, said William Schaffner, MD, professor of medicine in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, in an interview.

“The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines — both mRNA vaccines — target the KP.2 variant, while the Novavax vaccine targets the JN.1 variant, which is a predecessor to KP.2,” said Dr. Schaffner, who also serves as a spokesperson for the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases. “The Novavax vaccine is a protein adjuvant vaccine made in a more traditional fashion and may appeal to those who remain hesitant about receiving an mRNA vaccine,” he explained. However, all three vaccines are designed to protect against severe COVID illness and reduce the likelihood of hospitalization, he said.
 

Who Needs It?

“The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) continues to recommend that everyone in the United States who is age 6 months and older receive the updated COVID vaccine this fall, along with influenza vaccine,” Dr. Schaffner said.

“This was not a surprise because COVID will produce a sizable winter outbreak,” he predicted. Although older people and those who have chronic medical conditions such as heart or lung disease, diabetes, or other immunocompromising conditions suffer the most serious impact of COVID, he said. “The virus can strike anyone, even the young and healthy.” The risk for long COVID persists as well, he pointed out.

The ACIP recommendation is endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics and other professional organizations, Dr. Shaffner said.

A frequently asked question is whether the COVID and flu vaccines can be given at the same time, and the answer is yes, according to a statement from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

“The optimal time to be vaccinated is late September and anytime during October in order to get the benefit of protection through the winter,” Dr. Schaffner said.

As with earlier versions of the COVID-19 vaccine, side effects vary from person to person. Reported side effects of the updated vaccine are similar to those seen with earlier versions and may include injection site pain, redness and swelling, fatigue, headache, muscle pain, chills, nausea, and fever, but most of these are short-lived, according to the CDC.
 

Clinical Guidance

The CDC’s clinical guidance for COVID-19 vaccination outlines more specific guidance for vaccination based on age, vaccination history, and immunocompromised status and will be updated as needed.

A notable difference in the latest guidance is the recommendation of only one shot for adults aged 65 years and older who are NOT moderately or severely immunocompromised. For those who are moderately or severely immunocompromised, the CDC recommends two to three doses of the same brand of vaccine.

Dr. Schaffner strongly encouraged clinicians to recommend the COVID-19 vaccination for all eligible patients. “COVID is a nasty virus that can cause serious disease in anyone,” and protection from previous vaccination or prior infection has likely waned, he said.

Dr. Schaffner also encouraged healthcare professionals and their families to lead by example. “We should all be vaccinated and let our patients know that we are vaccinated and that we want all our patents to be protected,” he said.

The updated COVID-19 vaccination recommendations have become much simpler for clinicians and patients, with a single messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine required for anyone older than 5 years, said David J. Cennimo, MD, associate professor of medicine and pediatrics in the Division of Infectious Disease at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, in an interview.

“The recommendations are a bit more complex for children under 5 years old receiving their first vaccination; they require two to three doses depending on the brand,” he said. “It is important to review the latest recommendations to plan the doses with the correct interval timing. Considering the doses may be 3-4 weeks apart, start early,” he advised.
 

One-Time Dosing

Although the updated mRNA vaccine is currently recommended as a one-time dose, Dr. Cennimo said he can envision a scenario later in the season when a second dose is recommended for the elderly and those at high risk for severe illness. Dr. Cennimo said that he strongly agrees with the recommendations that everyone aged 6 months and older receive an updated COVID-19 vaccine. Older age remains the prime risk factor, but anyone can become infected, he said.

Predicting a prime time to get vaccinated is tricky because no one knows when the expected rise in winter cases will occur, said Dr. Cennimo.

“We know from years of flu vaccine data that some number of people who delay the vaccine will never return and will miss protection,” he said. Therefore, delaying vaccination is not recommended. Dr. Cennimo plans to follow his habit of getting vaccinated in early October. “I anticipate the maximal effectiveness of the vaccine will carry me through the winter,” he said.

Data support the safety and effectiveness for both flu and COVID vaccines if they are given together, and some research on earlier versions of COVID vaccines suggested that receiving flu and COVID vaccines together might increase the antibody response against COVID, but similar studies of the updated version have not been done, Dr. Cennimo said.

Clinicians may have to overcome the barrier of COVID fatigue to encourage vaccination, Dr. Cennimo said. Many people say they “want it to be over,” he said, but SARS-CoV-2, established as a viral respiratory infection, shows no signs of disappearing. In addition, new data continue to show higher mortality associated with COVID-19 than with influenza, he said.

“We need to explain to our patients that COVID-19 is still here and is still dangerous. The yearly influenza vaccination campaigns should have established and normalized the idea of an updated vaccine targeted for the season’s predicated strains is expected,” he emphasized. “We now have years of safety data behind these vaccines, and we need to make a strong recommendation for this protection,” he said.

COVID-19 vaccines are covered by private insurance, as well as by Medicare and Medicaid, according to the CDC. Vaccination for uninsured children is covered through the Vaccines for Children Program.

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

In a video posted to Reddit, Lucie Rosenthal’s face starts focused and uncertain, looking intently into the camera, before it happens.

She releases a succinct, croak-like belch.

Then, it’s wide-eyed surprise, followed by rollicking laughter. “I got it!” the Denver resident says after what was her second burp ever.

“It’s really rocking my mind that I am fully introducing a new bodily function at 26 years old,” Ms. Rosenthal later told KFF Health News while working remotely, because, as great as the burping was, it was now happening uncontrollably. “Sorry, excuse me. Oh, my god. That was a burp. Did you hear it?”

Ms. Rosenthal is among more than a thousand people who have received a procedure to help them burp since 2019 when an Illinois doctor first reported the steps of the intervention in a medical journal.

The inability to belch can cause bloating, pain, gurgling in the neck and chest, and excessive flatulence as built-up air seeks an alternate exit route. One Reddit user described the gurgling sound as an “alien trying to escape me,” and pain like a heart attack that goes away with a fart.

