Performing moderate to vigorous activity (MVPA) in the afternoon or evening may improve blood glucose control to a greater extent than exercising evenly throughout the day, new research suggests.

The data come from 775 participants with a mean body mass index (BMI) of 26.2 kg/m² in the observational Netherlands Epidemiology of Obesity (NEO) study. Use of activity monitors for four consecutive days showed that performance of MVPA (defined as activity with intensity of > 3 metabolic equivalents of task) in the afternoon or evening was associated with up to 25% reduced insulin resistance compared with an even distribution of activity during the day.

“This is one of the first studies where in humans the relation between timing of physical activity and insulin resistance was examined,” lead author Jeroen van der Velde of the department of clinical epidemiology, Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, said in an interview.

Moreover, he noted that, while previous intervention studies have shown greater blood glucose reduction with high-intensity exercise performed in the afternoon, compared with the morning, in people with impaired glucose metabolism or type 2 diabetes, “as far as I am aware, we were the first to use a population-based study in a general population to study this.”

Katarina Kos, MD, PhD, senior lecturer in diabetes and obesity, University of Exeter (England), said: “This study is novel in that it relates the timing of physical activity if performed in the morning, afternoon, or evening to insulin resistance and fat content. This is from a cohort of middle-aged Dutch people between ages 45-65 studied 10 years ago and based on self-reports of weight and eating behavior and who were found to be generally overweight.”
 

Is it down to circadian rhythm?

“The results are of interest in that if the chosen timing was in the afternoon [63% of studied population] or evening (8% of the studied population), it seemed to relate with improved metabolism when compared to the morning exercising [16% of population]. ... Whether this was due to the (timing) of activity is yet to be shown,” Dr. Kos told the UK Science Media Centre.

Mr. van der Velde agrees that the effect may be explained at least in part by the circadian rhythm of the body. “Physical activity may act as ... a cue for the activation of clock genes. Previous research has suggested that our body’s muscular system and oxidative system are also affected by our circadian rhythm and their peak activity seems to be in the late afternoon. So, being mostly active in this time period ... may elicit greater metabolic responses compared to being active in the morning.”

But, he cautioned, “I think it is important to realize that we are just beginning to understand the potential impact of physical activity timing. At this stage, I believe it is most important to be physically active in general. So ... if the morning is the only time of the day to go for a walk or a run, certainly do this.”

Dr. Kos concurred: “As this is not an intervention study, further research is needed to explain the cause of the observed association.”

Mr. van der Velde also added that it’s not yet clear which individuals or subgroups might experience additional benefits from timed activities. That’s the current research focus of a large consortium of several research institutes in the Netherlands and Canada.
 

Timed exercise reduces insulin resistance but not liver fat

The findings were published online in Diabetologia.

The study population included men and women living in the greater Leiden area in the western Netherlands who were aged 45-65 years and self-reported a BMI of 27 or higher. A second cohort included inhabitants of one municipality who were invited to participate regardless of their BMI. All wore the activity monitors for 4 consecutive days and nights during their usual activities.

Neither sedentary time nor breaks in sedentary time (defined as a period of activity with an acceleration greater than 0.75 m/s2 following a sedentary period) were associated with lower insulin resistance, as calculated by blood sampling.

However, the number of breaks in sedentary time was associated with a significant 22% higher liver fat content, assessed with proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy.

One reason for the lack of effect of breaks on insulin resistance, the authors theorized, is that this was a real-world observational study where regular breaks aren’t common. Alternatively, people might not have been intensively active enough during breaks to make a difference.

After adjustment for total body fat, an additional hour of MVPA was associated with a 5% drop in insulin resistance. An additional hour of MVPA in 5-minute bouts was associated with 9% lower insulin resistance.

Also after adjustments, insulin resistance was reduced significantly in participants who were most active in the afternoon, by 18%, or evening, by 25%, whereas insulin resistance was not affected among those who were most active in the morning (–3%), all compared with people who distributed their MVPA throughout the day.

Timing of MVPA was not associated with liver fat content, and there were no significant differences in liver fat content and insulin resistance between groups based on timing of light physical activity.

“This is just speculation, but perhaps for fat accumulation in the liver the circadian system is less involved. Or perhaps timing of other lifestyle variables are more important here, such as dietary intake,” Mr. van der Velde said.

Finally, he observed, “timing of physical activity is most likely just a piece of the puzzle. Timing of other lifestyle behavior, such as sleep, and food intake are important cues for our circadian system as well, and it is likely that all these behaviors interact with each other.”

The NEO study is supported by Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands Cardiovascular Research Initiative, an initiative supported by the Dutch Heart Foundation, and the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development/Partnership Diabetes/Dutch Diabetes foundation Breakthrough. Mr. van der Velde has reported no further disclosures.

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

Performing moderate to vigorous activity (MVPA) in the afternoon or evening may improve blood glucose control to a greater extent than exercising evenly throughout the day, new research suggests.

The data come from 775 participants with a mean body mass index (BMI) of 26.2 kg/m² in the observational Netherlands Epidemiology of Obesity (NEO) study. Use of activity monitors for four consecutive days showed that performance of MVPA (defined as activity with intensity of > 3 metabolic equivalents of task) in the afternoon or evening was associated with up to 25% reduced insulin resistance compared with an even distribution of activity during the day.

“This is one of the first studies where in humans the relation between timing of physical activity and insulin resistance was examined,” lead author Jeroen van der Velde of the department of clinical epidemiology, Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, said in an interview.

Moreover, he noted that, while previous intervention studies have shown greater blood glucose reduction with high-intensity exercise performed in the afternoon, compared with the morning, in people with impaired glucose metabolism or type 2 diabetes, “as far as I am aware, we were the first to use a population-based study in a general population to study this.”

Katarina Kos, MD, PhD, senior lecturer in diabetes and obesity, University of Exeter (England), said: “This study is novel in that it relates the timing of physical activity if performed in the morning, afternoon, or evening to insulin resistance and fat content. This is from a cohort of middle-aged Dutch people between ages 45-65 studied 10 years ago and based on self-reports of weight and eating behavior and who were found to be generally overweight.”
 

Is it down to circadian rhythm?

“The results are of interest in that if the chosen timing was in the afternoon [63% of studied population] or evening (8% of the studied population), it seemed to relate with improved metabolism when compared to the morning exercising [16% of population]. ... Whether this was due to the (timing) of activity is yet to be shown,” Dr. Kos told the UK Science Media Centre.

Mr. van der Velde agrees that the effect may be explained at least in part by the circadian rhythm of the body. “Physical activity may act as ... a cue for the activation of clock genes. Previous research has suggested that our body’s muscular system and oxidative system are also affected by our circadian rhythm and their peak activity seems to be in the late afternoon. So, being mostly active in this time period ... may elicit greater metabolic responses compared to being active in the morning.”

But, he cautioned, “I think it is important to realize that we are just beginning to understand the potential impact of physical activity timing. At this stage, I believe it is most important to be physically active in general. So ... if the morning is the only time of the day to go for a walk or a run, certainly do this.”

Dr. Kos concurred: “As this is not an intervention study, further research is needed to explain the cause of the observed association.”

Mr. van der Velde also added that it’s not yet clear which individuals or subgroups might experience additional benefits from timed activities. That’s the current research focus of a large consortium of several research institutes in the Netherlands and Canada.
 

Timed exercise reduces insulin resistance but not liver fat

The findings were published online in Diabetologia.

The study population included men and women living in the greater Leiden area in the western Netherlands who were aged 45-65 years and self-reported a BMI of 27 or higher. A second cohort included inhabitants of one municipality who were invited to participate regardless of their BMI. All wore the activity monitors for 4 consecutive days and nights during their usual activities.

Neither sedentary time nor breaks in sedentary time (defined as a period of activity with an acceleration greater than 0.75 m/s2 following a sedentary period) were associated with lower insulin resistance, as calculated by blood sampling.

However, the number of breaks in sedentary time was associated with a significant 22% higher liver fat content, assessed with proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy.

One reason for the lack of effect of breaks on insulin resistance, the authors theorized, is that this was a real-world observational study where regular breaks aren’t common. Alternatively, people might not have been intensively active enough during breaks to make a difference.

After adjustment for total body fat, an additional hour of MVPA was associated with a 5% drop in insulin resistance. An additional hour of MVPA in 5-minute bouts was associated with 9% lower insulin resistance.

Also after adjustments, insulin resistance was reduced significantly in participants who were most active in the afternoon, by 18%, or evening, by 25%, whereas insulin resistance was not affected among those who were most active in the morning (–3%), all compared with people who distributed their MVPA throughout the day.

Timing of MVPA was not associated with liver fat content, and there were no significant differences in liver fat content and insulin resistance between groups based on timing of light physical activity.

“This is just speculation, but perhaps for fat accumulation in the liver the circadian system is less involved. Or perhaps timing of other lifestyle variables are more important here, such as dietary intake,” Mr. van der Velde said.

Finally, he observed, “timing of physical activity is most likely just a piece of the puzzle. Timing of other lifestyle behavior, such as sleep, and food intake are important cues for our circadian system as well, and it is likely that all these behaviors interact with each other.”

The NEO study is supported by Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands Cardiovascular Research Initiative, an initiative supported by the Dutch Heart Foundation, and the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development/Partnership Diabetes/Dutch Diabetes foundation Breakthrough. Mr. van der Velde has reported no further disclosures.

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

Performing moderate to vigorous activity (MVPA) in the afternoon or evening may improve blood glucose control to a greater extent than exercising evenly throughout the day, new research suggests.

The data come from 775 participants with a mean body mass index (BMI) of 26.2 kg/m² in the observational Netherlands Epidemiology of Obesity (NEO) study. Use of activity monitors for four consecutive days showed that performance of MVPA (defined as activity with intensity of > 3 metabolic equivalents of task) in the afternoon or evening was associated with up to 25% reduced insulin resistance compared with an even distribution of activity during the day.

“This is one of the first studies where in humans the relation between timing of physical activity and insulin resistance was examined,” lead author Jeroen van der Velde of the department of clinical epidemiology, Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, said in an interview.

Moreover, he noted that, while previous intervention studies have shown greater blood glucose reduction with high-intensity exercise performed in the afternoon, compared with the morning, in people with impaired glucose metabolism or type 2 diabetes, “as far as I am aware, we were the first to use a population-based study in a general population to study this.”

Katarina Kos, MD, PhD, senior lecturer in diabetes and obesity, University of Exeter (England), said: “This study is novel in that it relates the timing of physical activity if performed in the morning, afternoon, or evening to insulin resistance and fat content. This is from a cohort of middle-aged Dutch people between ages 45-65 studied 10 years ago and based on self-reports of weight and eating behavior and who were found to be generally overweight.”
 

Is it down to circadian rhythm?

“The results are of interest in that if the chosen timing was in the afternoon [63% of studied population] or evening (8% of the studied population), it seemed to relate with improved metabolism when compared to the morning exercising [16% of population]. ... Whether this was due to the (timing) of activity is yet to be shown,” Dr. Kos told the UK Science Media Centre.

Mr. van der Velde agrees that the effect may be explained at least in part by the circadian rhythm of the body. “Physical activity may act as ... a cue for the activation of clock genes. Previous research has suggested that our body’s muscular system and oxidative system are also affected by our circadian rhythm and their peak activity seems to be in the late afternoon. So, being mostly active in this time period ... may elicit greater metabolic responses compared to being active in the morning.”

But, he cautioned, “I think it is important to realize that we are just beginning to understand the potential impact of physical activity timing. At this stage, I believe it is most important to be physically active in general. So ... if the morning is the only time of the day to go for a walk or a run, certainly do this.”

Dr. Kos concurred: “As this is not an intervention study, further research is needed to explain the cause of the observed association.”

Mr. van der Velde also added that it’s not yet clear which individuals or subgroups might experience additional benefits from timed activities. That’s the current research focus of a large consortium of several research institutes in the Netherlands and Canada.
 

Timed exercise reduces insulin resistance but not liver fat

The findings were published online in Diabetologia.

The study population included men and women living in the greater Leiden area in the western Netherlands who were aged 45-65 years and self-reported a BMI of 27 or higher. A second cohort included inhabitants of one municipality who were invited to participate regardless of their BMI. All wore the activity monitors for 4 consecutive days and nights during their usual activities.

Neither sedentary time nor breaks in sedentary time (defined as a period of activity with an acceleration greater than 0.75 m/s2 following a sedentary period) were associated with lower insulin resistance, as calculated by blood sampling.

However, the number of breaks in sedentary time was associated with a significant 22% higher liver fat content, assessed with proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy.

One reason for the lack of effect of breaks on insulin resistance, the authors theorized, is that this was a real-world observational study where regular breaks aren’t common. Alternatively, people might not have been intensively active enough during breaks to make a difference.

After adjustment for total body fat, an additional hour of MVPA was associated with a 5% drop in insulin resistance. An additional hour of MVPA in 5-minute bouts was associated with 9% lower insulin resistance.

Also after adjustments, insulin resistance was reduced significantly in participants who were most active in the afternoon, by 18%, or evening, by 25%, whereas insulin resistance was not affected among those who were most active in the morning (–3%), all compared with people who distributed their MVPA throughout the day.

Timing of MVPA was not associated with liver fat content, and there were no significant differences in liver fat content and insulin resistance between groups based on timing of light physical activity.

“This is just speculation, but perhaps for fat accumulation in the liver the circadian system is less involved. Or perhaps timing of other lifestyle variables are more important here, such as dietary intake,” Mr. van der Velde said.

Finally, he observed, “timing of physical activity is most likely just a piece of the puzzle. Timing of other lifestyle behavior, such as sleep, and food intake are important cues for our circadian system as well, and it is likely that all these behaviors interact with each other.”

The NEO study is supported by Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands Cardiovascular Research Initiative, an initiative supported by the Dutch Heart Foundation, and the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development/Partnership Diabetes/Dutch Diabetes foundation Breakthrough. Mr. van der Velde has reported no further disclosures.

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

The SARS-CoV-2 infection disrupts the normal mix of gut bacteria, allowing harmful bacteria to enter the bloodstream and raising the risk for potentially life-threatening secondary bloodstream infections (BSIs), new research suggests.

“Collectively, these results reveal an unappreciated link between SARS-CoV-2 infection, gut microbiome dysbiosis, and a severe complication of COVID-19, BSIs,” the study team reported in Nature Communications.

“Our findings suggest that coronavirus infection directly interferes with the healthy balance of microbes in the gut, further endangering patients in the process,” microbiologist and co–senior author Ken Cadwell, PhD, New York University, added in a news release. “Now that we have uncovered the source of this bacterial imbalance, physicians can better identify those coronavirus patients most at risk of a secondary bloodstream infection.”

In a mouse model, the researchers first demonstrated that the SARS-CoV-2 infection alone induces gut microbiome dysbiosis and gut epithelial cell alterations, which correlate with markers of gut barrier permeability.

Next, they analyzed the bacterial composition of stool samples from 96 adults hospitalized with COVID-19 in 2020 in New York and New Haven, Conn.

In line with their observations in mice, they found that the SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with “severe microbiome injury,” characterized by the loss of gut microbiome diversity.

They also observed an increase in populations of several microbes known to include antibiotic-resistant species. An analysis of stool samples paired with blood cultures found that antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the gut migrated to the bloodstream in 20% of patients.

This migration could be caused by a combination of the immune-compromising effects of the viral infection and the antibiotic-driven depletion of commensal gut microbes, the researchers said.

However, COVID-19 patients are also uniquely exposed to other potential factors predisposing them to bacteremia, including immunosuppressive drugs, long hospital stays, and catheters, the investigators noted. The study is limited in its ability to investigate the individual effects of these factors.

“Our findings support a scenario in which gut-to-blood translocation of microorganisms following microbiome dysbiosis leads to dangerous BSIs during COVID-19, a complication seen in other immunocompromised patients, including patients with cancer, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and in ICU patients receiving probiotics,” the researchers wrote.

Investigating the underlying mechanism behind their observations could help inform “the judicious application of antibiotics and immunosuppressives in patients with respiratory viral infections and increase our resilience to pandemics,” they added.

Funding for the study was provided by the National Institutes of Health, the Yale School of Public Health, and numerous other sources. Dr. Cadwell has received research support from Pfizer, Takeda, Pacific Biosciences, Genentech, and AbbVie; consulted for or received an honoraria from PureTech Health, Genentech, and AbbVie; and is named as an inventor on US patent 10,722,600 and provisional patents 62/935,035 and 63/157,225.

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

The SARS-CoV-2 infection disrupts the normal mix of gut bacteria, allowing harmful bacteria to enter the bloodstream and raising the risk for potentially life-threatening secondary bloodstream infections (BSIs), new research suggests.

“Collectively, these results reveal an unappreciated link between SARS-CoV-2 infection, gut microbiome dysbiosis, and a severe complication of COVID-19, BSIs,” the study team reported in Nature Communications.

“Our findings suggest that coronavirus infection directly interferes with the healthy balance of microbes in the gut, further endangering patients in the process,” microbiologist and co–senior author Ken Cadwell, PhD, New York University, added in a news release. “Now that we have uncovered the source of this bacterial imbalance, physicians can better identify those coronavirus patients most at risk of a secondary bloodstream infection.”

In a mouse model, the researchers first demonstrated that the SARS-CoV-2 infection alone induces gut microbiome dysbiosis and gut epithelial cell alterations, which correlate with markers of gut barrier permeability.

Next, they analyzed the bacterial composition of stool samples from 96 adults hospitalized with COVID-19 in 2020 in New York and New Haven, Conn.

In line with their observations in mice, they found that the SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with “severe microbiome injury,” characterized by the loss of gut microbiome diversity.

They also observed an increase in populations of several microbes known to include antibiotic-resistant species. An analysis of stool samples paired with blood cultures found that antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the gut migrated to the bloodstream in 20% of patients.

This migration could be caused by a combination of the immune-compromising effects of the viral infection and the antibiotic-driven depletion of commensal gut microbes, the researchers said.

However, COVID-19 patients are also uniquely exposed to other potential factors predisposing them to bacteremia, including immunosuppressive drugs, long hospital stays, and catheters, the investigators noted. The study is limited in its ability to investigate the individual effects of these factors.

“Our findings support a scenario in which gut-to-blood translocation of microorganisms following microbiome dysbiosis leads to dangerous BSIs during COVID-19, a complication seen in other immunocompromised patients, including patients with cancer, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and in ICU patients receiving probiotics,” the researchers wrote.

Investigating the underlying mechanism behind their observations could help inform “the judicious application of antibiotics and immunosuppressives in patients with respiratory viral infections and increase our resilience to pandemics,” they added.

Funding for the study was provided by the National Institutes of Health, the Yale School of Public Health, and numerous other sources. Dr. Cadwell has received research support from Pfizer, Takeda, Pacific Biosciences, Genentech, and AbbVie; consulted for or received an honoraria from PureTech Health, Genentech, and AbbVie; and is named as an inventor on US patent 10,722,600 and provisional patents 62/935,035 and 63/157,225.

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

The SARS-CoV-2 infection disrupts the normal mix of gut bacteria, allowing harmful bacteria to enter the bloodstream and raising the risk for potentially life-threatening secondary bloodstream infections (BSIs), new research suggests.

“Collectively, these results reveal an unappreciated link between SARS-CoV-2 infection, gut microbiome dysbiosis, and a severe complication of COVID-19, BSIs,” the study team reported in Nature Communications.

“Our findings suggest that coronavirus infection directly interferes with the healthy balance of microbes in the gut, further endangering patients in the process,” microbiologist and co–senior author Ken Cadwell, PhD, New York University, added in a news release. “Now that we have uncovered the source of this bacterial imbalance, physicians can better identify those coronavirus patients most at risk of a secondary bloodstream infection.”

In a mouse model, the researchers first demonstrated that the SARS-CoV-2 infection alone induces gut microbiome dysbiosis and gut epithelial cell alterations, which correlate with markers of gut barrier permeability.

Next, they analyzed the bacterial composition of stool samples from 96 adults hospitalized with COVID-19 in 2020 in New York and New Haven, Conn.

In line with their observations in mice, they found that the SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with “severe microbiome injury,” characterized by the loss of gut microbiome diversity.

They also observed an increase in populations of several microbes known to include antibiotic-resistant species. An analysis of stool samples paired with blood cultures found that antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the gut migrated to the bloodstream in 20% of patients.

This migration could be caused by a combination of the immune-compromising effects of the viral infection and the antibiotic-driven depletion of commensal gut microbes, the researchers said.

However, COVID-19 patients are also uniquely exposed to other potential factors predisposing them to bacteremia, including immunosuppressive drugs, long hospital stays, and catheters, the investigators noted. The study is limited in its ability to investigate the individual effects of these factors.

“Our findings support a scenario in which gut-to-blood translocation of microorganisms following microbiome dysbiosis leads to dangerous BSIs during COVID-19, a complication seen in other immunocompromised patients, including patients with cancer, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and in ICU patients receiving probiotics,” the researchers wrote.

Investigating the underlying mechanism behind their observations could help inform “the judicious application of antibiotics and immunosuppressives in patients with respiratory viral infections and increase our resilience to pandemics,” they added.

Funding for the study was provided by the National Institutes of Health, the Yale School of Public Health, and numerous other sources. Dr. Cadwell has received research support from Pfizer, Takeda, Pacific Biosciences, Genentech, and AbbVie; consulted for or received an honoraria from PureTech Health, Genentech, and AbbVie; and is named as an inventor on US patent 10,722,600 and provisional patents 62/935,035 and 63/157,225.

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

Mycetoma is a chronic subcutaneous infection due to fungal (eumycetoma) or aerobic actinomycetes (actinomycetoma) organisms. Clinical lesions develop from a granulomatous infiltrate organizing around the infectious organism. Patients can present with extensive subcutaneous nodularity and draining sinuses that can lead to deformation of the affected extremity. These infections are rare in developed countries, and the prevalence and incidence remain unknown. It has been reported that actinomycetes represent 60% of mycetoma cases worldwide, with the majority of cases in Central America from Nocardia (86%) and Actinomadura madurae (10%). ¹Gordonia species are aerobic, partially acid-fast, gram-positive actinobacteria that may comprise a notable minority of actinomycete isolates. ² The species Gordonia bronchialis is of particular interest as a human pathogen because of increasing reports of nosocomial infections. ^3,4 We describe a case of a mycetomalike infection due to G bronchialis in an immunocompetent patient with complete resolution after 3 months of antibiotics.

Case Report

An 86-year-old man presented to the emergency department with a pruritic rash on the right forearm. He had a history of chronic kidney disease, hypertension, and inverse psoriasis complicated by steroid atrophy. He reported trauma to the right antecubital fossa approximately 1 to 2 months prior from a car door; he received wound care over several weeks at an outside hospital. The initial wound healed completely, but he subsequently noticed erythema spreading down the forearm. At the current presentation, he was empirically treated with mid-potency topical steroids and cefuroxime for 7 days. Initial laboratory results were notable for a white blood cell count of 5.7×10³ cells/μL (reference range,3.7–8.4×10³ cells/μL) and a creatinine level of 1.5 mg/dL (reference range, 0.57–1.25 mg/dL). The patient returned to the emergency department 2 weeks later with spreading of the initial rash and worsening pruritus. Dermatologic evaluation revealed the patient was afebrile and had violaceous papules and nodules that coalesced into plaques on the right arm, with the largest measuring approximately 15 cm. Areas of superficial erosion and crusting were noted (Figure 1A). The patient denied constitutional symptoms and had no axillary or cervical lymphadenopathy. The differential initially included an atypical infection vs a neoplasm. Two 5-mm punch biopsies were performed, which demonstrated a suppurative granulomatous infiltrate in the dermis with extension into the subcutis (Figure 2A). Focal vacuolations within the dermis demonstrated aggregates of gram-positive pseudofilamentous organisms (Figures 2B and 2C). Aerobic tissue cultures grew G bronchialis that was susceptible to all antibiotics tested and Staphylococcus epidermidis. Fungal and mycobacterial cultures were negative. The patient was placed on amoxicillin 875 mg–clavulanate 125 mg twice daily for 3 weeks. However, he demonstrated progression of the rash, with increased induration and confluence of plaques on the forearm (Figure 1B). A repeat excisional biopsy was performed, and a tissue sample was sent for 16S ribosomal RNA sequencing identification. However, neither conventional cultures nor sequencing demonstrated evidence of G bronchialis or any other pathogen. Additionally, bacterial, fungal, and mycobacterial blood cultures were negative. Amoxicillin-clavulanate was stopped, and he was placed on trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for 2 weeks, then changed to linezolid (600 mg twice daily) due to continued lack of improvement of the rash. After 2 weeks of linezolid, the rash was slightly improved, but the patient had notable side effects (eg, nausea, mucositis). Therefore, he was switched back to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for another 6 weeks. Antibiotic therapy was discontinued after there was notable regression of indurated plaques (Figure 1C); he received more than 3 months of antibiotics in all. At 1 month after completion of antibiotic therapy, the patient had no evidence of recurrence.

Comment

Microbiology of Gordonia Species—Gordonia bronchialis originally was isolated in 1971 by Tsukamura et al⁵ from the sputum of patients with cavitary tuberculosis and bronchiectasis in Japan. Other Gordonia species (formerly Rhodococcus or Gordona) later were identified in soil, seawater, sediment, and wastewater. Gordonia bronchialis is a gram-positive aerobic actinomycete short rod that organizes in cordlike compact groups. It is weakly acid fast, nonmotile, and nonsporulating. Colonies exhibit pinkish-brown pigmentation. Our understanding of the clinical significance of this organism continues to evolve, and it is not always clearly pathogenic. Because Gordonia isolates may be dismissed as commensals or misidentified as Nocardia or Rhodococcus by routine biochemical tests, it is possible that infections may go undetected. Speciation requires gene sequencing; as our utilization of molecular methods has increased, the identification of clinically relevant aerobic actinomycetes, including Gordonia, has improved,⁶ and the following species have been recognized as pathogens: Gordonia araii, G bronchialis, Gordonia effusa, Gordonia otitidis, Gordonia polyisoprenivorans, Gordonia rubirpertincta, Gordonia sputi, and Gordonia terrae.⁷

Cases Reported in the Literature—A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the term Gordonia bronchialis yielded 35 previously reported human cases of G bronchialis infection, most often associated with medical devices or procedures.^8-31 Eighteen of these cases were sternal surgical site infections in patients with a history of cardiac surgery,^3,4,12-16,30 including 2 outbreaks following coronary artery bypass grafting that were thought to be related to intraoperative transmission from a nurse.^3,4 Of the remaining cases, 12 were linked to a procedure or an indwelling catheter: 4 cases of peritonitis in the setting of continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis^17,18,26,27; 3 cases of skin and soft tissue infection (1 at the site of a prior needle injection,¹⁰ 1 after acupuncture,¹¹ and 1 after breast reduction surgery²⁹); 1 case of ventriculitis in a premature neonate with an underlying intraventricular shunt¹⁹; 2 cases of pacemaker-induced endocarditis^20,28; 1 case of tibial osteomyelitis related to a bioresorbable polymer screw²¹; and 1 case of chronic endophthalmitis with underlying intraocular lens implants.²² The Table lists all cases of G bronchialis skin or surgical site infections encountered in our literature search as well as the treatment provided in each case.

Only 4 of these 35 cases of G bronchialis infections were skin and soft tissue infections. All 4 occurred in immunocompetent hosts, and 3 were associated with needle punctures or surgery. The fourth case involved a recurrent breast abscess that occurred in a patient without known risk factors or recent procedures.²³ Other Gordonia species have been associated with cutaneous infections, including Gordonia amicalis, G terrae, and recently Gordonia westfalica, with the latter 2 demonstrating actinomycetoma formation.^32-34 Our case is remarkable in that it represents actinomycetoma due to G bronchialis. Of note, our patient was immunocompetent and did not have any radiation or chronic lymphedema involving the affected extremity. However, his history of steroid-induced skin atrophy may have predisposed him to this rare infection.

Clinical Presentation—Classic mycetoma demonstrate organismal granules within the dermis, surrounded by a neutrophilic infiltrate, which is in turn surrounded by histiocytes and multinucleated giant cells. Periodic acid–Schiff and silver stains can identify fungal organisms, while Gram stain helps to elucidate bacterial etiologies.¹ In our patient, a biopsy revealed several dermal aggregates of pseudofilamentous gram-positive organisms surrounded by a neutrophilic and histiocytic infiltrate.⁸ Because this case presented over weeks to months rather than months to years, it progressed more rapidly than a classic mycetoma. However, the dermatologic and histologic features were consistent with mycetoma.

Management—General treatment of actinomycetoma requires identification of the causative organism and prolonged administration of antibiotics, typically in combination.^35-37 Most G bronchialis infections associated with surgical intervention or implants in the literature required surgical debridement and removal of contaminated material for clinical cure, with the exception of 3 cases of sternal wound infection and 1 case of peritonitis that recovered with antimicrobial therapy alone.^3,17 Combination therapy often was used, but monotherapy, particularly with a fluoroquinolone, has been reported. Susceptibility data are limited, but in general, Gordonia species appear susceptible to imipenem, ciprofloxacin, amikacin, gentamicin, and linezolid, with variable susceptibility to vancomycin (89% of isolates), third-generation cephalosporins (80%–90% of isolates), tetracyclines (≤85% of isolates), penicillin (≤70% of isolates), and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (≤65% of isolates).^{7,10,19,38-40} Although there are no standardized recommendations for the treatment of these infections, the most commonly used drugs to treat Gordonia are carbapenems and fluoroquinolones, with or without an aminoglycoside, followed by third-generation cephalosporins and vancomycin, depending on susceptibilities. Additional antibiotics (alone or in combination) that have previously been used with favorable outcomes include amoxicillin or amoxicillin-clavulanate, piperacillin-tazobactam, rifampicin, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, minocycline, doxycycline, and daptomycin.

Our patient received amoxicillin-clavulanate, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, and linezolid. We considered combination therapy but decided against it due to concern for toxicity, given his age and poor renal function. The antibiotic that was most important to his recovery was unclear; the patient insisted that his body, not antibiotics, deserved most of the credit for healing his arm. Although cultures and polymerase chain reaction assays were negative after 3 weeks of amoxicillin-clavulanate, the patient did not show clinical improvement—reasons could be because the antibiotic reduced but did not eliminate the bacterial burden, sampling error of the biopsy, or it takes much longer for the body to heal than it takes to kill the bacteria. Most likely a combination of factors was at play.

Conclusion

Gordonia bronchialis is an emerging cause of human infections typically occurring after trauma, inoculation, or surgery. Most infections are localized; however, the present case highlights the ability of this species to form a massive cutaneous infection. Treatment should be tailored to susceptibility, with close follow-up to ensure improvement and resolution. For clinicians encountering a similar case, we encourage biopsy prior to empiric antibiotics, as antibiotic therapy can decrease the yield of subsequent testing. Treatment should be guided by the clinical course and may need to last weeks to months. Combination therapy for Gordonia infections should be considered in severe cases, in cases presenting as actinomycetoma, in those not responding to therapy, or when the susceptibility profile is unknown or unreliable.

Acknowledgments—The authors thank this veteran for allowing us to participate in his care and to learn from his experience. He gave his consent for us to share his story and the photographs of the arm.

Mycetoma is a chronic subcutaneous infection due to fungal (eumycetoma) or aerobic actinomycetes (actinomycetoma) organisms. Clinical lesions develop from a granulomatous infiltrate organizing around the infectious organism. Patients can present with extensive subcutaneous nodularity and draining sinuses that can lead to deformation of the affected extremity. These infections are rare in developed countries, and the prevalence and incidence remain unknown. It has been reported that actinomycetes represent 60% of mycetoma cases worldwide, with the majority of cases in Central America from Nocardia (86%) and Actinomadura madurae (10%). ¹Gordonia species are aerobic, partially acid-fast, gram-positive actinobacteria that may comprise a notable minority of actinomycete isolates. ² The species Gordonia bronchialis is of particular interest as a human pathogen because of increasing reports of nosocomial infections. ^3,4 We describe a case of a mycetomalike infection due to G bronchialis in an immunocompetent patient with complete resolution after 3 months of antibiotics.