The procedure has spread, primarily thanks to increasingly loud rumblings in the bowels of Reddit. Membership in a subreddit for people with or interested in the condition has ballooned to about 31,000 people, to become one of the platform’s larger groups.

Since 2019, the condition has had an official name: retrograde cricopharyngeus dysfunction, also known as “abelchia” or “no-burp syndrome.” The syndrome is caused by a quirk in the muscle that acts as the gatekeeper to the esophagus, the roughly 10-inch-long muscular tube that moves food between the throat and the stomach.

The procedure to fix it involves a doctor injecting 50 to 100 units of Botox — more than twice the amount often used to smooth forehead wrinkles — into the upper cricopharyngeal muscle.

Michael King, MD, the physician who treated Rosenthal, said he hadn’t heard of the disorder until 2020, when a teenager, armed with a list of academic papers found on Reddit, asked him to do the procedure.

It wasn’t a stretch. Dr. King, a laryngologist with Peak ENT and Voice Center, had been injecting Botox in the same muscle to treat people having a hard time swallowing after a stroke.

Now he’s among doctors from Norway to Thailand listed on the subreddit, r/noburp, as offering the procedure. Other doctors, commenters have noted, have occasionally laughed at them or made them feel they were being melodramatic.

To be fair, doctors and researchers don’t understand why the same muscle that lets food move down won’t let air move up.

“It’s very odd,” Dr. King said.

Doctors also aren’t sure why many patients keep burping long after the Botox wears off after a few months. Robert Bastian, MD, a laryngologist outside of Chicago, named the condition and came up with the procedure. He estimates he and his colleagues have treated about 1,800 people, charging about $4,000 a pop.

“We hear that in Southern California it’s $25,000, in Seattle $16,000, in New York City $25,000,” Dr. Bastian said.

Because insurance companies viewed Botox charges as a “red flag,” he said, his patients now pay $650 to cover the medication so it can be excluded from the insurance claims.

The pioneering patient is Daryl Moody, a car technician who has worked at the same Toyota dealership in Houston for half his life. The 34-year-old said that by 2015 he had become “desperate” for relief. The bloating and gurgling wasn’t just a painful shadow over his day; it was cramping his new hobby: skydiving.

“I hadn’t done anything fun or interesting with my life,” he said.

That is, until he tried skydiving. But as he gained altitude on the way up, his stomach would inflate like a bag of chips on a flight.

“I went to 10 doctors,” he said. “Nobody seemed to believe me that this problem even existed.”

Then he stumbled upon a YouTube video by Bastian describing how Botox injections can fix some throat conditions. Moody asked if Bastian could try it to cure his burping problem. Dr. Bastian agreed.

Mr. Moody’s insurance considered it “experimental and unnecessary,” he recalled, so he had to pay about $2,700 out of pocket.

“This is honestly going to change everything,” he posted on his Facebook page in December 2015, about his trip to Illinois.

The year after his procedure, Mr. Moody helped break a national record for participating in the largest group of people to skydive together while wearing wingsuits, those getups that turn people into flying squirrels. He has jumped about 400 times now.

People have been plagued by this issue for at least a few millennia. Two thousand years ago, the Roman philosopher Pliny the Elder described a man named Pomponius who could not belch. And 840 years ago, Johannes de Hauvilla included the tidbit in a poem, writing, “The steaming face of Pomponius could find no relief by belching.”

It took a few more centuries for clinical examples to pop up. In the 1980s, a few case reports in the United States described people who couldn’t burp and had no memory of vomiting. One woman, doctors wrote, was “unable to voluntarily belch along with her childhood friends when this was a popular game.”

The patients were in a great deal of pain, though doctors couldn’t find anything wrong with their anatomy. But the doctors confirmed using a method called manometry that patients’ upper esophageal sphincters simply would not relax — not after a meal of a sandwich, glass of milk, and candy bar, nor after doctors used a catheter to squirt several ounces of air beneath the stubborn valve.

André Smout, MD, PhD, a gastroenterologist at the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands, said he read those reports when they came out.

“But we never saw the condition, so we didn’t believe that it existed in real life,” he said.

Dr. Smout’s doubts persisted until he and colleagues studied a small group of patients a few years ago. The researchers gave eight patients with a reported inability to burp a “belch provocation” in the form of carbonated water, and used pressure sensors to observe how their throats moved. Indeed, the air stayed trapped. A Botox injection resolved their problems by giving them the ability to burp, or, to use an academic term, eructate.

“We had to admit that it really existed,” Dr. Smout said.

He wrote in Current Opinion in Gastroenterology that the syndrome “may not be as rare as thought hitherto.” He credits Reddit with alerting patients and medical professionals to its existence.

But he wonders how often the treatment might cause a placebo effect. He pointed to studies finding that with conditions such as irritable bowel syndrome, 40% or more of patients who receive placebo treatment feel their symptoms improve. Awareness is also growing about “cyberchondria,” when people search desperately online for answers to their ailments — putting them at risk of unnecessary treatment or further distress.

In Denver, Ms. Rosenthal, the new burper, is open to the idea that the placebo effect could be at play for her. But even if that’s the case, she feels much better.

“I felt perpetual nausea, and that has subsided a lot since I got the procedure done,” she said. So has the bloating and stomach pain. She can drink a beer at happy hour and not feel ill.

She’s pleased insurance covered the procedure, and she’s getting a handle on the involuntary burping. She cannot, however, burp the alphabet.

“Not yet,” she said.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

In a video posted to Reddit, Lucie Rosenthal’s face starts focused and uncertain, looking intently into the camera, before it happens.

She releases a succinct, croak-like belch.

Then, it’s wide-eyed surprise, followed by rollicking laughter. “I got it!” the Denver resident says after what was her second burp ever.

“It’s really rocking my mind that I am fully introducing a new bodily function at 26 years old,” Ms. Rosenthal later told KFF Health News while working remotely, because, as great as the burping was, it was now happening uncontrollably. “Sorry, excuse me. Oh, my god. That was a burp. Did you hear it?”

Ms. Rosenthal is among more than a thousand people who have received a procedure to help them burp since 2019 when an Illinois doctor first reported the steps of the intervention in a medical journal.

The inability to belch can cause bloating, pain, gurgling in the neck and chest, and excessive flatulence as built-up air seeks an alternate exit route. One Reddit user described the gurgling sound as an “alien trying to escape me,” and pain like a heart attack that goes away with a fart.

The procedure has spread, primarily thanks to increasingly loud rumblings in the bowels of Reddit. Membership in a subreddit for people with or interested in the condition has ballooned to about 31,000 people, to become one of the platform’s larger groups.

Since 2019, the condition has had an official name: retrograde cricopharyngeus dysfunction, also known as “abelchia” or “no-burp syndrome.” The syndrome is caused by a quirk in the muscle that acts as the gatekeeper to the esophagus, the roughly 10-inch-long muscular tube that moves food between the throat and the stomach.

The procedure to fix it involves a doctor injecting 50 to 100 units of Botox — more than twice the amount often used to smooth forehead wrinkles — into the upper cricopharyngeal muscle.

Michael King, MD, the physician who treated Rosenthal, said he hadn’t heard of the disorder until 2020, when a teenager, armed with a list of academic papers found on Reddit, asked him to do the procedure.

It wasn’t a stretch. Dr. King, a laryngologist with Peak ENT and Voice Center, had been injecting Botox in the same muscle to treat people having a hard time swallowing after a stroke.

Now he’s among doctors from Norway to Thailand listed on the subreddit, r/noburp, as offering the procedure. Other doctors, commenters have noted, have occasionally laughed at them or made them feel they were being melodramatic.

To be fair, doctors and researchers don’t understand why the same muscle that lets food move down won’t let air move up.

“It’s very odd,” Dr. King said.

Doctors also aren’t sure why many patients keep burping long after the Botox wears off after a few months. Robert Bastian, MD, a laryngologist outside of Chicago, named the condition and came up with the procedure. He estimates he and his colleagues have treated about 1,800 people, charging about $4,000 a pop.

“We hear that in Southern California it’s $25,000, in Seattle $16,000, in New York City $25,000,” Dr. Bastian said.

Because insurance companies viewed Botox charges as a “red flag,” he said, his patients now pay $650 to cover the medication so it can be excluded from the insurance claims.

The pioneering patient is Daryl Moody, a car technician who has worked at the same Toyota dealership in Houston for half his life. The 34-year-old said that by 2015 he had become “desperate” for relief. The bloating and gurgling wasn’t just a painful shadow over his day; it was cramping his new hobby: skydiving.

“I hadn’t done anything fun or interesting with my life,” he said.

That is, until he tried skydiving. But as he gained altitude on the way up, his stomach would inflate like a bag of chips on a flight.

“I went to 10 doctors,” he said. “Nobody seemed to believe me that this problem even existed.”

Then he stumbled upon a YouTube video by Bastian describing how Botox injections can fix some throat conditions. Moody asked if Bastian could try it to cure his burping problem. Dr. Bastian agreed.

Mr. Moody’s insurance considered it “experimental and unnecessary,” he recalled, so he had to pay about $2,700 out of pocket.

“This is honestly going to change everything,” he posted on his Facebook page in December 2015, about his trip to Illinois.

The year after his procedure, Mr. Moody helped break a national record for participating in the largest group of people to skydive together while wearing wingsuits, those getups that turn people into flying squirrels. He has jumped about 400 times now.

People have been plagued by this issue for at least a few millennia. Two thousand years ago, the Roman philosopher Pliny the Elder described a man named Pomponius who could not belch. And 840 years ago, Johannes de Hauvilla included the tidbit in a poem, writing, “The steaming face of Pomponius could find no relief by belching.”

It took a few more centuries for clinical examples to pop up. In the 1980s, a few case reports in the United States described people who couldn’t burp and had no memory of vomiting. One woman, doctors wrote, was “unable to voluntarily belch along with her childhood friends when this was a popular game.”

The patients were in a great deal of pain, though doctors couldn’t find anything wrong with their anatomy. But the doctors confirmed using a method called manometry that patients’ upper esophageal sphincters simply would not relax — not after a meal of a sandwich, glass of milk, and candy bar, nor after doctors used a catheter to squirt several ounces of air beneath the stubborn valve.

André Smout, MD, PhD, a gastroenterologist at the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands, said he read those reports when they came out.

“But we never saw the condition, so we didn’t believe that it existed in real life,” he said.

Dr. Smout’s doubts persisted until he and colleagues studied a small group of patients a few years ago. The researchers gave eight patients with a reported inability to burp a “belch provocation” in the form of carbonated water, and used pressure sensors to observe how their throats moved. Indeed, the air stayed trapped. A Botox injection resolved their problems by giving them the ability to burp, or, to use an academic term, eructate.

“We had to admit that it really existed,” Dr. Smout said.

He wrote in Current Opinion in Gastroenterology that the syndrome “may not be as rare as thought hitherto.” He credits Reddit with alerting patients and medical professionals to its existence.

But he wonders how often the treatment might cause a placebo effect. He pointed to studies finding that with conditions such as irritable bowel syndrome, 40% or more of patients who receive placebo treatment feel their symptoms improve. Awareness is also growing about “cyberchondria,” when people search desperately online for answers to their ailments — putting them at risk of unnecessary treatment or further distress.

In Denver, Ms. Rosenthal, the new burper, is open to the idea that the placebo effect could be at play for her. But even if that’s the case, she feels much better.

“I felt perpetual nausea, and that has subsided a lot since I got the procedure done,” she said. So has the bloating and stomach pain. She can drink a beer at happy hour and not feel ill.

She’s pleased insurance covered the procedure, and she’s getting a handle on the involuntary burping. She cannot, however, burp the alphabet.

“Not yet,” she said.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

In a video posted to Reddit, Lucie Rosenthal’s face starts focused and uncertain, looking intently into the camera, before it happens.