Case Report

An 86-year-old man presented to the emergency department with a pruritic rash on the right forearm. He had a history of chronic kidney disease, hypertension, and inverse psoriasis complicated by steroid atrophy. He reported trauma to the right antecubital fossa approximately 1 to 2 months prior from a car door; he received wound care over several weeks at an outside hospital. The initial wound healed completely, but he subsequently noticed erythema spreading down the forearm. At the current presentation, he was empirically treated with mid-potency topical steroids and cefuroxime for 7 days. Initial laboratory results were notable for a white blood cell count of 5.7×10³ cells/μL (reference range,3.7–8.4×10³ cells/μL) and a creatinine level of 1.5 mg/dL (reference range, 0.57–1.25 mg/dL). The patient returned to the emergency department 2 weeks later with spreading of the initial rash and worsening pruritus. Dermatologic evaluation revealed the patient was afebrile and had violaceous papules and nodules that coalesced into plaques on the right arm, with the largest measuring approximately 15 cm. Areas of superficial erosion and crusting were noted (Figure 1A). The patient denied constitutional symptoms and had no axillary or cervical lymphadenopathy. The differential initially included an atypical infection vs a neoplasm. Two 5-mm punch biopsies were performed, which demonstrated a suppurative granulomatous infiltrate in the dermis with extension into the subcutis (Figure 2A). Focal vacuolations within the dermis demonstrated aggregates of gram-positive pseudofilamentous organisms (Figures 2B and 2C). Aerobic tissue cultures grew G bronchialis that was susceptible to all antibiotics tested and Staphylococcus epidermidis. Fungal and mycobacterial cultures were negative. The patient was placed on amoxicillin 875 mg–clavulanate 125 mg twice daily for 3 weeks. However, he demonstrated progression of the rash, with increased induration and confluence of plaques on the forearm (Figure 1B). A repeat excisional biopsy was performed, and a tissue sample was sent for 16S ribosomal RNA sequencing identification. However, neither conventional cultures nor sequencing demonstrated evidence of G bronchialis or any other pathogen. Additionally, bacterial, fungal, and mycobacterial blood cultures were negative. Amoxicillin-clavulanate was stopped, and he was placed on trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for 2 weeks, then changed to linezolid (600 mg twice daily) due to continued lack of improvement of the rash. After 2 weeks of linezolid, the rash was slightly improved, but the patient had notable side effects (eg, nausea, mucositis). Therefore, he was switched back to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for another 6 weeks. Antibiotic therapy was discontinued after there was notable regression of indurated plaques (Figure 1C); he received more than 3 months of antibiotics in all. At 1 month after completion of antibiotic therapy, the patient had no evidence of recurrence.

Comment

Microbiology of Gordonia Species—Gordonia bronchialis originally was isolated in 1971 by Tsukamura et al⁵ from the sputum of patients with cavitary tuberculosis and bronchiectasis in Japan. Other Gordonia species (formerly Rhodococcus or Gordona) later were identified in soil, seawater, sediment, and wastewater. Gordonia bronchialis is a gram-positive aerobic actinomycete short rod that organizes in cordlike compact groups. It is weakly acid fast, nonmotile, and nonsporulating. Colonies exhibit pinkish-brown pigmentation. Our understanding of the clinical significance of this organism continues to evolve, and it is not always clearly pathogenic. Because Gordonia isolates may be dismissed as commensals or misidentified as Nocardia or Rhodococcus by routine biochemical tests, it is possible that infections may go undetected. Speciation requires gene sequencing; as our utilization of molecular methods has increased, the identification of clinically relevant aerobic actinomycetes, including Gordonia, has improved,⁶ and the following species have been recognized as pathogens: Gordonia araii, G bronchialis, Gordonia effusa, Gordonia otitidis, Gordonia polyisoprenivorans, Gordonia rubirpertincta, Gordonia sputi, and Gordonia terrae.⁷

Cases Reported in the Literature—A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the term Gordonia bronchialis yielded 35 previously reported human cases of G bronchialis infection, most often associated with medical devices or procedures.^8-31 Eighteen of these cases were sternal surgical site infections in patients with a history of cardiac surgery,^3,4,12-16,30 including 2 outbreaks following coronary artery bypass grafting that were thought to be related to intraoperative transmission from a nurse.^3,4 Of the remaining cases, 12 were linked to a procedure or an indwelling catheter: 4 cases of peritonitis in the setting of continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis^17,18,26,27; 3 cases of skin and soft tissue infection (1 at the site of a prior needle injection,¹⁰ 1 after acupuncture,¹¹ and 1 after breast reduction surgery²⁹); 1 case of ventriculitis in a premature neonate with an underlying intraventricular shunt¹⁹; 2 cases of pacemaker-induced endocarditis^20,28; 1 case of tibial osteomyelitis related to a bioresorbable polymer screw²¹; and 1 case of chronic endophthalmitis with underlying intraocular lens implants.²² The Table lists all cases of G bronchialis skin or surgical site infections encountered in our literature search as well as the treatment provided in each case.

Only 4 of these 35 cases of G bronchialis infections were skin and soft tissue infections. All 4 occurred in immunocompetent hosts, and 3 were associated with needle punctures or surgery. The fourth case involved a recurrent breast abscess that occurred in a patient without known risk factors or recent procedures.²³ Other Gordonia species have been associated with cutaneous infections, including Gordonia amicalis, G terrae, and recently Gordonia westfalica, with the latter 2 demonstrating actinomycetoma formation.^32-34 Our case is remarkable in that it represents actinomycetoma due to G bronchialis. Of note, our patient was immunocompetent and did not have any radiation or chronic lymphedema involving the affected extremity. However, his history of steroid-induced skin atrophy may have predisposed him to this rare infection.

Clinical Presentation—Classic mycetoma demonstrate organismal granules within the dermis, surrounded by a neutrophilic infiltrate, which is in turn surrounded by histiocytes and multinucleated giant cells. Periodic acid–Schiff and silver stains can identify fungal organisms, while Gram stain helps to elucidate bacterial etiologies.¹ In our patient, a biopsy revealed several dermal aggregates of pseudofilamentous gram-positive organisms surrounded by a neutrophilic and histiocytic infiltrate.⁸ Because this case presented over weeks to months rather than months to years, it progressed more rapidly than a classic mycetoma. However, the dermatologic and histologic features were consistent with mycetoma.

Management—General treatment of actinomycetoma requires identification of the causative organism and prolonged administration of antibiotics, typically in combination.^35-37 Most G bronchialis infections associated with surgical intervention or implants in the literature required surgical debridement and removal of contaminated material for clinical cure, with the exception of 3 cases of sternal wound infection and 1 case of peritonitis that recovered with antimicrobial therapy alone.^3,17 Combination therapy often was used, but monotherapy, particularly with a fluoroquinolone, has been reported. Susceptibility data are limited, but in general, Gordonia species appear susceptible to imipenem, ciprofloxacin, amikacin, gentamicin, and linezolid, with variable susceptibility to vancomycin (89% of isolates), third-generation cephalosporins (80%–90% of isolates), tetracyclines (≤85% of isolates), penicillin (≤70% of isolates), and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (≤65% of isolates).^{7,10,19,38-40} Although there are no standardized recommendations for the treatment of these infections, the most commonly used drugs to treat Gordonia are carbapenems and fluoroquinolones, with or without an aminoglycoside, followed by third-generation cephalosporins and vancomycin, depending on susceptibilities. Additional antibiotics (alone or in combination) that have previously been used with favorable outcomes include amoxicillin or amoxicillin-clavulanate, piperacillin-tazobactam, rifampicin, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, minocycline, doxycycline, and daptomycin.

Our patient received amoxicillin-clavulanate, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, and linezolid. We considered combination therapy but decided against it due to concern for toxicity, given his age and poor renal function. The antibiotic that was most important to his recovery was unclear; the patient insisted that his body, not antibiotics, deserved most of the credit for healing his arm. Although cultures and polymerase chain reaction assays were negative after 3 weeks of amoxicillin-clavulanate, the patient did not show clinical improvement—reasons could be because the antibiotic reduced but did not eliminate the bacterial burden, sampling error of the biopsy, or it takes much longer for the body to heal than it takes to kill the bacteria. Most likely a combination of factors was at play.

Conclusion

Gordonia bronchialis is an emerging cause of human infections typically occurring after trauma, inoculation, or surgery. Most infections are localized; however, the present case highlights the ability of this species to form a massive cutaneous infection. Treatment should be tailored to susceptibility, with close follow-up to ensure improvement and resolution. For clinicians encountering a similar case, we encourage biopsy prior to empiric antibiotics, as antibiotic therapy can decrease the yield of subsequent testing. Treatment should be guided by the clinical course and may need to last weeks to months. Combination therapy for Gordonia infections should be considered in severe cases, in cases presenting as actinomycetoma, in those not responding to therapy, or when the susceptibility profile is unknown or unreliable.

Acknowledgments—The authors thank this veteran for allowing us to participate in his care and to learn from his experience. He gave his consent for us to share his story and the photographs of the arm.

Mycetoma is a chronic subcutaneous infection due to fungal (eumycetoma) or aerobic actinomycetes (actinomycetoma) organisms. Clinical lesions develop from a granulomatous infiltrate organizing around the infectious organism. Patients can present with extensive subcutaneous nodularity and draining sinuses that can lead to deformation of the affected extremity. These infections are rare in developed countries, and the prevalence and incidence remain unknown. It has been reported that actinomycetes represent 60% of mycetoma cases worldwide, with the majority of cases in Central America from Nocardia (86%) and Actinomadura madurae (10%). ¹Gordonia species are aerobic, partially acid-fast, gram-positive actinobacteria that may comprise a notable minority of actinomycete isolates. ² The species Gordonia bronchialis is of particular interest as a human pathogen because of increasing reports of nosocomial infections. ^3,4 We describe a case of a mycetomalike infection due to G bronchialis in an immunocompetent patient with complete resolution after 3 months of antibiotics.

Case Report

An 86-year-old man presented to the emergency department with a pruritic rash on the right forearm. He had a history of chronic kidney disease, hypertension, and inverse psoriasis complicated by steroid atrophy. He reported trauma to the right antecubital fossa approximately 1 to 2 months prior from a car door; he received wound care over several weeks at an outside hospital. The initial wound healed completely, but he subsequently noticed erythema spreading down the forearm. At the current presentation, he was empirically treated with mid-potency topical steroids and cefuroxime for 7 days. Initial laboratory results were notable for a white blood cell count of 5.7×10³ cells/μL (reference range,3.7–8.4×10³ cells/μL) and a creatinine level of 1.5 mg/dL (reference range, 0.57–1.25 mg/dL). The patient returned to the emergency department 2 weeks later with spreading of the initial rash and worsening pruritus. Dermatologic evaluation revealed the patient was afebrile and had violaceous papules and nodules that coalesced into plaques on the right arm, with the largest measuring approximately 15 cm. Areas of superficial erosion and crusting were noted (Figure 1A). The patient denied constitutional symptoms and had no axillary or cervical lymphadenopathy. The differential initially included an atypical infection vs a neoplasm. Two 5-mm punch biopsies were performed, which demonstrated a suppurative granulomatous infiltrate in the dermis with extension into the subcutis (Figure 2A). Focal vacuolations within the dermis demonstrated aggregates of gram-positive pseudofilamentous organisms (Figures 2B and 2C). Aerobic tissue cultures grew G bronchialis that was susceptible to all antibiotics tested and Staphylococcus epidermidis. Fungal and mycobacterial cultures were negative. The patient was placed on amoxicillin 875 mg–clavulanate 125 mg twice daily for 3 weeks. However, he demonstrated progression of the rash, with increased induration and confluence of plaques on the forearm (Figure 1B). A repeat excisional biopsy was performed, and a tissue sample was sent for 16S ribosomal RNA sequencing identification. However, neither conventional cultures nor sequencing demonstrated evidence of G bronchialis or any other pathogen. Additionally, bacterial, fungal, and mycobacterial blood cultures were negative. Amoxicillin-clavulanate was stopped, and he was placed on trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for 2 weeks, then changed to linezolid (600 mg twice daily) due to continued lack of improvement of the rash. After 2 weeks of linezolid, the rash was slightly improved, but the patient had notable side effects (eg, nausea, mucositis). Therefore, he was switched back to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for another 6 weeks. Antibiotic therapy was discontinued after there was notable regression of indurated plaques (Figure 1C); he received more than 3 months of antibiotics in all. At 1 month after completion of antibiotic therapy, the patient had no evidence of recurrence.

Comment

Microbiology of Gordonia Species—Gordonia bronchialis originally was isolated in 1971 by Tsukamura et al⁵ from the sputum of patients with cavitary tuberculosis and bronchiectasis in Japan. Other Gordonia species (formerly Rhodococcus or Gordona) later were identified in soil, seawater, sediment, and wastewater. Gordonia bronchialis is a gram-positive aerobic actinomycete short rod that organizes in cordlike compact groups. It is weakly acid fast, nonmotile, and nonsporulating. Colonies exhibit pinkish-brown pigmentation. Our understanding of the clinical significance of this organism continues to evolve, and it is not always clearly pathogenic. Because Gordonia isolates may be dismissed as commensals or misidentified as Nocardia or Rhodococcus by routine biochemical tests, it is possible that infections may go undetected. Speciation requires gene sequencing; as our utilization of molecular methods has increased, the identification of clinically relevant aerobic actinomycetes, including Gordonia, has improved,⁶ and the following species have been recognized as pathogens: Gordonia araii, G bronchialis, Gordonia effusa, Gordonia otitidis, Gordonia polyisoprenivorans, Gordonia rubirpertincta, Gordonia sputi, and Gordonia terrae.⁷

Cases Reported in the Literature—A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the term Gordonia bronchialis yielded 35 previously reported human cases of G bronchialis infection, most often associated with medical devices or procedures.^8-31 Eighteen of these cases were sternal surgical site infections in patients with a history of cardiac surgery,^3,4,12-16,30 including 2 outbreaks following coronary artery bypass grafting that were thought to be related to intraoperative transmission from a nurse.^3,4 Of the remaining cases, 12 were linked to a procedure or an indwelling catheter: 4 cases of peritonitis in the setting of continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis^17,18,26,27; 3 cases of skin and soft tissue infection (1 at the site of a prior needle injection,¹⁰ 1 after acupuncture,¹¹ and 1 after breast reduction surgery²⁹); 1 case of ventriculitis in a premature neonate with an underlying intraventricular shunt¹⁹; 2 cases of pacemaker-induced endocarditis^20,28; 1 case of tibial osteomyelitis related to a bioresorbable polymer screw²¹; and 1 case of chronic endophthalmitis with underlying intraocular lens implants.²² The Table lists all cases of G bronchialis skin or surgical site infections encountered in our literature search as well as the treatment provided in each case.

Only 4 of these 35 cases of G bronchialis infections were skin and soft tissue infections. All 4 occurred in immunocompetent hosts, and 3 were associated with needle punctures or surgery. The fourth case involved a recurrent breast abscess that occurred in a patient without known risk factors or recent procedures.²³ Other Gordonia species have been associated with cutaneous infections, including Gordonia amicalis, G terrae, and recently Gordonia westfalica, with the latter 2 demonstrating actinomycetoma formation.^32-34 Our case is remarkable in that it represents actinomycetoma due to G bronchialis. Of note, our patient was immunocompetent and did not have any radiation or chronic lymphedema involving the affected extremity. However, his history of steroid-induced skin atrophy may have predisposed him to this rare infection.