She releases a succinct, croak-like belch.

Then, it’s wide-eyed surprise, followed by rollicking laughter. “I got it!” the Denver resident says after what was her second burp ever.

“It’s really rocking my mind that I am fully introducing a new bodily function at 26 years old,” Ms. Rosenthal later told KFF Health News while working remotely, because, as great as the burping was, it was now happening uncontrollably. “Sorry, excuse me. Oh, my god. That was a burp. Did you hear it?”

Ms. Rosenthal is among more than a thousand people who have received a procedure to help them burp since 2019 when an Illinois doctor first reported the steps of the intervention in a medical journal.

The inability to belch can cause bloating, pain, gurgling in the neck and chest, and excessive flatulence as built-up air seeks an alternate exit route. One Reddit user described the gurgling sound as an “alien trying to escape me,” and pain like a heart attack that goes away with a fart.

The procedure has spread, primarily thanks to increasingly loud rumblings in the bowels of Reddit. Membership in a subreddit for people with or interested in the condition has ballooned to about 31,000 people, to become one of the platform’s larger groups.

Since 2019, the condition has had an official name: retrograde cricopharyngeus dysfunction, also known as “abelchia” or “no-burp syndrome.” The syndrome is caused by a quirk in the muscle that acts as the gatekeeper to the esophagus, the roughly 10-inch-long muscular tube that moves food between the throat and the stomach.

The procedure to fix it involves a doctor injecting 50 to 100 units of Botox — more than twice the amount often used to smooth forehead wrinkles — into the upper cricopharyngeal muscle.

Michael King, MD, the physician who treated Rosenthal, said he hadn’t heard of the disorder until 2020, when a teenager, armed with a list of academic papers found on Reddit, asked him to do the procedure.

It wasn’t a stretch. Dr. King, a laryngologist with Peak ENT and Voice Center, had been injecting Botox in the same muscle to treat people having a hard time swallowing after a stroke.

Now he’s among doctors from Norway to Thailand listed on the subreddit, r/noburp, as offering the procedure. Other doctors, commenters have noted, have occasionally laughed at them or made them feel they were being melodramatic.

To be fair, doctors and researchers don’t understand why the same muscle that lets food move down won’t let air move up.

“It’s very odd,” Dr. King said.

Doctors also aren’t sure why many patients keep burping long after the Botox wears off after a few months. Robert Bastian, MD, a laryngologist outside of Chicago, named the condition and came up with the procedure. He estimates he and his colleagues have treated about 1,800 people, charging about $4,000 a pop.

“We hear that in Southern California it’s $25,000, in Seattle $16,000, in New York City $25,000,” Dr. Bastian said.

Because insurance companies viewed Botox charges as a “red flag,” he said, his patients now pay $650 to cover the medication so it can be excluded from the insurance claims.

The pioneering patient is Daryl Moody, a car technician who has worked at the same Toyota dealership in Houston for half his life. The 34-year-old said that by 2015 he had become “desperate” for relief. The bloating and gurgling wasn’t just a painful shadow over his day; it was cramping his new hobby: skydiving.

“I hadn’t done anything fun or interesting with my life,” he said.

That is, until he tried skydiving. But as he gained altitude on the way up, his stomach would inflate like a bag of chips on a flight.

“I went to 10 doctors,” he said. “Nobody seemed to believe me that this problem even existed.”

Then he stumbled upon a YouTube video by Bastian describing how Botox injections can fix some throat conditions. Moody asked if Bastian could try it to cure his burping problem. Dr. Bastian agreed.

Mr. Moody’s insurance considered it “experimental and unnecessary,” he recalled, so he had to pay about $2,700 out of pocket.

“This is honestly going to change everything,” he posted on his Facebook page in December 2015, about his trip to Illinois.

The year after his procedure, Mr. Moody helped break a national record for participating in the largest group of people to skydive together while wearing wingsuits, those getups that turn people into flying squirrels. He has jumped about 400 times now.

People have been plagued by this issue for at least a few millennia. Two thousand years ago, the Roman philosopher Pliny the Elder described a man named Pomponius who could not belch. And 840 years ago, Johannes de Hauvilla included the tidbit in a poem, writing, “The steaming face of Pomponius could find no relief by belching.”

It took a few more centuries for clinical examples to pop up. In the 1980s, a few case reports in the United States described people who couldn’t burp and had no memory of vomiting. One woman, doctors wrote, was “unable to voluntarily belch along with her childhood friends when this was a popular game.”

The patients were in a great deal of pain, though doctors couldn’t find anything wrong with their anatomy. But the doctors confirmed using a method called manometry that patients’ upper esophageal sphincters simply would not relax — not after a meal of a sandwich, glass of milk, and candy bar, nor after doctors used a catheter to squirt several ounces of air beneath the stubborn valve.

André Smout, MD, PhD, a gastroenterologist at the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands, said he read those reports when they came out.

“But we never saw the condition, so we didn’t believe that it existed in real life,” he said.

Dr. Smout’s doubts persisted until he and colleagues studied a small group of patients a few years ago. The researchers gave eight patients with a reported inability to burp a “belch provocation” in the form of carbonated water, and used pressure sensors to observe how their throats moved. Indeed, the air stayed trapped. A Botox injection resolved their problems by giving them the ability to burp, or, to use an academic term, eructate.

“We had to admit that it really existed,” Dr. Smout said.

He wrote in Current Opinion in Gastroenterology that the syndrome “may not be as rare as thought hitherto.” He credits Reddit with alerting patients and medical professionals to its existence.

But he wonders how often the treatment might cause a placebo effect. He pointed to studies finding that with conditions such as irritable bowel syndrome, 40% or more of patients who receive placebo treatment feel their symptoms improve. Awareness is also growing about “cyberchondria,” when people search desperately online for answers to their ailments — putting them at risk of unnecessary treatment or further distress.

In Denver, Ms. Rosenthal, the new burper, is open to the idea that the placebo effect could be at play for her. But even if that’s the case, she feels much better.

“I felt perpetual nausea, and that has subsided a lot since I got the procedure done,” she said. So has the bloating and stomach pain. She can drink a beer at happy hour and not feel ill.

She’s pleased insurance covered the procedure, and she’s getting a handle on the involuntary burping. She cannot, however, burp the alphabet.

“Not yet,” she said.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

VIENNA — At the European Respiratory Society (ERS) 2024 Congress, experts discussed the benefits and risks of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine and explored ethical implications and practical challenges.

With over 600 AI-enabled medical devices registered with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) since 2020, AI is rapidly pervading healthcare systems. But like any other medical device, AI tools must be thoroughly assessed and follow strict regulations.

Joshua Hatherley, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at the School of Philosophy and History of Ideas at Aarhus University in Denmark, said the traditional bioethical principles — autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice — remain a crucial framework for assessing ethics regarding the use of AI tools in medicine. However, he said the emerging fifth principle of “explainability” has gained attention due to the unique characteristics of AI systems.

“Everyone is excited about AI right now, but there are many open questions about how much we can trust it and to what extent we can use it,” Ana Catalina Hernandez Padilla, a clinical researcher at the Université de Limoges, France, told this news organization. 

Joseph Alderman, MBChB, an AI and digital health clinical research fellow at the Institute of Inflammation and Ageing at the University of Birmingham, UK, said these are undoubtedly exciting times to work in AI and health, but he believes clinicians should be “part of the story” and advocate for AI that is safe, effective, and equitable.
 

The Pros

Dr. Alderman said AI has huge potential to improve healthcare and patients’ experiences. 

One interesting area in which AI is being applied is the informed consent process. Conversational AI models, like large language models, can provide patients with a time-unlimited platform to discuss risks, benefits, and recommendations, potentially improving understanding and patient engagement. AI systems can also predict the preferences of noncommunicative patients by analyzing their social media and medical data, which may improve surrogate decision-making and ensure treatment aligns with patient preferences, Dr. Hatherley explained.

Another significant benefit is AI’s capacity to improve patient outcomes through better resource allocation. For example, AI can help optimize the allocation of hospital beds, leading to more efficient use of resources and improved patient health outcomes. 

AI systems can reduce medical errors and enhance diagnosis or treatment plans through large-scale data analysis, leading to faster and more accurate decision-making. It can handle administrative tasks, reducing clinician burnout and allowing healthcare professionals to focus more on patient care.

AI also promises to advance health equity by improving access to quality care in underserved areas. In rural hospitals or developing countries, AI can help fill gaps in clinical expertise, potentially leveling the playing field in access to healthcare.
 

The Cons

Despite its potential, AI in medicine presents several risks that require careful ethical considerations. One primary concern is the possibility of embedded bias in AI systems.

For example, AI-driven advice from an AI agent may prioritize certain outcomes, such as survival, based on broad standards rather than unique patient values, potentially misaligning with the preferences of patients who value quality of life over longevity. “That may interfere with patients’ autonomous decisions,” Dr. Hatherley said.

AI systems also have limited generalizability. Models trained on a specific patient population may perform poorly when applied to different groups due to changes in demographic or clinical characteristics. This can result in less accurate or inappropriate recommendations in real-world settings. “These technologies work on the very narrow population on which the tool was developed but might not necessarily work in the real world,” said Dr. Alderman.

Another significant risk is algorithmic bias, which can worsen health disparities. AI models trained on biased datasets may perpetuate or exacerbate existing inequities in healthcare delivery, leading to suboptimal care for marginalized populations. “We have evidence of algorithms directly discriminating against people with certain characteristics,” Dr. Alderman said.
 

AI’s Black Box

AI systems, particularly those utilizing deep learning, often function as “black boxes,” meaning their internal decision-making processes are opaque and difficult to interpret. Dr. Hatherley said this lack of transparency raises significant concerns about trust and accountability in clinical decision-making. 

While Explainable AI methods have been developed to offer insights into how these systems generate their recommendations, these explanations frequently fail to capture the reasoning process entirely. Dr. Hatherley explained that this is similar to using a pharmaceutical medicine without a clear understanding of the mechanisms for which it works.

This opacity in AI decision-making can lead to mistrust among clinicians and patients, limiting its effective use in healthcare. “We don’t really know how to interpret the information it provides,” Ms. Hernandez said. 

She said while younger clinicians might be more open to testing the waters with AI tools, older practitioners still prefer to trust their own senses while looking at a patient as a whole and observing the evolution of their disease. “They are not just ticking boxes. They interpret all these variables together to make a medical decision,” she said.

“I am really optimistic about the future of AI,” Dr. Hatherley concluded. “There are still many challenges to overcome, but, ultimately, it’s not enough to talk about how AI should be adapted to human beings. We also need to talk about how humans should adapt to AI.”

Dr. Hatherley, Dr. Alderman, and Ms. Hernandez have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — At the European Respiratory Society (ERS) 2024 Congress, experts discussed the benefits and risks of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine and explored ethical implications and practical challenges.

With over 600 AI-enabled medical devices registered with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) since 2020, AI is rapidly pervading healthcare systems. But like any other medical device, AI tools must be thoroughly assessed and follow strict regulations.

Joshua Hatherley, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at the School of Philosophy and History of Ideas at Aarhus University in Denmark, said the traditional bioethical principles — autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice — remain a crucial framework for assessing ethics regarding the use of AI tools in medicine. However, he said the emerging fifth principle of “explainability” has gained attention due to the unique characteristics of AI systems.

“Everyone is excited about AI right now, but there are many open questions about how much we can trust it and to what extent we can use it,” Ana Catalina Hernandez Padilla, a clinical researcher at the Université de Limoges, France, told this news organization. 

Joseph Alderman, MBChB, an AI and digital health clinical research fellow at the Institute of Inflammation and Ageing at the University of Birmingham, UK, said these are undoubtedly exciting times to work in AI and health, but he believes clinicians should be “part of the story” and advocate for AI that is safe, effective, and equitable.
 