Clinical Presentation—Classic mycetoma demonstrate organismal granules within the dermis, surrounded by a neutrophilic infiltrate, which is in turn surrounded by histiocytes and multinucleated giant cells. Periodic acid–Schiff and silver stains can identify fungal organisms, while Gram stain helps to elucidate bacterial etiologies.¹ In our patient, a biopsy revealed several dermal aggregates of pseudofilamentous gram-positive organisms surrounded by a neutrophilic and histiocytic infiltrate.⁸ Because this case presented over weeks to months rather than months to years, it progressed more rapidly than a classic mycetoma. However, the dermatologic and histologic features were consistent with mycetoma.

Management—General treatment of actinomycetoma requires identification of the causative organism and prolonged administration of antibiotics, typically in combination.^35-37 Most G bronchialis infections associated with surgical intervention or implants in the literature required surgical debridement and removal of contaminated material for clinical cure, with the exception of 3 cases of sternal wound infection and 1 case of peritonitis that recovered with antimicrobial therapy alone.^3,17 Combination therapy often was used, but monotherapy, particularly with a fluoroquinolone, has been reported. Susceptibility data are limited, but in general, Gordonia species appear susceptible to imipenem, ciprofloxacin, amikacin, gentamicin, and linezolid, with variable susceptibility to vancomycin (89% of isolates), third-generation cephalosporins (80%–90% of isolates), tetracyclines (≤85% of isolates), penicillin (≤70% of isolates), and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (≤65% of isolates).^{7,10,19,38-40} Although there are no standardized recommendations for the treatment of these infections, the most commonly used drugs to treat Gordonia are carbapenems and fluoroquinolones, with or without an aminoglycoside, followed by third-generation cephalosporins and vancomycin, depending on susceptibilities. Additional antibiotics (alone or in combination) that have previously been used with favorable outcomes include amoxicillin or amoxicillin-clavulanate, piperacillin-tazobactam, rifampicin, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, minocycline, doxycycline, and daptomycin.

Our patient received amoxicillin-clavulanate, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, and linezolid. We considered combination therapy but decided against it due to concern for toxicity, given his age and poor renal function. The antibiotic that was most important to his recovery was unclear; the patient insisted that his body, not antibiotics, deserved most of the credit for healing his arm. Although cultures and polymerase chain reaction assays were negative after 3 weeks of amoxicillin-clavulanate, the patient did not show clinical improvement—reasons could be because the antibiotic reduced but did not eliminate the bacterial burden, sampling error of the biopsy, or it takes much longer for the body to heal than it takes to kill the bacteria. Most likely a combination of factors was at play.

Conclusion

Gordonia bronchialis is an emerging cause of human infections typically occurring after trauma, inoculation, or surgery. Most infections are localized; however, the present case highlights the ability of this species to form a massive cutaneous infection. Treatment should be tailored to susceptibility, with close follow-up to ensure improvement and resolution. For clinicians encountering a similar case, we encourage biopsy prior to empiric antibiotics, as antibiotic therapy can decrease the yield of subsequent testing. Treatment should be guided by the clinical course and may need to last weeks to months. Combination therapy for Gordonia infections should be considered in severe cases, in cases presenting as actinomycetoma, in those not responding to therapy, or when the susceptibility profile is unknown or unreliable.

Acknowledgments—The authors thank this veteran for allowing us to participate in his care and to learn from his experience. He gave his consent for us to share his story and the photographs of the arm.

The role of micronutrients in the hair follicle cycle is not fully understood; thus deficiency and/or excess of certain micronutrients may be a modifiable risk factor associated with the development and/or treatment of some types of hair loss and therefore may be included in the workup during an alopecia consultation.

Hereditary hemochromatosis (HHC) is the most common genetic disorder identified in White individuals, with a worldwide prevalence of 1 in 220 to 1 in 250 individuals for a homozygous mutation. It most commonly affects individuals of Northern European descent.¹ Men usually present in the fourth to sixth decades of life, while women usually develop symptoms after menopause, as pregnancy and menstruation delay the onset of the disease.² Early symptoms of HHC include fatigue, joint pain, abdominal pain, and weight loss. Men are more likely to develop complications; in fact, 1 in 10 men with HHC will develop severe liver disease.³ As the disease progresses, affected individuals can present with cardiomyopathy (restrictive and dilated), cirrhosis, hypogonadism (usually hypogonadotrophic), arthropathy, diabetes mellitus, hepatomegaly, hepatic cirrhosis, and primary liver cancer (eg, hepatocellular carcinoma, cholangiocarcinoma).² Approximately 90% of patients with HHC present with hyperpigmentation at the time of diagnosis.⁴ Thinning or loss of hair is another finding in HHC, primarily reported in the axillae and pubic regions, and is ascribed to hepatotesticular insufficiency.⁵

Alopecia areata (AA) is the most common cause of autoimmune, inflammation-induced hair loss, with a calculated lifetime risk of 2%.⁶ This disease manifests as loss of hair in well-circumscribed patches of skin, most commonly on the scalp; AA also may affect other hair-bearing sites on the body. It is associated with an increased risk for other autoimmune disorders, such as psoriasis, thyroid disease, rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, and vitiligo.⁷

Alopecia areata is induced by an inflammatory infiltrate of CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T lymphocytes around hair follicles in the anagen stage, the active growth phase.⁸ Although the diagnosis is clinical, some clinicians order laboratory thyroid studies to investigate conditions that may be associated with AA. Common treatments include topical, intralesional, and/or systemic corticosteroids; contact immunotherapy; topical and more recently oral minoxidil; phototherapy; and topical and systemic JAK inhibitors, including tofacitinib.^4,9

We reviewed the medical records of 533 patients who were seen in The University of Texas Southwestern (Dallas, Texas) dermatology clinic from January 2015 through January 2020 and were diagnosed with AA. We examined their demographic data and medical history. We sought to determine any relationship between various types of alopecia and certain micronutrient levels through laboratory test results. Ferritin and iron saturation studies were evaluated. We report 4 cases of HHC concurrent with AA, of which 2 HHC diagnoses were uncovered through iron studies as part of the alopecia evaluation.

Case Reports

Patient 1—A 55-year-old White woman presented to the clinic for an alopecia consultation. She had a medical history of hypothyroidism and AA that was treated unsuccessfully with triamcinolone acetonide steroid injections; topical minoxidil; topical steroids; and systemic steroids, specifically oral prednisone. Following evaluation, she successfully transitioned to treatment with oral tofacitinib and continued to do well on tofacitinib.

The patient’s alopecia workup revealed a ferritin level of 245 ng/mL (reference range, 13–150 ng/mL) and iron saturation of 60% (reference range, 20%–50%). She was referred to the hematology department for further evaluation and was diagnosed with HHC. Genetic testing revealed a heterozygous H63D mutation; therapeutic phlebotomy was recommended. Her sister also was recently diagnosed with HHC.

Patient 2—A 55-year-old White man was referred for evaluation and treatment of alopecia universalis. He had a medical history of skin cancer and vitiligo. He attempted contact immunotherapy with diphenylcyclopropenone scalp treatment but stopped due to intolerable inflammation. Intervention with a topical steroid and topical minoxidil was unsuccessful, but use of triamcinolone acetonide steroid injection on the scalp and topical bimatoprost 0.03% on the eyebrows produced satisfactory results.

The patient’s alopecia workup revealed a ferritin level of 422 ng/mL (reference range, 30–400 ng/mL), which prompted a hematology consultation for further evaluation. Notably, the patient ate red meat several times a week, used iron skillets, and denied receiving blood transfusions. His social habits included 3 alcoholic beverages a night, 5 days a week. Ultrasonography of the liver was recommended to assess potential damage from iron overload and alcohol consumption; the results suggested chronic liver disease, not definitive for cirrhosis, and no evidence of hepatocellular carcinoma. Genetic analysis later revealed the heterozygous H63D variant; therapeutic phlebotomy was recommended.

Patient 3—A 22-year-old White man presented with AA involving his facial beard. He had a medical history of vitiligo and psoriasis and a family history of AA as well as other autoimmune diseases including Hashimoto thyroiditis, psoriasis, eczema, and autoimmune hepatitis. Diphenylcyclopropenone treatment was not successful.

Laboratory studies revealed mildly elevated transaminase and ferritin levels. The patient also presented to the gastroenterologist for evaluation of abdominal pain. Subsequent hematology evaluation confirmed the presence of compound heterozygous C282Y and H63D mutations in the HFE gene, and the patient’s mother was later determined to be homozygous for the C282Y mutation with no elevated ferritin level. The patient’s ferritin level at diagnosis was approximately 500 ng/mL (reference range, 22–322 ng/mL); he required a modest number of therapeutic phlebotomies to normalize his ferritin level.

Patient 4—A 62-year-old White woman presented for evaluation and treatment of patchy hair loss on the scalp of 7 months’ duration. She was subsequently diagnosed with AA. After unsuccessful treatment with a triamcinolone acetonide steroid injection, topical immunotherapy with diphenylcyclopropenone was recommended. The patient achieved full hair regrowth after 35 treatments administered at 3-week intervals.

The patient had a medical history of HHC, including homozygosity for the C282Y mutation, and a family history of HHC in 1 sister. Treatment was therapeutic phlebotomy.

Comment

HHC in the Setting of AA—We presented 4 White patients with both HHC and AA. A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms HHC and AA yielded only 1 other reported case of newly identified HHC in a 56-year-old man who presented with pigmented purpuric dermatitis and AA that affected the beard.¹⁰ Because HHC is the most common genetic disorder identified in White individuals and has a varied clinical presentation, the documentation of AA may be an important cutaneous clue to help clinicians diagnose HHC early.

Iron Overload in Patients With HHC—The genetic association between HHC and AA, if any, is unknown. What is known is that iron overload can catalyze reactive oxygen species, which can overwhelm cellular antioxidant capacities at particular levels and cause injury to its constituents.¹¹ Data show that the levels of oxidative stress are elevated in the scalp of patients with AA compared to controls and increased 2-fold during the early phase of disease vs late-phase disease.¹² Thus, it is possible that increased iron levels in HHC may contribute to AA in genetically susceptible individuals by direct toxicity that ultimately results in the AA hair disorder that is CD8⁺ T-cell mediated.

Data show that 78% (31/40) of men and 36% (14/39) of women identified with homozygous C282Y mutations determined from family genetic analyses exhibited iron overload.¹³ In general, a normal life expectancy is possible for patients promptly treated with appropriate therapeutic phlebotomies.¹⁴ Thus, early diagnosis and appropriate therapy can prevent consequences of iron overload, which include cirrhosis, diabetes mellitus, and cardiomyopathy.¹³Iron Screening in the Alopecia Workup—Our cases illustrate how iron screening tests as part of the alopecia workup identified a cohort of White patients with iron overload and subsequently led to an early diagnosis of HHC. The calculated 2% lifetime risk for developing AA highlights the importance of evaluating iron status as part of the AA workup, particularly for White men, and the potential health benefit from early diagnosis of HHC. Limitations of this case series included its retrospective nature and small patient number.

The role of micronutrients in the hair follicle cycle is not fully understood; thus deficiency and/or excess of certain micronutrients may be a modifiable risk factor associated with the development and/or treatment of some types of hair loss and therefore may be included in the workup during an alopecia consultation.

Hereditary hemochromatosis (HHC) is the most common genetic disorder identified in White individuals, with a worldwide prevalence of 1 in 220 to 1 in 250 individuals for a homozygous mutation. It most commonly affects individuals of Northern European descent.¹ Men usually present in the fourth to sixth decades of life, while women usually develop symptoms after menopause, as pregnancy and menstruation delay the onset of the disease.² Early symptoms of HHC include fatigue, joint pain, abdominal pain, and weight loss. Men are more likely to develop complications; in fact, 1 in 10 men with HHC will develop severe liver disease.³ As the disease progresses, affected individuals can present with cardiomyopathy (restrictive and dilated), cirrhosis, hypogonadism (usually hypogonadotrophic), arthropathy, diabetes mellitus, hepatomegaly, hepatic cirrhosis, and primary liver cancer (eg, hepatocellular carcinoma, cholangiocarcinoma).² Approximately 90% of patients with HHC present with hyperpigmentation at the time of diagnosis.⁴ Thinning or loss of hair is another finding in HHC, primarily reported in the axillae and pubic regions, and is ascribed to hepatotesticular insufficiency.⁵

Alopecia areata (AA) is the most common cause of autoimmune, inflammation-induced hair loss, with a calculated lifetime risk of 2%.⁶ This disease manifests as loss of hair in well-circumscribed patches of skin, most commonly on the scalp; AA also may affect other hair-bearing sites on the body. It is associated with an increased risk for other autoimmune disorders, such as psoriasis, thyroid disease, rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, and vitiligo.⁷

Alopecia areata is induced by an inflammatory infiltrate of CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T lymphocytes around hair follicles in the anagen stage, the active growth phase.⁸ Although the diagnosis is clinical, some clinicians order laboratory thyroid studies to investigate conditions that may be associated with AA. Common treatments include topical, intralesional, and/or systemic corticosteroids; contact immunotherapy; topical and more recently oral minoxidil; phototherapy; and topical and systemic JAK inhibitors, including tofacitinib.^4,9

We reviewed the medical records of 533 patients who were seen in The University of Texas Southwestern (Dallas, Texas) dermatology clinic from January 2015 through January 2020 and were diagnosed with AA. We examined their demographic data and medical history. We sought to determine any relationship between various types of alopecia and certain micronutrient levels through laboratory test results. Ferritin and iron saturation studies were evaluated. We report 4 cases of HHC concurrent with AA, of which 2 HHC diagnoses were uncovered through iron studies as part of the alopecia evaluation.

Case Reports

Patient 1—A 55-year-old White woman presented to the clinic for an alopecia consultation. She had a medical history of hypothyroidism and AA that was treated unsuccessfully with triamcinolone acetonide steroid injections; topical minoxidil; topical steroids; and systemic steroids, specifically oral prednisone. Following evaluation, she successfully transitioned to treatment with oral tofacitinib and continued to do well on tofacitinib.

The patient’s alopecia workup revealed a ferritin level of 245 ng/mL (reference range, 13–150 ng/mL) and iron saturation of 60% (reference range, 20%–50%). She was referred to the hematology department for further evaluation and was diagnosed with HHC. Genetic testing revealed a heterozygous H63D mutation; therapeutic phlebotomy was recommended. Her sister also was recently diagnosed with HHC.

Patient 2—A 55-year-old White man was referred for evaluation and treatment of alopecia universalis. He had a medical history of skin cancer and vitiligo. He attempted contact immunotherapy with diphenylcyclopropenone scalp treatment but stopped due to intolerable inflammation. Intervention with a topical steroid and topical minoxidil was unsuccessful, but use of triamcinolone acetonide steroid injection on the scalp and topical bimatoprost 0.03% on the eyebrows produced satisfactory results.

The patient’s alopecia workup revealed a ferritin level of 422 ng/mL (reference range, 30–400 ng/mL), which prompted a hematology consultation for further evaluation. Notably, the patient ate red meat several times a week, used iron skillets, and denied receiving blood transfusions. His social habits included 3 alcoholic beverages a night, 5 days a week. Ultrasonography of the liver was recommended to assess potential damage from iron overload and alcohol consumption; the results suggested chronic liver disease, not definitive for cirrhosis, and no evidence of hepatocellular carcinoma. Genetic analysis later revealed the heterozygous H63D variant; therapeutic phlebotomy was recommended.

Patient 3—A 22-year-old White man presented with AA involving his facial beard. He had a medical history of vitiligo and psoriasis and a family history of AA as well as other autoimmune diseases including Hashimoto thyroiditis, psoriasis, eczema, and autoimmune hepatitis. Diphenylcyclopropenone treatment was not successful.

Laboratory studies revealed mildly elevated transaminase and ferritin levels. The patient also presented to the gastroenterologist for evaluation of abdominal pain. Subsequent hematology evaluation confirmed the presence of compound heterozygous C282Y and H63D mutations in the HFE gene, and the patient’s mother was later determined to be homozygous for the C282Y mutation with no elevated ferritin level. The patient’s ferritin level at diagnosis was approximately 500 ng/mL (reference range, 22–322 ng/mL); he required a modest number of therapeutic phlebotomies to normalize his ferritin level.