The Pros

Dr. Alderman said AI has huge potential to improve healthcare and patients’ experiences. 

One interesting area in which AI is being applied is the informed consent process. Conversational AI models, like large language models, can provide patients with a time-unlimited platform to discuss risks, benefits, and recommendations, potentially improving understanding and patient engagement. AI systems can also predict the preferences of noncommunicative patients by analyzing their social media and medical data, which may improve surrogate decision-making and ensure treatment aligns with patient preferences, Dr. Hatherley explained.

Another significant benefit is AI’s capacity to improve patient outcomes through better resource allocation. For example, AI can help optimize the allocation of hospital beds, leading to more efficient use of resources and improved patient health outcomes. 

AI systems can reduce medical errors and enhance diagnosis or treatment plans through large-scale data analysis, leading to faster and more accurate decision-making. It can handle administrative tasks, reducing clinician burnout and allowing healthcare professionals to focus more on patient care.

AI also promises to advance health equity by improving access to quality care in underserved areas. In rural hospitals or developing countries, AI can help fill gaps in clinical expertise, potentially leveling the playing field in access to healthcare.
 

The Cons

Despite its potential, AI in medicine presents several risks that require careful ethical considerations. One primary concern is the possibility of embedded bias in AI systems.

For example, AI-driven advice from an AI agent may prioritize certain outcomes, such as survival, based on broad standards rather than unique patient values, potentially misaligning with the preferences of patients who value quality of life over longevity. “That may interfere with patients’ autonomous decisions,” Dr. Hatherley said.

AI systems also have limited generalizability. Models trained on a specific patient population may perform poorly when applied to different groups due to changes in demographic or clinical characteristics. This can result in less accurate or inappropriate recommendations in real-world settings. “These technologies work on the very narrow population on which the tool was developed but might not necessarily work in the real world,” said Dr. Alderman.

Another significant risk is algorithmic bias, which can worsen health disparities. AI models trained on biased datasets may perpetuate or exacerbate existing inequities in healthcare delivery, leading to suboptimal care for marginalized populations. “We have evidence of algorithms directly discriminating against people with certain characteristics,” Dr. Alderman said.
 

AI’s Black Box

AI systems, particularly those utilizing deep learning, often function as “black boxes,” meaning their internal decision-making processes are opaque and difficult to interpret. Dr. Hatherley said this lack of transparency raises significant concerns about trust and accountability in clinical decision-making. 

While Explainable AI methods have been developed to offer insights into how these systems generate their recommendations, these explanations frequently fail to capture the reasoning process entirely. Dr. Hatherley explained that this is similar to using a pharmaceutical medicine without a clear understanding of the mechanisms for which it works.

This opacity in AI decision-making can lead to mistrust among clinicians and patients, limiting its effective use in healthcare. “We don’t really know how to interpret the information it provides,” Ms. Hernandez said. 

She said while younger clinicians might be more open to testing the waters with AI tools, older practitioners still prefer to trust their own senses while looking at a patient as a whole and observing the evolution of their disease. “They are not just ticking boxes. They interpret all these variables together to make a medical decision,” she said.

“I am really optimistic about the future of AI,” Dr. Hatherley concluded. “There are still many challenges to overcome, but, ultimately, it’s not enough to talk about how AI should be adapted to human beings. We also need to talk about how humans should adapt to AI.”

Dr. Hatherley, Dr. Alderman, and Ms. Hernandez have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — At the European Respiratory Society (ERS) 2024 Congress, experts discussed the benefits and risks of artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine and explored ethical implications and practical challenges.

With over 600 AI-enabled medical devices registered with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) since 2020, AI is rapidly pervading healthcare systems. But like any other medical device, AI tools must be thoroughly assessed and follow strict regulations.

Joshua Hatherley, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at the School of Philosophy and History of Ideas at Aarhus University in Denmark, said the traditional bioethical principles — autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice — remain a crucial framework for assessing ethics regarding the use of AI tools in medicine. However, he said the emerging fifth principle of “explainability” has gained attention due to the unique characteristics of AI systems.

“Everyone is excited about AI right now, but there are many open questions about how much we can trust it and to what extent we can use it,” Ana Catalina Hernandez Padilla, a clinical researcher at the Université de Limoges, France, told this news organization. 

Joseph Alderman, MBChB, an AI and digital health clinical research fellow at the Institute of Inflammation and Ageing at the University of Birmingham, UK, said these are undoubtedly exciting times to work in AI and health, but he believes clinicians should be “part of the story” and advocate for AI that is safe, effective, and equitable.
 

The Pros

Dr. Alderman said AI has huge potential to improve healthcare and patients’ experiences. 

One interesting area in which AI is being applied is the informed consent process. Conversational AI models, like large language models, can provide patients with a time-unlimited platform to discuss risks, benefits, and recommendations, potentially improving understanding and patient engagement. AI systems can also predict the preferences of noncommunicative patients by analyzing their social media and medical data, which may improve surrogate decision-making and ensure treatment aligns with patient preferences, Dr. Hatherley explained.

Another significant benefit is AI’s capacity to improve patient outcomes through better resource allocation. For example, AI can help optimize the allocation of hospital beds, leading to more efficient use of resources and improved patient health outcomes. 

AI systems can reduce medical errors and enhance diagnosis or treatment plans through large-scale data analysis, leading to faster and more accurate decision-making. It can handle administrative tasks, reducing clinician burnout and allowing healthcare professionals to focus more on patient care.

AI also promises to advance health equity by improving access to quality care in underserved areas. In rural hospitals or developing countries, AI can help fill gaps in clinical expertise, potentially leveling the playing field in access to healthcare.
 

The Cons

Despite its potential, AI in medicine presents several risks that require careful ethical considerations. One primary concern is the possibility of embedded bias in AI systems.

For example, AI-driven advice from an AI agent may prioritize certain outcomes, such as survival, based on broad standards rather than unique patient values, potentially misaligning with the preferences of patients who value quality of life over longevity. “That may interfere with patients’ autonomous decisions,” Dr. Hatherley said.

AI systems also have limited generalizability. Models trained on a specific patient population may perform poorly when applied to different groups due to changes in demographic or clinical characteristics. This can result in less accurate or inappropriate recommendations in real-world settings. “These technologies work on the very narrow population on which the tool was developed but might not necessarily work in the real world,” said Dr. Alderman.

Another significant risk is algorithmic bias, which can worsen health disparities. AI models trained on biased datasets may perpetuate or exacerbate existing inequities in healthcare delivery, leading to suboptimal care for marginalized populations. “We have evidence of algorithms directly discriminating against people with certain characteristics,” Dr. Alderman said.
 

AI’s Black Box

AI systems, particularly those utilizing deep learning, often function as “black boxes,” meaning their internal decision-making processes are opaque and difficult to interpret. Dr. Hatherley said this lack of transparency raises significant concerns about trust and accountability in clinical decision-making. 

While Explainable AI methods have been developed to offer insights into how these systems generate their recommendations, these explanations frequently fail to capture the reasoning process entirely. Dr. Hatherley explained that this is similar to using a pharmaceutical medicine without a clear understanding of the mechanisms for which it works.

This opacity in AI decision-making can lead to mistrust among clinicians and patients, limiting its effective use in healthcare. “We don’t really know how to interpret the information it provides,” Ms. Hernandez said. 

She said while younger clinicians might be more open to testing the waters with AI tools, older practitioners still prefer to trust their own senses while looking at a patient as a whole and observing the evolution of their disease. “They are not just ticking boxes. They interpret all these variables together to make a medical decision,” she said.

“I am really optimistic about the future of AI,” Dr. Hatherley concluded. “There are still many challenges to overcome, but, ultimately, it’s not enough to talk about how AI should be adapted to human beings. We also need to talk about how humans should adapt to AI.”

Dr. Hatherley, Dr. Alderman, and Ms. Hernandez have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Survival rates at 1 and 5 years for patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) who receive bilateral lung and heart-lung transplants are similar, said researchers presenting at the European Respiratory Society (ERS) 2024 International Congress.

Transplant for end-stage PAH remains an important treatment option. Heart-lung transplantation plummeted from 91.7% to 21.4% between 1991 and 2014. Yet in the United States and Europe, PAH is the second most common reason to perform a heart-lung transplant, said Baharan Zarrabian, DO, a pulmonologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

Over the past decades, physicians have debated whether to opt for a bilateral lung or a heart-lung transplant. However, there is currently a lack of definitive cardiac indicators to guide the decision between the two procedures in patients with PAH.

While the lung condition has cardiac ramifications, some experts suggest that the heart can repair itself over time after a bilateral lung transplant.
 

No Survival Difference Between Bilateral Lung and Heart-Lung Transplants

Researchers compared the outcomes of bilateral lung transplantation with those of combined heart-lung transplantation in patients with PAH. They used data from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, focusing on adult patients with PAH without congenital or structural cardiac abnormalities who underwent transplantation between June 2004 and September 2022.

The study included 918 patients, with the majority (84.6%) receiving bilateral lung transplants and 15.4% receiving heart-lung transplants. Pretransplant mean pulmonary arterial pressure and pulmonary vascular resistance were similar between the two groups. However, those who received bilateral lung transplants had higher cardiac output and lower pulmonary capillary wedge pressure than those who received heart-lung transplants. A higher percentage of heart-lung transplant recipients required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) before transplantation, while bilateral lung transplant recipients had longer median ischemic times.

Despite these differences in pretransplant characteristics and surgical factors, researchers found no significant difference in survival outcomes between the two groups at the 1-year and 5-year marks. Similarly, graft survival rates at 1 and 5 years posttransplant did not differ significantly between the two groups.

A higher proportion of patients who received bilateral lung transplant were on ECMO and remained intubated at 72 hours. “That did not translate into a worse outcome later on,” Dr. Zarrabian said.
 

Cardiac Recovery Post-Bilateral Lung Transplant

Saskia Bos, MD, PhD, a respiratory consultant, lung transplant physician, and transplant pulmonologist at University Hospitals Leuven, Belgium, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization that doctors have historically preferred combined heart-lung transplantation. The decision was motivated by a lack of understanding regarding whether the heart could remodel on its own. “Now we know that the right ventricle, which is the most affected part of the heart in pulmonary hypertension, has a huge ability to readapt to the new situation after just bilateral lung transplantation,” she said.

Bos suggested that in cases where a patient has pulmonary hypertension without any structural heart defects and where the left side of the heart is functioning normally, doctors can opt for a bilateral lung transplant rather than a combined heart-lung transplant. The right ventricle, typically the only part of the heart affected by the condition, can recover once the pulmonary hypertension is addressed through lung transplantation, she explained.

The advantage of bilateral lung transplantation over a heart-lung transplant is that the donor’s heart remains available for someone else.

“The recommendation is that physicians opt for a bilateral lung transplant,” Dr. Zarrabian concluded. “But we need to make that decision on a case-by-case basis because we still don’t know what are the cardiac parameters that we need to look for before the transplant to decide whether or not they should receive a bilateral lung or a heart-lung.”

Dr. Zarrabian and Dr. Bos reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Survival rates at 1 and 5 years for patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) who receive bilateral lung and heart-lung transplants are similar, said researchers presenting at the European Respiratory Society (ERS) 2024 International Congress.

Transplant for end-stage PAH remains an important treatment option. Heart-lung transplantation plummeted from 91.7% to 21.4% between 1991 and 2014. Yet in the United States and Europe, PAH is the second most common reason to perform a heart-lung transplant, said Baharan Zarrabian, DO, a pulmonologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

Over the past decades, physicians have debated whether to opt for a bilateral lung or a heart-lung transplant. However, there is currently a lack of definitive cardiac indicators to guide the decision between the two procedures in patients with PAH.