Patient 4—A 62-year-old White woman presented for evaluation and treatment of patchy hair loss on the scalp of 7 months’ duration. She was subsequently diagnosed with AA. After unsuccessful treatment with a triamcinolone acetonide steroid injection, topical immunotherapy with diphenylcyclopropenone was recommended. The patient achieved full hair regrowth after 35 treatments administered at 3-week intervals.

The patient had a medical history of HHC, including homozygosity for the C282Y mutation, and a family history of HHC in 1 sister. Treatment was therapeutic phlebotomy.

Comment

HHC in the Setting of AA—We presented 4 White patients with both HHC and AA. A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms HHC and AA yielded only 1 other reported case of newly identified HHC in a 56-year-old man who presented with pigmented purpuric dermatitis and AA that affected the beard.¹⁰ Because HHC is the most common genetic disorder identified in White individuals and has a varied clinical presentation, the documentation of AA may be an important cutaneous clue to help clinicians diagnose HHC early.

Iron Overload in Patients With HHC—The genetic association between HHC and AA, if any, is unknown. What is known is that iron overload can catalyze reactive oxygen species, which can overwhelm cellular antioxidant capacities at particular levels and cause injury to its constituents.¹¹ Data show that the levels of oxidative stress are elevated in the scalp of patients with AA compared to controls and increased 2-fold during the early phase of disease vs late-phase disease.¹² Thus, it is possible that increased iron levels in HHC may contribute to AA in genetically susceptible individuals by direct toxicity that ultimately results in the AA hair disorder that is CD8⁺ T-cell mediated.

Data show that 78% (31/40) of men and 36% (14/39) of women identified with homozygous C282Y mutations determined from family genetic analyses exhibited iron overload.¹³ In general, a normal life expectancy is possible for patients promptly treated with appropriate therapeutic phlebotomies.¹⁴ Thus, early diagnosis and appropriate therapy can prevent consequences of iron overload, which include cirrhosis, diabetes mellitus, and cardiomyopathy.¹³Iron Screening in the Alopecia Workup—Our cases illustrate how iron screening tests as part of the alopecia workup identified a cohort of White patients with iron overload and subsequently led to an early diagnosis of HHC. The calculated 2% lifetime risk for developing AA highlights the importance of evaluating iron status as part of the AA workup, particularly for White men, and the potential health benefit from early diagnosis of HHC. Limitations of this case series included its retrospective nature and small patient number.

The role of micronutrients in the hair follicle cycle is not fully understood; thus deficiency and/or excess of certain micronutrients may be a modifiable risk factor associated with the development and/or treatment of some types of hair loss and therefore may be included in the workup during an alopecia consultation.

Hereditary hemochromatosis (HHC) is the most common genetic disorder identified in White individuals, with a worldwide prevalence of 1 in 220 to 1 in 250 individuals for a homozygous mutation. It most commonly affects individuals of Northern European descent.¹ Men usually present in the fourth to sixth decades of life, while women usually develop symptoms after menopause, as pregnancy and menstruation delay the onset of the disease.² Early symptoms of HHC include fatigue, joint pain, abdominal pain, and weight loss. Men are more likely to develop complications; in fact, 1 in 10 men with HHC will develop severe liver disease.³ As the disease progresses, affected individuals can present with cardiomyopathy (restrictive and dilated), cirrhosis, hypogonadism (usually hypogonadotrophic), arthropathy, diabetes mellitus, hepatomegaly, hepatic cirrhosis, and primary liver cancer (eg, hepatocellular carcinoma, cholangiocarcinoma).² Approximately 90% of patients with HHC present with hyperpigmentation at the time of diagnosis.⁴ Thinning or loss of hair is another finding in HHC, primarily reported in the axillae and pubic regions, and is ascribed to hepatotesticular insufficiency.⁵

Alopecia areata (AA) is the most common cause of autoimmune, inflammation-induced hair loss, with a calculated lifetime risk of 2%.⁶ This disease manifests as loss of hair in well-circumscribed patches of skin, most commonly on the scalp; AA also may affect other hair-bearing sites on the body. It is associated with an increased risk for other autoimmune disorders, such as psoriasis, thyroid disease, rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, and vitiligo.⁷

Alopecia areata is induced by an inflammatory infiltrate of CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T lymphocytes around hair follicles in the anagen stage, the active growth phase.⁸ Although the diagnosis is clinical, some clinicians order laboratory thyroid studies to investigate conditions that may be associated with AA. Common treatments include topical, intralesional, and/or systemic corticosteroids; contact immunotherapy; topical and more recently oral minoxidil; phototherapy; and topical and systemic JAK inhibitors, including tofacitinib.^4,9

We reviewed the medical records of 533 patients who were seen in The University of Texas Southwestern (Dallas, Texas) dermatology clinic from January 2015 through January 2020 and were diagnosed with AA. We examined their demographic data and medical history. We sought to determine any relationship between various types of alopecia and certain micronutrient levels through laboratory test results. Ferritin and iron saturation studies were evaluated. We report 4 cases of HHC concurrent with AA, of which 2 HHC diagnoses were uncovered through iron studies as part of the alopecia evaluation.

Case Reports

Patient 1—A 55-year-old White woman presented to the clinic for an alopecia consultation. She had a medical history of hypothyroidism and AA that was treated unsuccessfully with triamcinolone acetonide steroid injections; topical minoxidil; topical steroids; and systemic steroids, specifically oral prednisone. Following evaluation, she successfully transitioned to treatment with oral tofacitinib and continued to do well on tofacitinib.

The patient’s alopecia workup revealed a ferritin level of 245 ng/mL (reference range, 13–150 ng/mL) and iron saturation of 60% (reference range, 20%–50%). She was referred to the hematology department for further evaluation and was diagnosed with HHC. Genetic testing revealed a heterozygous H63D mutation; therapeutic phlebotomy was recommended. Her sister also was recently diagnosed with HHC.

Patient 2—A 55-year-old White man was referred for evaluation and treatment of alopecia universalis. He had a medical history of skin cancer and vitiligo. He attempted contact immunotherapy with diphenylcyclopropenone scalp treatment but stopped due to intolerable inflammation. Intervention with a topical steroid and topical minoxidil was unsuccessful, but use of triamcinolone acetonide steroid injection on the scalp and topical bimatoprost 0.03% on the eyebrows produced satisfactory results.

The patient’s alopecia workup revealed a ferritin level of 422 ng/mL (reference range, 30–400 ng/mL), which prompted a hematology consultation for further evaluation. Notably, the patient ate red meat several times a week, used iron skillets, and denied receiving blood transfusions. His social habits included 3 alcoholic beverages a night, 5 days a week. Ultrasonography of the liver was recommended to assess potential damage from iron overload and alcohol consumption; the results suggested chronic liver disease, not definitive for cirrhosis, and no evidence of hepatocellular carcinoma. Genetic analysis later revealed the heterozygous H63D variant; therapeutic phlebotomy was recommended.

Patient 3—A 22-year-old White man presented with AA involving his facial beard. He had a medical history of vitiligo and psoriasis and a family history of AA as well as other autoimmune diseases including Hashimoto thyroiditis, psoriasis, eczema, and autoimmune hepatitis. Diphenylcyclopropenone treatment was not successful.

Laboratory studies revealed mildly elevated transaminase and ferritin levels. The patient also presented to the gastroenterologist for evaluation of abdominal pain. Subsequent hematology evaluation confirmed the presence of compound heterozygous C282Y and H63D mutations in the HFE gene, and the patient’s mother was later determined to be homozygous for the C282Y mutation with no elevated ferritin level. The patient’s ferritin level at diagnosis was approximately 500 ng/mL (reference range, 22–322 ng/mL); he required a modest number of therapeutic phlebotomies to normalize his ferritin level.

Patient 4—A 62-year-old White woman presented for evaluation and treatment of patchy hair loss on the scalp of 7 months’ duration. She was subsequently diagnosed with AA. After unsuccessful treatment with a triamcinolone acetonide steroid injection, topical immunotherapy with diphenylcyclopropenone was recommended. The patient achieved full hair regrowth after 35 treatments administered at 3-week intervals.

The patient had a medical history of HHC, including homozygosity for the C282Y mutation, and a family history of HHC in 1 sister. Treatment was therapeutic phlebotomy.

Comment

HHC in the Setting of AA—We presented 4 White patients with both HHC and AA. A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms HHC and AA yielded only 1 other reported case of newly identified HHC in a 56-year-old man who presented with pigmented purpuric dermatitis and AA that affected the beard.¹⁰ Because HHC is the most common genetic disorder identified in White individuals and has a varied clinical presentation, the documentation of AA may be an important cutaneous clue to help clinicians diagnose HHC early.

Iron Overload in Patients With HHC—The genetic association between HHC and AA, if any, is unknown. What is known is that iron overload can catalyze reactive oxygen species, which can overwhelm cellular antioxidant capacities at particular levels and cause injury to its constituents.¹¹ Data show that the levels of oxidative stress are elevated in the scalp of patients with AA compared to controls and increased 2-fold during the early phase of disease vs late-phase disease.¹² Thus, it is possible that increased iron levels in HHC may contribute to AA in genetically susceptible individuals by direct toxicity that ultimately results in the AA hair disorder that is CD8⁺ T-cell mediated.

Data show that 78% (31/40) of men and 36% (14/39) of women identified with homozygous C282Y mutations determined from family genetic analyses exhibited iron overload.¹³ In general, a normal life expectancy is possible for patients promptly treated with appropriate therapeutic phlebotomies.¹⁴ Thus, early diagnosis and appropriate therapy can prevent consequences of iron overload, which include cirrhosis, diabetes mellitus, and cardiomyopathy.¹³Iron Screening in the Alopecia Workup—Our cases illustrate how iron screening tests as part of the alopecia workup identified a cohort of White patients with iron overload and subsequently led to an early diagnosis of HHC. The calculated 2% lifetime risk for developing AA highlights the importance of evaluating iron status as part of the AA workup, particularly for White men, and the potential health benefit from early diagnosis of HHC. Limitations of this case series included its retrospective nature and small patient number.

Shedding of genital herpes simplex virus was frequent soon after first-time infection but declined significantly during the first year, based on data from 82 individuals.

Genital herpes simplex virus (HSV) infections remain common and incurable; consequently, the population with residual infection continues to rise, Christine Johnston, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote. However, data on the viral shedding trajectory of genital HSV-1 are limited, although HSV-1 accounts for an increasing number of infections.

In a study published in JAMA the researchers recruited 82 women with first-episode genital HSV-1 infections from sexual health and primary care clinics in Seattle, between 2013 and 2018. The participants supplied self-collected oral and genital swabs for daily HSV polymerase chain reaction testing for two 30-day periods at 2 months and 11 months after their initial symptoms. The study population was not pregnant and did not have HIV infection. The median age of the participants was 26 years, 54 were women, and 42 had primary HSV-1 infections. Primary HSV-1 infection was defined as the lack of HSV antibody at baseline or an evolving antibody profile, based on the University of Washington HSV Western Blot.

The primary outcome was the rates of genital and oral HSV shedding and lesions at 2 and 11 months and up to 2 years after an initial HSV-1 infection.

At 2 months, approximately two-thirds (64.6%) of the participants had HSV-1 in the genital tract and 29.3% had virus in the mouth. Genital shedding of HSV-1 was detected in 12.1% of 2,264 total testing days at 2 months, but this rate declined to 7.1% of 1,719 testing days at 11 months (relative risk, 0.52).

The researchers identified oral HSV-1 shedding on 3.9% of 2,247 testing days at 2 months, with a slight increase to 5.1% of 1,714 testing days at 11 months.

Both genital and oral lesions were rare, with reports of 2.6% and 0.4%, respectively, at 2 months and 3.8% and 0.5%, respectively, at 11 months.

The risk of genital shedding was significantly higher in individuals with primary HSV-1, compared with those with nonprimary infections (7.9% vs. 2.9%; RR, 2.75). The overall rate of genital shedding was 17.2% for those with primary HSV-1, of which 15.2% was asymptomatic. Oral shedding was similar for individuals with primary and nonprimary HSV in a multivariate analysis.

In addition, HSV-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell responses were identified in all participants, and these remained stable during the study period. No association appeared between rates of genital and oral shedding and the proportion of cells that expressed two, three, or four cytokines.

The current study is the first known to comprehensively assess genital and oral HSV-1 viral shedding using polymerase chain reaction, the researchers wrote. “Characterizing shedding rates is clinically important because patients with genital herpes are often concerned about transmission to sexual partners, which usually occurs in the absence of lesions.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the 22% loss of participants to follow-up by the end of the first year, and the use of data from a single location with a primarily White population, the researchers noted. Another limitation was reliance on self-reports and the potential underestimation of recurrences because of the possible use of antiviral medications between swabbing periods.

However, the results indicate the early frequency of HSV-1 shedding and suggest that suppressive therapy might benefit individuals with primary HSV-1 during their first year of infection, the researchers said.
 

Findings may improve HSV management

The current study helps fill a knowledge gap regarding the natural history of genital HSV-1 infections, Richard J. Whitley, MD, and Edward W. Hook III, MD, both of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, wrote in an accompanying editorial. Despite the small study population, the data represent the largest cohort to date of individuals with first-episode infection and up to 2 years’ follow-up.

Although HSV-2 shedding is greater and associated with more symptoms, seroprevalence of HSV-2 in the United States is declining, they noted. Therefore, the findings can inform patient counseling and recommendations for antiviral therapy that may extend to managing HSV-1 in pregnant women as well, although no pregnant women were included in the study.

“For clinicians, these data emphasize the importance of determining the HSV viral type in persons presenting with initial episodes of genital herpes to accurately counsel patients regarding risk of clinical recurrence, the likelihood of asymptomatic shedding of virus and hence transmission, and antiviral prophylaxis,” the editorialists emphasized. For investigators, the results should prompt additional studies of the host defense against HSV and improved serological testing.
 

Study supports need for attention to HSV-1

“Genital herpes is an extremely common sexually transmitted infection, and often only HSV-2 is measured,” Sarah W. Prager, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “This study shows that HSV-1 also accounts for a significant amount of genital disease, and should also be considered when determining prevalence of genital herpes.

“I was not surprised to see that viral shedding decreased significantly over the first year after diagnosis, and similarly not surprised that lesions were rare after the initial infection,” said Dr. Prager, who was not involved in the study. “I was somewhat surprised to see that genital HSV-1 shedding was more common than oral shedding.”

Dr. Prager said that she would advise clinicians against serum HSV testing unless someone has an active genital lesion. “Testing after a lesion will often reveal HSV-1, and patients should be counseled that shedding will decrease over the first year. Subsequent genital lesions are uncommon, but certainly possible, and oral lesions and shedding are both rare.” ]

More research is needed in a more diverse population, Dr. Prager emphasized. Following patients for more than a year and learning more about the use of antiviral medications also would be useful.

The study was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases through grants to several authors, including lead author Dr. Johnston. Dr. Johnston also disclosed personal fees from AbbVie, grants from Gilead, royalties from UpToDate, and personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline unrelated to the current study. Dr. Whitley disclosed personal fees from Virios Therapeutics as a board member and shareholder during the conduct of the study, royalties from Aettis unrelated to the submitted work, and serving on an advisory board for Visby Diagnostics. Dr. Hook disclosed serving on an advisory board for Visby Diagnostics unrelated to the submitted work. Dr. Prager had no conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Ob.Gyn News.
 

Shedding of genital herpes simplex virus was frequent soon after first-time infection but declined significantly during the first year, based on data from 82 individuals.

Genital herpes simplex virus (HSV) infections remain common and incurable; consequently, the population with residual infection continues to rise, Christine Johnston, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote. However, data on the viral shedding trajectory of genital HSV-1 are limited, although HSV-1 accounts for an increasing number of infections.

In a study published in JAMA the researchers recruited 82 women with first-episode genital HSV-1 infections from sexual health and primary care clinics in Seattle, between 2013 and 2018. The participants supplied self-collected oral and genital swabs for daily HSV polymerase chain reaction testing for two 30-day periods at 2 months and 11 months after their initial symptoms. The study population was not pregnant and did not have HIV infection. The median age of the participants was 26 years, 54 were women, and 42 had primary HSV-1 infections. Primary HSV-1 infection was defined as the lack of HSV antibody at baseline or an evolving antibody profile, based on the University of Washington HSV Western Blot.

The primary outcome was the rates of genital and oral HSV shedding and lesions at 2 and 11 months and up to 2 years after an initial HSV-1 infection.

At 2 months, approximately two-thirds (64.6%) of the participants had HSV-1 in the genital tract and 29.3% had virus in the mouth. Genital shedding of HSV-1 was detected in 12.1% of 2,264 total testing days at 2 months, but this rate declined to 7.1% of 1,719 testing days at 11 months (relative risk, 0.52).

The researchers identified oral HSV-1 shedding on 3.9% of 2,247 testing days at 2 months, with a slight increase to 5.1% of 1,714 testing days at 11 months.

Both genital and oral lesions were rare, with reports of 2.6% and 0.4%, respectively, at 2 months and 3.8% and 0.5%, respectively, at 11 months.

The risk of genital shedding was significantly higher in individuals with primary HSV-1, compared with those with nonprimary infections (7.9% vs. 2.9%; RR, 2.75). The overall rate of genital shedding was 17.2% for those with primary HSV-1, of which 15.2% was asymptomatic. Oral shedding was similar for individuals with primary and nonprimary HSV in a multivariate analysis.

In addition, HSV-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell responses were identified in all participants, and these remained stable during the study period. No association appeared between rates of genital and oral shedding and the proportion of cells that expressed two, three, or four cytokines.

The current study is the first known to comprehensively assess genital and oral HSV-1 viral shedding using polymerase chain reaction, the researchers wrote. “Characterizing shedding rates is clinically important because patients with genital herpes are often concerned about transmission to sexual partners, which usually occurs in the absence of lesions.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the 22% loss of participants to follow-up by the end of the first year, and the use of data from a single location with a primarily White population, the researchers noted. Another limitation was reliance on self-reports and the potential underestimation of recurrences because of the possible use of antiviral medications between swabbing periods.

However, the results indicate the early frequency of HSV-1 shedding and suggest that suppressive therapy might benefit individuals with primary HSV-1 during their first year of infection, the researchers said.
 

Findings may improve HSV management

The current study helps fill a knowledge gap regarding the natural history of genital HSV-1 infections, Richard J. Whitley, MD, and Edward W. Hook III, MD, both of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, wrote in an accompanying editorial. Despite the small study population, the data represent the largest cohort to date of individuals with first-episode infection and up to 2 years’ follow-up.

Although HSV-2 shedding is greater and associated with more symptoms, seroprevalence of HSV-2 in the United States is declining, they noted. Therefore, the findings can inform patient counseling and recommendations for antiviral therapy that may extend to managing HSV-1 in pregnant women as well, although no pregnant women were included in the study.

“For clinicians, these data emphasize the importance of determining the HSV viral type in persons presenting with initial episodes of genital herpes to accurately counsel patients regarding risk of clinical recurrence, the likelihood of asymptomatic shedding of virus and hence transmission, and antiviral prophylaxis,” the editorialists emphasized. For investigators, the results should prompt additional studies of the host defense against HSV and improved serological testing.
 

Study supports need for attention to HSV-1

“Genital herpes is an extremely common sexually transmitted infection, and often only HSV-2 is measured,” Sarah W. Prager, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “This study shows that HSV-1 also accounts for a significant amount of genital disease, and should also be considered when determining prevalence of genital herpes.

“I was not surprised to see that viral shedding decreased significantly over the first year after diagnosis, and similarly not surprised that lesions were rare after the initial infection,” said Dr. Prager, who was not involved in the study. “I was somewhat surprised to see that genital HSV-1 shedding was more common than oral shedding.”

Dr. Prager said that she would advise clinicians against serum HSV testing unless someone has an active genital lesion. “Testing after a lesion will often reveal HSV-1, and patients should be counseled that shedding will decrease over the first year. Subsequent genital lesions are uncommon, but certainly possible, and oral lesions and shedding are both rare.” ]

More research is needed in a more diverse population, Dr. Prager emphasized. Following patients for more than a year and learning more about the use of antiviral medications also would be useful.

The study was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases through grants to several authors, including lead author Dr. Johnston. Dr. Johnston also disclosed personal fees from AbbVie, grants from Gilead, royalties from UpToDate, and personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline unrelated to the current study. Dr. Whitley disclosed personal fees from Virios Therapeutics as a board member and shareholder during the conduct of the study, royalties from Aettis unrelated to the submitted work, and serving on an advisory board for Visby Diagnostics. Dr. Hook disclosed serving on an advisory board for Visby Diagnostics unrelated to the submitted work. Dr. Prager had no conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Ob.Gyn News.
 

Shedding of genital herpes simplex virus was frequent soon after first-time infection but declined significantly during the first year, based on data from 82 individuals.

Genital herpes simplex virus (HSV) infections remain common and incurable; consequently, the population with residual infection continues to rise, Christine Johnston, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote. However, data on the viral shedding trajectory of genital HSV-1 are limited, although HSV-1 accounts for an increasing number of infections.

In a study published in JAMA the researchers recruited 82 women with first-episode genital HSV-1 infections from sexual health and primary care clinics in Seattle, between 2013 and 2018. The participants supplied self-collected oral and genital swabs for daily HSV polymerase chain reaction testing for two 30-day periods at 2 months and 11 months after their initial symptoms. The study population was not pregnant and did not have HIV infection. The median age of the participants was 26 years, 54 were women, and 42 had primary HSV-1 infections. Primary HSV-1 infection was defined as the lack of HSV antibody at baseline or an evolving antibody profile, based on the University of Washington HSV Western Blot.

The primary outcome was the rates of genital and oral HSV shedding and lesions at 2 and 11 months and up to 2 years after an initial HSV-1 infection.

At 2 months, approximately two-thirds (64.6%) of the participants had HSV-1 in the genital tract and 29.3% had virus in the mouth. Genital shedding of HSV-1 was detected in 12.1% of 2,264 total testing days at 2 months, but this rate declined to 7.1% of 1,719 testing days at 11 months (relative risk, 0.52).

The researchers identified oral HSV-1 shedding on 3.9% of 2,247 testing days at 2 months, with a slight increase to 5.1% of 1,714 testing days at 11 months.

Both genital and oral lesions were rare, with reports of 2.6% and 0.4%, respectively, at 2 months and 3.8% and 0.5%, respectively, at 11 months.

The risk of genital shedding was significantly higher in individuals with primary HSV-1, compared with those with nonprimary infections (7.9% vs. 2.9%; RR, 2.75). The overall rate of genital shedding was 17.2% for those with primary HSV-1, of which 15.2% was asymptomatic. Oral shedding was similar for individuals with primary and nonprimary HSV in a multivariate analysis.

In addition, HSV-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell responses were identified in all participants, and these remained stable during the study period. No association appeared between rates of genital and oral shedding and the proportion of cells that expressed two, three, or four cytokines.

The current study is the first known to comprehensively assess genital and oral HSV-1 viral shedding using polymerase chain reaction, the researchers wrote. “Characterizing shedding rates is clinically important because patients with genital herpes are often concerned about transmission to sexual partners, which usually occurs in the absence of lesions.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the 22% loss of participants to follow-up by the end of the first year, and the use of data from a single location with a primarily White population, the researchers noted. Another limitation was reliance on self-reports and the potential underestimation of recurrences because of the possible use of antiviral medications between swabbing periods.

However, the results indicate the early frequency of HSV-1 shedding and suggest that suppressive therapy might benefit individuals with primary HSV-1 during their first year of infection, the researchers said.
 

Findings may improve HSV management

The current study helps fill a knowledge gap regarding the natural history of genital HSV-1 infections, Richard J. Whitley, MD, and Edward W. Hook III, MD, both of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, wrote in an accompanying editorial. Despite the small study population, the data represent the largest cohort to date of individuals with first-episode infection and up to 2 years’ follow-up.

Although HSV-2 shedding is greater and associated with more symptoms, seroprevalence of HSV-2 in the United States is declining, they noted. Therefore, the findings can inform patient counseling and recommendations for antiviral therapy that may extend to managing HSV-1 in pregnant women as well, although no pregnant women were included in the study.

“For clinicians, these data emphasize the importance of determining the HSV viral type in persons presenting with initial episodes of genital herpes to accurately counsel patients regarding risk of clinical recurrence, the likelihood of asymptomatic shedding of virus and hence transmission, and antiviral prophylaxis,” the editorialists emphasized. For investigators, the results should prompt additional studies of the host defense against HSV and improved serological testing.
 

Study supports need for attention to HSV-1

“Genital herpes is an extremely common sexually transmitted infection, and often only HSV-2 is measured,” Sarah W. Prager, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. “This study shows that HSV-1 also accounts for a significant amount of genital disease, and should also be considered when determining prevalence of genital herpes.

“I was not surprised to see that viral shedding decreased significantly over the first year after diagnosis, and similarly not surprised that lesions were rare after the initial infection,” said Dr. Prager, who was not involved in the study. “I was somewhat surprised to see that genital HSV-1 shedding was more common than oral shedding.”

Dr. Prager said that she would advise clinicians against serum HSV testing unless someone has an active genital lesion. “Testing after a lesion will often reveal HSV-1, and patients should be counseled that shedding will decrease over the first year. Subsequent genital lesions are uncommon, but certainly possible, and oral lesions and shedding are both rare.” ]

More research is needed in a more diverse population, Dr. Prager emphasized. Following patients for more than a year and learning more about the use of antiviral medications also would be useful.

The study was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases through grants to several authors, including lead author Dr. Johnston. Dr. Johnston also disclosed personal fees from AbbVie, grants from Gilead, royalties from UpToDate, and personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline unrelated to the current study. Dr. Whitley disclosed personal fees from Virios Therapeutics as a board member and shareholder during the conduct of the study, royalties from Aettis unrelated to the submitted work, and serving on an advisory board for Visby Diagnostics. Dr. Hook disclosed serving on an advisory board for Visby Diagnostics unrelated to the submitted work. Dr. Prager had no conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Ob.Gyn News.
 

The Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) has issued a position statement on the diagnosis of anxiety disorders in children and youth. The organization aims to “offer evidence-informed guidance to support pediatric health care providers making decisions around the care of children and adolescents with these conditions.”

“It’s been a long time coming,” lead author Benjamin Klein, MD, assistant clinical professor of pediatrics at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., told this news organization. The target audience for the documents includes community pediatricians, subspecialists, family doctors, and nurse practitioners. “There was a great demand from that audience for a position statement, for guidance, obviously in the backdrop of rising child and adolescent mental health incidence over the years and of course COVID,” said Dr. Klein.

The statement was published on the CPS website.
 

‘A comprehensive approach’

Although many other guidelines on this topic are available, it was important to have a Canadian document, said Dr. Klein. “Obviously, there’s going to be a great deal of overlap with European or American guidelines, but it’s just kind of assumed that people want specifically Canadian content. ... Physicians want to know that they’re practicing within a standard of care in Canada.” Dr. Klein is medical director of the Lansdowne Children’s Centre, Brantford, Ont., which provides help for children with communication, developmental, and physical special needs across Ontario.

Anxiety disorders are the most common mental disorders among children and adolescents in Canada, according to the position statement. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5) groups these disorders into separation anxiety disorder, selective mutism, specific phobia, social anxiety disorder (social phobia), panic disorder, agoraphobia, and generalized anxiety disorder.

Distinguishing normal, age-appropriate anxiety from anxiety disorder, while also recognizing other comorbidities, is complicated, said Dr. Klein. “Anxiety is one possible diagnosis or feature, and children with mental health and developmental problems often present with a number of problems. Anxiety may be one of them, but if it’s one of them, it may not be the main driver. So, a comprehensive approach is needed ... combining the medical model with biopsychosocial thinking to give a better picture of anxiety in the context of anything else that may be contributing to a presentation.”

The statement outlines recommendations for anxiety assessment, starting with a screening questionnaire such as the Screen for Child Anxiety Related Disorders (SCARED), which is completed by parents and children, to assess symptom severity. Standardized measures for medical, mental health, and developmental histories are available on the CPS website.

The document next recommends an interview about presenting concerns (such as sleep problems or school difficulties), inciting events, and parent-child interactions. The process includes confidential, nonjudgmental interviews with adolescents using a history-taking tool such as HEEADSSS (Home, Education/Employment, Eating, Activities, Drugs, Sexuality, Suicide/Mental Health, and Safety).

“The diagnosis and treatment of anxiety disorders kind of sounds simple if you just read about it as an isolated thing, but the reality is ... there’s no MRI. It’s detective work,” said Dr. Klein. Clinicians must distinguish between normal anxiety, situational anxiety, and specific anxiety disorder, he added. He usually allows 90 minutes for an anxiety assessment, partly to gain the patient’s trust. “These are sensitive issues. It’s common that people don’t trust a diagnosis if you haven’t spent enough time with them. That relational care piece just needs to be there, or people aren’t going to buy in.”

The CPS position statement was reviewed and endorsed by the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.
 

Methodology unclear

Joanna Henderson, MD, professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto and director of the Margaret and Wallace McCain Centre for Child, Youth, and Family Mental Health at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, said that the guidelines have been released at an important time. “Conversations about mental health have become more common, and many children, youth, and families are reaching out for support. It is essential that health care professionals be equipped with accessible information about practices to provide appropriate care. These guidelines support that vision.”

It would be helpful to know more about the methods used to arrive at the recommendations, however, said Dr. Henderson. “It is critical that health care providers be guided by evidence-based guidelines that adhere to criteria for establishing high-quality guidelines. Because the authors did not provide information about their methods, I am not able to provide a comment about the quality of their guidelines. There are established approaches for evaluating quality, and I would encourage the authors to publish as a supplement to this article their methods, including in reference to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) checklist.”

In the absence of readily available information about methods, she said, “clinicians are encouraged to use guidelines from sources that provide information about the guideline development process and include quality appraisal,” such as the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which is “generally recognized as a reputable source for high-quality practice guidelines.”

Responding to this concern, Dr. Klein said, “There is no specific evidence base for diagnosis. That robust science doesn’t exist. No one has done randomized controlled trials of different methods of diagnosing kids with anxiety. We looked at other position statements, we looked at textbooks, and obviously we drew from our own clinical experience, so it comes from clinical judgment and expert opinion.”

Dr. Henderson also noted that in the future “it will be important to contextualize the recommendations by highlighting the importance of cultural competence in conducting assessments and providing treatment.” Moreover, current evidence can be expanded through the incorporation of diverse cultural and racial perspectives, experiences, and data, she added.

Health service providers should reflect on their own potential biases, which can influence clinician-patient interactions, Dr. Henderson continued. It also is important to consider biases in the evidence, which influence practice. Clinicians should also consider how their recommendations fit with patients’ “cultural and race-based experiences, beliefs, and practices.”

No source of funding for the position statement was reported. Dr. Klein and Dr. Henderson had disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) has issued a position statement on the diagnosis of anxiety disorders in children and youth. The organization aims to “offer evidence-informed guidance to support pediatric health care providers making decisions around the care of children and adolescents with these conditions.”

“It’s been a long time coming,” lead author Benjamin Klein, MD, assistant clinical professor of pediatrics at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., told this news organization. The target audience for the documents includes community pediatricians, subspecialists, family doctors, and nurse practitioners. “There was a great demand from that audience for a position statement, for guidance, obviously in the backdrop of rising child and adolescent mental health incidence over the years and of course COVID,” said Dr. Klein.

The statement was published on the CPS website.
 