While the lung condition has cardiac ramifications, some experts suggest that the heart can repair itself over time after a bilateral lung transplant.
 

No Survival Difference Between Bilateral Lung and Heart-Lung Transplants

Researchers compared the outcomes of bilateral lung transplantation with those of combined heart-lung transplantation in patients with PAH. They used data from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, focusing on adult patients with PAH without congenital or structural cardiac abnormalities who underwent transplantation between June 2004 and September 2022.

The study included 918 patients, with the majority (84.6%) receiving bilateral lung transplants and 15.4% receiving heart-lung transplants. Pretransplant mean pulmonary arterial pressure and pulmonary vascular resistance were similar between the two groups. However, those who received bilateral lung transplants had higher cardiac output and lower pulmonary capillary wedge pressure than those who received heart-lung transplants. A higher percentage of heart-lung transplant recipients required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) before transplantation, while bilateral lung transplant recipients had longer median ischemic times.

Despite these differences in pretransplant characteristics and surgical factors, researchers found no significant difference in survival outcomes between the two groups at the 1-year and 5-year marks. Similarly, graft survival rates at 1 and 5 years posttransplant did not differ significantly between the two groups.

A higher proportion of patients who received bilateral lung transplant were on ECMO and remained intubated at 72 hours. “That did not translate into a worse outcome later on,” Dr. Zarrabian said.
 

Cardiac Recovery Post-Bilateral Lung Transplant

Saskia Bos, MD, PhD, a respiratory consultant, lung transplant physician, and transplant pulmonologist at University Hospitals Leuven, Belgium, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization that doctors have historically preferred combined heart-lung transplantation. The decision was motivated by a lack of understanding regarding whether the heart could remodel on its own. “Now we know that the right ventricle, which is the most affected part of the heart in pulmonary hypertension, has a huge ability to readapt to the new situation after just bilateral lung transplantation,” she said.

Bos suggested that in cases where a patient has pulmonary hypertension without any structural heart defects and where the left side of the heart is functioning normally, doctors can opt for a bilateral lung transplant rather than a combined heart-lung transplant. The right ventricle, typically the only part of the heart affected by the condition, can recover once the pulmonary hypertension is addressed through lung transplantation, she explained.

The advantage of bilateral lung transplantation over a heart-lung transplant is that the donor’s heart remains available for someone else.

“The recommendation is that physicians opt for a bilateral lung transplant,” Dr. Zarrabian concluded. “But we need to make that decision on a case-by-case basis because we still don’t know what are the cardiac parameters that we need to look for before the transplant to decide whether or not they should receive a bilateral lung or a heart-lung.”

Dr. Zarrabian and Dr. Bos reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Survival rates at 1 and 5 years for patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) who receive bilateral lung and heart-lung transplants are similar, said researchers presenting at the European Respiratory Society (ERS) 2024 International Congress.

Transplant for end-stage PAH remains an important treatment option. Heart-lung transplantation plummeted from 91.7% to 21.4% between 1991 and 2014. Yet in the United States and Europe, PAH is the second most common reason to perform a heart-lung transplant, said Baharan Zarrabian, DO, a pulmonologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

Over the past decades, physicians have debated whether to opt for a bilateral lung or a heart-lung transplant. However, there is currently a lack of definitive cardiac indicators to guide the decision between the two procedures in patients with PAH.

While the lung condition has cardiac ramifications, some experts suggest that the heart can repair itself over time after a bilateral lung transplant.
 

No Survival Difference Between Bilateral Lung and Heart-Lung Transplants

Researchers compared the outcomes of bilateral lung transplantation with those of combined heart-lung transplantation in patients with PAH. They used data from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, focusing on adult patients with PAH without congenital or structural cardiac abnormalities who underwent transplantation between June 2004 and September 2022.

The study included 918 patients, with the majority (84.6%) receiving bilateral lung transplants and 15.4% receiving heart-lung transplants. Pretransplant mean pulmonary arterial pressure and pulmonary vascular resistance were similar between the two groups. However, those who received bilateral lung transplants had higher cardiac output and lower pulmonary capillary wedge pressure than those who received heart-lung transplants. A higher percentage of heart-lung transplant recipients required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) before transplantation, while bilateral lung transplant recipients had longer median ischemic times.

Despite these differences in pretransplant characteristics and surgical factors, researchers found no significant difference in survival outcomes between the two groups at the 1-year and 5-year marks. Similarly, graft survival rates at 1 and 5 years posttransplant did not differ significantly between the two groups.

A higher proportion of patients who received bilateral lung transplant were on ECMO and remained intubated at 72 hours. “That did not translate into a worse outcome later on,” Dr. Zarrabian said.
 

Cardiac Recovery Post-Bilateral Lung Transplant

Saskia Bos, MD, PhD, a respiratory consultant, lung transplant physician, and transplant pulmonologist at University Hospitals Leuven, Belgium, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization that doctors have historically preferred combined heart-lung transplantation. The decision was motivated by a lack of understanding regarding whether the heart could remodel on its own. “Now we know that the right ventricle, which is the most affected part of the heart in pulmonary hypertension, has a huge ability to readapt to the new situation after just bilateral lung transplantation,” she said.

Bos suggested that in cases where a patient has pulmonary hypertension without any structural heart defects and where the left side of the heart is functioning normally, doctors can opt for a bilateral lung transplant rather than a combined heart-lung transplant. The right ventricle, typically the only part of the heart affected by the condition, can recover once the pulmonary hypertension is addressed through lung transplantation, she explained.

The advantage of bilateral lung transplantation over a heart-lung transplant is that the donor’s heart remains available for someone else.

“The recommendation is that physicians opt for a bilateral lung transplant,” Dr. Zarrabian concluded. “But we need to make that decision on a case-by-case basis because we still don’t know what are the cardiac parameters that we need to look for before the transplant to decide whether or not they should receive a bilateral lung or a heart-lung.”

Dr. Zarrabian and Dr. Bos reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.