‘A comprehensive approach’

Although many other guidelines on this topic are available, it was important to have a Canadian document, said Dr. Klein. “Obviously, there’s going to be a great deal of overlap with European or American guidelines, but it’s just kind of assumed that people want specifically Canadian content. ... Physicians want to know that they’re practicing within a standard of care in Canada.” Dr. Klein is medical director of the Lansdowne Children’s Centre, Brantford, Ont., which provides help for children with communication, developmental, and physical special needs across Ontario.

Anxiety disorders are the most common mental disorders among children and adolescents in Canada, according to the position statement. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5) groups these disorders into separation anxiety disorder, selective mutism, specific phobia, social anxiety disorder (social phobia), panic disorder, agoraphobia, and generalized anxiety disorder.

Distinguishing normal, age-appropriate anxiety from anxiety disorder, while also recognizing other comorbidities, is complicated, said Dr. Klein. “Anxiety is one possible diagnosis or feature, and children with mental health and developmental problems often present with a number of problems. Anxiety may be one of them, but if it’s one of them, it may not be the main driver. So, a comprehensive approach is needed ... combining the medical model with biopsychosocial thinking to give a better picture of anxiety in the context of anything else that may be contributing to a presentation.”

The statement outlines recommendations for anxiety assessment, starting with a screening questionnaire such as the Screen for Child Anxiety Related Disorders (SCARED), which is completed by parents and children, to assess symptom severity. Standardized measures for medical, mental health, and developmental histories are available on the CPS website.

The document next recommends an interview about presenting concerns (such as sleep problems or school difficulties), inciting events, and parent-child interactions. The process includes confidential, nonjudgmental interviews with adolescents using a history-taking tool such as HEEADSSS (Home, Education/Employment, Eating, Activities, Drugs, Sexuality, Suicide/Mental Health, and Safety).

“The diagnosis and treatment of anxiety disorders kind of sounds simple if you just read about it as an isolated thing, but the reality is ... there’s no MRI. It’s detective work,” said Dr. Klein. Clinicians must distinguish between normal anxiety, situational anxiety, and specific anxiety disorder, he added. He usually allows 90 minutes for an anxiety assessment, partly to gain the patient’s trust. “These are sensitive issues. It’s common that people don’t trust a diagnosis if you haven’t spent enough time with them. That relational care piece just needs to be there, or people aren’t going to buy in.”

The CPS position statement was reviewed and endorsed by the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.
 

Methodology unclear

Joanna Henderson, MD, professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto and director of the Margaret and Wallace McCain Centre for Child, Youth, and Family Mental Health at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, said that the guidelines have been released at an important time. “Conversations about mental health have become more common, and many children, youth, and families are reaching out for support. It is essential that health care professionals be equipped with accessible information about practices to provide appropriate care. These guidelines support that vision.”

It would be helpful to know more about the methods used to arrive at the recommendations, however, said Dr. Henderson. “It is critical that health care providers be guided by evidence-based guidelines that adhere to criteria for establishing high-quality guidelines. Because the authors did not provide information about their methods, I am not able to provide a comment about the quality of their guidelines. There are established approaches for evaluating quality, and I would encourage the authors to publish as a supplement to this article their methods, including in reference to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) checklist.”

In the absence of readily available information about methods, she said, “clinicians are encouraged to use guidelines from sources that provide information about the guideline development process and include quality appraisal,” such as the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which is “generally recognized as a reputable source for high-quality practice guidelines.”

Responding to this concern, Dr. Klein said, “There is no specific evidence base for diagnosis. That robust science doesn’t exist. No one has done randomized controlled trials of different methods of diagnosing kids with anxiety. We looked at other position statements, we looked at textbooks, and obviously we drew from our own clinical experience, so it comes from clinical judgment and expert opinion.”

Dr. Henderson also noted that in the future “it will be important to contextualize the recommendations by highlighting the importance of cultural competence in conducting assessments and providing treatment.” Moreover, current evidence can be expanded through the incorporation of diverse cultural and racial perspectives, experiences, and data, she added.

Health service providers should reflect on their own potential biases, which can influence clinician-patient interactions, Dr. Henderson continued. It also is important to consider biases in the evidence, which influence practice. Clinicians should also consider how their recommendations fit with patients’ “cultural and race-based experiences, beliefs, and practices.”

No source of funding for the position statement was reported. Dr. Klein and Dr. Henderson had disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) has issued a position statement on the diagnosis of anxiety disorders in children and youth. The organization aims to “offer evidence-informed guidance to support pediatric health care providers making decisions around the care of children and adolescents with these conditions.”

“It’s been a long time coming,” lead author Benjamin Klein, MD, assistant clinical professor of pediatrics at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., told this news organization. The target audience for the documents includes community pediatricians, subspecialists, family doctors, and nurse practitioners. “There was a great demand from that audience for a position statement, for guidance, obviously in the backdrop of rising child and adolescent mental health incidence over the years and of course COVID,” said Dr. Klein.

The statement was published on the CPS website.
 

‘A comprehensive approach’

Although many other guidelines on this topic are available, it was important to have a Canadian document, said Dr. Klein. “Obviously, there’s going to be a great deal of overlap with European or American guidelines, but it’s just kind of assumed that people want specifically Canadian content. ... Physicians want to know that they’re practicing within a standard of care in Canada.” Dr. Klein is medical director of the Lansdowne Children’s Centre, Brantford, Ont., which provides help for children with communication, developmental, and physical special needs across Ontario.

Anxiety disorders are the most common mental disorders among children and adolescents in Canada, according to the position statement. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5) groups these disorders into separation anxiety disorder, selective mutism, specific phobia, social anxiety disorder (social phobia), panic disorder, agoraphobia, and generalized anxiety disorder.

Distinguishing normal, age-appropriate anxiety from anxiety disorder, while also recognizing other comorbidities, is complicated, said Dr. Klein. “Anxiety is one possible diagnosis or feature, and children with mental health and developmental problems often present with a number of problems. Anxiety may be one of them, but if it’s one of them, it may not be the main driver. So, a comprehensive approach is needed ... combining the medical model with biopsychosocial thinking to give a better picture of anxiety in the context of anything else that may be contributing to a presentation.”

The statement outlines recommendations for anxiety assessment, starting with a screening questionnaire such as the Screen for Child Anxiety Related Disorders (SCARED), which is completed by parents and children, to assess symptom severity. Standardized measures for medical, mental health, and developmental histories are available on the CPS website.

The document next recommends an interview about presenting concerns (such as sleep problems or school difficulties), inciting events, and parent-child interactions. The process includes confidential, nonjudgmental interviews with adolescents using a history-taking tool such as HEEADSSS (Home, Education/Employment, Eating, Activities, Drugs, Sexuality, Suicide/Mental Health, and Safety).

“The diagnosis and treatment of anxiety disorders kind of sounds simple if you just read about it as an isolated thing, but the reality is ... there’s no MRI. It’s detective work,” said Dr. Klein. Clinicians must distinguish between normal anxiety, situational anxiety, and specific anxiety disorder, he added. He usually allows 90 minutes for an anxiety assessment, partly to gain the patient’s trust. “These are sensitive issues. It’s common that people don’t trust a diagnosis if you haven’t spent enough time with them. That relational care piece just needs to be there, or people aren’t going to buy in.”

The CPS position statement was reviewed and endorsed by the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.
 

Methodology unclear

Joanna Henderson, MD, professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto and director of the Margaret and Wallace McCain Centre for Child, Youth, and Family Mental Health at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, said that the guidelines have been released at an important time. “Conversations about mental health have become more common, and many children, youth, and families are reaching out for support. It is essential that health care professionals be equipped with accessible information about practices to provide appropriate care. These guidelines support that vision.”

It would be helpful to know more about the methods used to arrive at the recommendations, however, said Dr. Henderson. “It is critical that health care providers be guided by evidence-based guidelines that adhere to criteria for establishing high-quality guidelines. Because the authors did not provide information about their methods, I am not able to provide a comment about the quality of their guidelines. There are established approaches for evaluating quality, and I would encourage the authors to publish as a supplement to this article their methods, including in reference to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) checklist.”

In the absence of readily available information about methods, she said, “clinicians are encouraged to use guidelines from sources that provide information about the guideline development process and include quality appraisal,” such as the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which is “generally recognized as a reputable source for high-quality practice guidelines.”

Responding to this concern, Dr. Klein said, “There is no specific evidence base for diagnosis. That robust science doesn’t exist. No one has done randomized controlled trials of different methods of diagnosing kids with anxiety. We looked at other position statements, we looked at textbooks, and obviously we drew from our own clinical experience, so it comes from clinical judgment and expert opinion.”

Dr. Henderson also noted that in the future “it will be important to contextualize the recommendations by highlighting the importance of cultural competence in conducting assessments and providing treatment.” Moreover, current evidence can be expanded through the incorporation of diverse cultural and racial perspectives, experiences, and data, she added.

Health service providers should reflect on their own potential biases, which can influence clinician-patient interactions, Dr. Henderson continued. It also is important to consider biases in the evidence, which influence practice. Clinicians should also consider how their recommendations fit with patients’ “cultural and race-based experiences, beliefs, and practices.”

No source of funding for the position statement was reported. Dr. Klein and Dr. Henderson had disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Neurofilament light chain (NfL) is a biomarker for both disease progression and treatment response in multiple sclerosis (MS), but the search continues for additional biomarkers to distinguish between disease activity and progression.

At a session of the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS), researchers presented evidence that serum glial fibrillary acid protein (GFAP) could be a useful complement to NfL in MS, although it is not ready for the clinic. Acceptance of NfL wasn’t universal, either.

Patients with MS follow wide-ranging disease courses, and disability arises due to two partially independent mechanisms, according to Stephanie Meier, who presented results suggests from a study of two cohorts. “Firstly, the acute disease activity leading to relapse associated worsening or RAW (relapse-associated worsening), and secondly the chronic deterioration of neurologic functions leading to progression independent of relapse activity,” said Ms. Meier, a PhD student at University of Basel, Switzerland.
 

GFAP and NfL may be complementary biomarkers

NfL is a structural protein of neurons, while GFAP is a structure protein of astrocytes. NfL therefore reflects neuronal damage, while GFAP is an indicator of astrogliosis and astrocytic damage. GFAP has been shown to be increased in progressive MS and has been applied in traumatic brain injury and neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder, according to Ms. Meier.

Her group examined data from two cohorts with “extreme” phenotypes. One cohort included 169 patients with stable MS and 184 with worsening disease progression but no sign of relapses. The other was a focal inflammation cohort that comprised paired samples from 66 patients: One sample from an active time point characterized by a relapse or at least one contrast-enhancing lesion (CEL) detected in the previous 30 days, and one remission sample when there was no relapse in the past year and no CEL in the previous 6 months.

The focal inflammation cohort demonstrated an association between raised NfL levels, with a 53% increase in predicted serum NfL during the active state after a multivariate analysis (P < .0001). GFAP values, on the other hand, were nearly identical.

In the progression cohort, there was more total yearly brain loss in the worsening group (0.42% vs. 0.14%; P = .0005). Baseline GFAP predicted gray matter atrophy (–0.24% per year, P < .0001) but NfL did not. The reverse was true for white matter atrophy, with NfL being predictive (–0.26% per year; P < .0001) but not GFAP.

“The use of biomarkers such as NfL and GFAP could be useful to understand the MS disease course by detecting disease activity that is not usually measurable with standard methods,” said Ms. Meier.

“We found that NfL was strongly associated with acute inflammation and prognosticated white matter volume loss, while GFAP has a potential as a prognostic biomarker for disease worsening, including progression independent of relapse activity, and baseline GFAP also prognosticated gray matter volume loss. From this we can conclude that serum GFAP is a promising biomarker reflecting progression in MS and it is complementary to NfL, as NfL is more strongly associated with acute inflammatory activity,” said Ms. Meier.
 

A biomarker of disease progression

In another presentation, Mark Wessels, MD, PhD, discussed use of GFAP as a biomarker of disease progression among patients treated with natalizumab. He noted that heightened levels of GFAP are found in astrocytes in chronic MS lesions. Serum GFAP also has been linked to lesion load and clinical outcomes in relapsing-remitting MS.

“The overall aim of our study was to evaluate the value of serum GFAP to monitor disability progression and treatment response in a natalizumab-treated cohort in which disease activity is effectively suppressed, and we did this by investigating GFAP as biomarker for progression despite suppression of inflammation,” said Dr. Wessels, a neurologist at Amsterdam University Medical Center.

The researchers evaluated data from an observational cohort at their institution in Amsterdam. GFAP decreased significantly after 3 months of treatment in both groups, then stabilized, but there was no difference between the groups. GFAP correlated with ventricle fraction at all time points with the exception of the last follow-up. It also correlated with lesion volume. However, GFAP did not correlate with whole brain parenchyma volume over time. There was no difference in GFAP among treatment responders and nonresponders.

Baseline serum GFAP predicted the annualized rate of ventricle volume change (P = .009). At 12 months it predicted both annualized rate of ventricle volume change (P = .009) and thalamus volume (P = .025).

“We’ve been struggling with how to interpret this data. We did see that GFAP and inflammation appear to be associated with each other. What supports this interpretation is that the GFAP decreased significantly after starting high efficacy treatments, namely natalizumab. We also found some clues that GFAP and brain atrophy may have a relationship with each other. Our conclusions weren’t entirely conclusive, possibly due to our smaller cohort sizes, and the use of various MRI scans over the years. And then the question of today was whether GFAP should be implemented in the clinic. Unfortunately, we couldn’t find evidence for use of GFAP as a disease progression biomarker, but we did find some clues of its use as both monitoring lesion volume and monitoring brain atrophy, making it still an interesting biomarker,” said Dr. Wessels.
 

What does it all mean?

In the Q&A session following the talks, one audience member challenged some of the assumptions behind the use of NfL and GFAP. “We don’t really know what these proteins actually do, and what they truly measure,” he said. Another criticism voiced by the commenter was that the platforms used to measure high and low values may be inconsistent. Finally, there are questions about the underlying theory. “I think our simplistic model for thinking that these are all just measurements of damage is potentially something that we have to reassess … or the assumption that these measures have to correlate to brain atrophy, as if that’s a gold standard. We all know that brain atrophy has totally failed us in the clinic and been incapable of giving us anything that’s useful for monitoring our patients,” said the questioner.

Elias Sotirchos, MD, who presented on NfL values and brain atrophy MS patients, agreed that it’s important to compare values across platforms to ensure consistency. He also cited potential issues with reference populations, since there may be a variety of contributors to neurotoxicity based on behaviors such as smoking, drinking, or comorbidities. “The selection of the reference population is important to be a representative of the MS population in which we are trying to apply that measurement of that normative value,” said Dr. Sotirchos, assistant professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.

Ms. Basel and Dr. Wessels have no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Sotirchos has financial relationships with Alexion, Viela Bio, Horizon Therapeutics, Genentech, Biogen, and Ad Scientiam.

Neurofilament light chain (NfL) is a biomarker for both disease progression and treatment response in multiple sclerosis (MS), but the search continues for additional biomarkers to distinguish between disease activity and progression.

At a session of the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS), researchers presented evidence that serum glial fibrillary acid protein (GFAP) could be a useful complement to NfL in MS, although it is not ready for the clinic. Acceptance of NfL wasn’t universal, either.

Patients with MS follow wide-ranging disease courses, and disability arises due to two partially independent mechanisms, according to Stephanie Meier, who presented results suggests from a study of two cohorts. “Firstly, the acute disease activity leading to relapse associated worsening or RAW (relapse-associated worsening), and secondly the chronic deterioration of neurologic functions leading to progression independent of relapse activity,” said Ms. Meier, a PhD student at University of Basel, Switzerland.
 

GFAP and NfL may be complementary biomarkers

NfL is a structural protein of neurons, while GFAP is a structure protein of astrocytes. NfL therefore reflects neuronal damage, while GFAP is an indicator of astrogliosis and astrocytic damage. GFAP has been shown to be increased in progressive MS and has been applied in traumatic brain injury and neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder, according to Ms. Meier.

Her group examined data from two cohorts with “extreme” phenotypes. One cohort included 169 patients with stable MS and 184 with worsening disease progression but no sign of relapses. The other was a focal inflammation cohort that comprised paired samples from 66 patients: One sample from an active time point characterized by a relapse or at least one contrast-enhancing lesion (CEL) detected in the previous 30 days, and one remission sample when there was no relapse in the past year and no CEL in the previous 6 months.

The focal inflammation cohort demonstrated an association between raised NfL levels, with a 53% increase in predicted serum NfL during the active state after a multivariate analysis (P < .0001). GFAP values, on the other hand, were nearly identical.

In the progression cohort, there was more total yearly brain loss in the worsening group (0.42% vs. 0.14%; P = .0005). Baseline GFAP predicted gray matter atrophy (–0.24% per year, P < .0001) but NfL did not. The reverse was true for white matter atrophy, with NfL being predictive (–0.26% per year; P < .0001) but not GFAP.

“The use of biomarkers such as NfL and GFAP could be useful to understand the MS disease course by detecting disease activity that is not usually measurable with standard methods,” said Ms. Meier.

“We found that NfL was strongly associated with acute inflammation and prognosticated white matter volume loss, while GFAP has a potential as a prognostic biomarker for disease worsening, including progression independent of relapse activity, and baseline GFAP also prognosticated gray matter volume loss. From this we can conclude that serum GFAP is a promising biomarker reflecting progression in MS and it is complementary to NfL, as NfL is more strongly associated with acute inflammatory activity,” said Ms. Meier.
 

A biomarker of disease progression

In another presentation, Mark Wessels, MD, PhD, discussed use of GFAP as a biomarker of disease progression among patients treated with natalizumab. He noted that heightened levels of GFAP are found in astrocytes in chronic MS lesions. Serum GFAP also has been linked to lesion load and clinical outcomes in relapsing-remitting MS.

“The overall aim of our study was to evaluate the value of serum GFAP to monitor disability progression and treatment response in a natalizumab-treated cohort in which disease activity is effectively suppressed, and we did this by investigating GFAP as biomarker for progression despite suppression of inflammation,” said Dr. Wessels, a neurologist at Amsterdam University Medical Center.

The researchers evaluated data from an observational cohort at their institution in Amsterdam. GFAP decreased significantly after 3 months of treatment in both groups, then stabilized, but there was no difference between the groups. GFAP correlated with ventricle fraction at all time points with the exception of the last follow-up. It also correlated with lesion volume. However, GFAP did not correlate with whole brain parenchyma volume over time. There was no difference in GFAP among treatment responders and nonresponders.

Baseline serum GFAP predicted the annualized rate of ventricle volume change (P = .009). At 12 months it predicted both annualized rate of ventricle volume change (P = .009) and thalamus volume (P = .025).

“We’ve been struggling with how to interpret this data. We did see that GFAP and inflammation appear to be associated with each other. What supports this interpretation is that the GFAP decreased significantly after starting high efficacy treatments, namely natalizumab. We also found some clues that GFAP and brain atrophy may have a relationship with each other. Our conclusions weren’t entirely conclusive, possibly due to our smaller cohort sizes, and the use of various MRI scans over the years. And then the question of today was whether GFAP should be implemented in the clinic. Unfortunately, we couldn’t find evidence for use of GFAP as a disease progression biomarker, but we did find some clues of its use as both monitoring lesion volume and monitoring brain atrophy, making it still an interesting biomarker,” said Dr. Wessels.
 

What does it all mean?

In the Q&A session following the talks, one audience member challenged some of the assumptions behind the use of NfL and GFAP. “We don’t really know what these proteins actually do, and what they truly measure,” he said. Another criticism voiced by the commenter was that the platforms used to measure high and low values may be inconsistent. Finally, there are questions about the underlying theory. “I think our simplistic model for thinking that these are all just measurements of damage is potentially something that we have to reassess … or the assumption that these measures have to correlate to brain atrophy, as if that’s a gold standard. We all know that brain atrophy has totally failed us in the clinic and been incapable of giving us anything that’s useful for monitoring our patients,” said the questioner.

Elias Sotirchos, MD, who presented on NfL values and brain atrophy MS patients, agreed that it’s important to compare values across platforms to ensure consistency. He also cited potential issues with reference populations, since there may be a variety of contributors to neurotoxicity based on behaviors such as smoking, drinking, or comorbidities. “The selection of the reference population is important to be a representative of the MS population in which we are trying to apply that measurement of that normative value,” said Dr. Sotirchos, assistant professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.

Ms. Basel and Dr. Wessels have no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Sotirchos has financial relationships with Alexion, Viela Bio, Horizon Therapeutics, Genentech, Biogen, and Ad Scientiam.

Neurofilament light chain (NfL) is a biomarker for both disease progression and treatment response in multiple sclerosis (MS), but the search continues for additional biomarkers to distinguish between disease activity and progression.

At a session of the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS), researchers presented evidence that serum glial fibrillary acid protein (GFAP) could be a useful complement to NfL in MS, although it is not ready for the clinic. Acceptance of NfL wasn’t universal, either.

Patients with MS follow wide-ranging disease courses, and disability arises due to two partially independent mechanisms, according to Stephanie Meier, who presented results suggests from a study of two cohorts. “Firstly, the acute disease activity leading to relapse associated worsening or RAW (relapse-associated worsening), and secondly the chronic deterioration of neurologic functions leading to progression independent of relapse activity,” said Ms. Meier, a PhD student at University of Basel, Switzerland.
 

GFAP and NfL may be complementary biomarkers

NfL is a structural protein of neurons, while GFAP is a structure protein of astrocytes. NfL therefore reflects neuronal damage, while GFAP is an indicator of astrogliosis and astrocytic damage. GFAP has been shown to be increased in progressive MS and has been applied in traumatic brain injury and neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder, according to Ms. Meier.

Her group examined data from two cohorts with “extreme” phenotypes. One cohort included 169 patients with stable MS and 184 with worsening disease progression but no sign of relapses. The other was a focal inflammation cohort that comprised paired samples from 66 patients: One sample from an active time point characterized by a relapse or at least one contrast-enhancing lesion (CEL) detected in the previous 30 days, and one remission sample when there was no relapse in the past year and no CEL in the previous 6 months.

The focal inflammation cohort demonstrated an association between raised NfL levels, with a 53% increase in predicted serum NfL during the active state after a multivariate analysis (P < .0001). GFAP values, on the other hand, were nearly identical.

In the progression cohort, there was more total yearly brain loss in the worsening group (0.42% vs. 0.14%; P = .0005). Baseline GFAP predicted gray matter atrophy (–0.24% per year, P < .0001) but NfL did not. The reverse was true for white matter atrophy, with NfL being predictive (–0.26% per year; P < .0001) but not GFAP.

“The use of biomarkers such as NfL and GFAP could be useful to understand the MS disease course by detecting disease activity that is not usually measurable with standard methods,” said Ms. Meier.

“We found that NfL was strongly associated with acute inflammation and prognosticated white matter volume loss, while GFAP has a potential as a prognostic biomarker for disease worsening, including progression independent of relapse activity, and baseline GFAP also prognosticated gray matter volume loss. From this we can conclude that serum GFAP is a promising biomarker reflecting progression in MS and it is complementary to NfL, as NfL is more strongly associated with acute inflammatory activity,” said Ms. Meier.
 

A biomarker of disease progression

In another presentation, Mark Wessels, MD, PhD, discussed use of GFAP as a biomarker of disease progression among patients treated with natalizumab. He noted that heightened levels of GFAP are found in astrocytes in chronic MS lesions. Serum GFAP also has been linked to lesion load and clinical outcomes in relapsing-remitting MS.

“The overall aim of our study was to evaluate the value of serum GFAP to monitor disability progression and treatment response in a natalizumab-treated cohort in which disease activity is effectively suppressed, and we did this by investigating GFAP as biomarker for progression despite suppression of inflammation,” said Dr. Wessels, a neurologist at Amsterdam University Medical Center.

The researchers evaluated data from an observational cohort at their institution in Amsterdam. GFAP decreased significantly after 3 months of treatment in both groups, then stabilized, but there was no difference between the groups. GFAP correlated with ventricle fraction at all time points with the exception of the last follow-up. It also correlated with lesion volume. However, GFAP did not correlate with whole brain parenchyma volume over time. There was no difference in GFAP among treatment responders and nonresponders.

Baseline serum GFAP predicted the annualized rate of ventricle volume change (P = .009). At 12 months it predicted both annualized rate of ventricle volume change (P = .009) and thalamus volume (P = .025).

“We’ve been struggling with how to interpret this data. We did see that GFAP and inflammation appear to be associated with each other. What supports this interpretation is that the GFAP decreased significantly after starting high efficacy treatments, namely natalizumab. We also found some clues that GFAP and brain atrophy may have a relationship with each other. Our conclusions weren’t entirely conclusive, possibly due to our smaller cohort sizes, and the use of various MRI scans over the years. And then the question of today was whether GFAP should be implemented in the clinic. Unfortunately, we couldn’t find evidence for use of GFAP as a disease progression biomarker, but we did find some clues of its use as both monitoring lesion volume and monitoring brain atrophy, making it still an interesting biomarker,” said Dr. Wessels.
 

What does it all mean?

In the Q&A session following the talks, one audience member challenged some of the assumptions behind the use of NfL and GFAP. “We don’t really know what these proteins actually do, and what they truly measure,” he said. Another criticism voiced by the commenter was that the platforms used to measure high and low values may be inconsistent. Finally, there are questions about the underlying theory. “I think our simplistic model for thinking that these are all just measurements of damage is potentially something that we have to reassess … or the assumption that these measures have to correlate to brain atrophy, as if that’s a gold standard. We all know that brain atrophy has totally failed us in the clinic and been incapable of giving us anything that’s useful for monitoring our patients,” said the questioner.

Elias Sotirchos, MD, who presented on NfL values and brain atrophy MS patients, agreed that it’s important to compare values across platforms to ensure consistency. He also cited potential issues with reference populations, since there may be a variety of contributors to neurotoxicity based on behaviors such as smoking, drinking, or comorbidities. “The selection of the reference population is important to be a representative of the MS population in which we are trying to apply that measurement of that normative value,” said Dr. Sotirchos, assistant professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.

Ms. Basel and Dr. Wessels have no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Sotirchos has financial relationships with Alexion, Viela Bio, Horizon Therapeutics, Genentech, Biogen, and Ad Scientiam.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force moved forward their recommendations for using hormone therapy to prevent chronic conditions in postmenopausal women by keeping them the same.

The central message of the new recommendations, released on Nov. 1 as a statement published in JAMA, remains unchanged from the last update in 2017.

The message also remains simple: Don’t use hormone therapy for preventing chronic conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, and osteoporosis, or bone fracture.

The USPSTF summarized its recommendations in two brief statements: the group “recommends against the use of combined estrogen and progestin for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons” and “recommends against the use of estrogen alone for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons who have had a hysterectomy.”

This wording is identical to that used in the 2017 guidance (except it now refers to postmenopausal persons instead of specifically women). The recommendation against use of estrogen and progestin for prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal women was first made by the USPSTF in 2002.

An editorial accompanying the 2022 revision notes that the evidence cited by the USPSTF includes “only two additional, modest-sized trials” (that focused on the effects of hormone therapy on cognition and brain structure) compared with 2017, “as well as ancillary analyses of previous trials.”
 

A standard 5-year update

The 2022 revision and revisiting of the evidence base by the Task Force regarding the benefits and risks of postmenopausal hormone therapy occurred “as part of the Task Force’s standard approach, which includes updating each recommendation approximately every 5 years,” explained Carol M. Mangione, MD, who is USPSTF chair and chief of the division of general internal medicine and health services research at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“In our review we again found that while hormone therapy may reduce the risk of some conditions, it can also lead to serious harms such as an increase in the risk of blood clots and stroke,” Dr. Mangione said in an interview. “The harms cancel out any potential benefits overall.”

This new statement only applies to using menopausal hormone treatment for preventing chronic conditions in asymptomatic people but does not speak to using this treatment in managing people with perimenopausal symptoms such as hot flashes or vaginal dryness or treating people with premature or surgical menopause, Dr. Mangione highlighted.
 

No review for treating menopausal symptoms

“The Task Force encourages people who are experiencing symptoms of menopause to talk with their health care professional about the best treatment for them,” explained Dr. Mangione. “The Task Force did not review the evidence on the use of hormone therapy to treat symptoms of menopause.”

Osteoporosis and increased risk for bone fracture were among the conditions that accompany menopause reviewed by the USPSTF. The Task Force concluded that while “hormone therapy was associated with decreased risk of fractures,” after weighing the benefits and harms for preventing this condition, “there is no net benefit at the population level.”

This conclusion seems to contrast with the 2022 hormone therapy position statement of the North American Menopause Society (NAMS), released in July, which states: “For women aged younger than 60 years or who are within 10 years of menopause onset and have no contraindications, the benefit-risk ratio is favorable for treatment of bothersome vasomotor symptoms and prevention of bone loss.”
 

USPSTF, NAMS are ‘completely consistent’

However, Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, medical director of NAMS and director of the women’s health clinic at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said the new USPSTF recommendations “are completely consistent” with the recent NAMS statement.

“We are entirely aligned with the recommendation to use hormone therapy for management of menopausal symptoms and not for chronic disease prevention or as an anti-aging strategy,” Dr. Faubion commented in an interview.

Dr. Faubion also stressed that “menopausal hormone therapy remains the most effective treatment for menopausal symptoms,” and that “women should not be reflexively directed to other pharmacologic therapies for management of menopausal symptoms.”

The distinction the USPSTF makes between its recommendations against using hormone therapy to prevent chronic conditions and its deferral of comment on use of the same treatment to manage perimenopausal symptoms is often forgotten, note Alison J. Huang, MD, and Deborah Grady, MD, in their editorial.
 

A problem of conflation

“Many patients and clinicians conflate these two different indications,” they write.

The notion that the net harms of menopausal hormone therapy outweigh the benefits “is now widely adopted as a rationale for foregoing menopausal hormone therapy for symptomatic treatment,” even though “nonhormonal treatments that are as effective as menopausal hormone therapy have not yet been identified,” say Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady, both physicians at the University of California, San Francisco.

In addition, alternative, nonhormonal options for treating perimenopausal symptoms have not received the same level of scrutiny as hormonal treatment, they say.

“It is arguably problematic to avoid menopausal hormone therapy and favor potentially less effective treatments, when the longer-term implications of those treatments for health have not been evaluated,” Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady write in their editorial.

In short, during menopause, people are at risk of being “frightened away from considering using menopausal hormone therapy for distressing symptoms,” they say.

“We can’t speak to whether or how often clinicians might be conflating the role of hormone therapy in treating symptoms and preventing chronic conditions,” answered Dr. Mangione.

“We hope to ensure that health professionals know that hormone therapy is not a beneficial way to reduce the risk of chronic conditions such as heart disease, cancer, and strokes,” she added. The new recommendations are an effort to “raise awareness about the value of considering other safe and effective ways for people to reduce their risk of chronic health problems as they age.”
 

The issue of timing

Another critique offered by Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady in their editorial is that “the scientific and medical community should let go of the past,” and should no longer invest additional resources in “trying to parse out subsets of menopausal patients who may derive some preventive benefit from menopausal hormone therapy for a limited amount of time.”

But Dr. Mangione disagreed.

The USPSTF “calls for more research that can help us understand whether health outcomes – both benefits and harms – differ depending on a person’s age or when they started hormone therapy related to when they went through menopause,” she said.

Dr. Mangione also highlighted the need for additional research on whether the benefits and risks of menopausal hormone therapy vary across racial and ethnic groups.

USPSTF receives no commercial funding. Dr. Mangione, Dr. Huang, and Dr. Grady have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force moved forward their recommendations for using hormone therapy to prevent chronic conditions in postmenopausal women by keeping them the same.

The central message of the new recommendations, released on Nov. 1 as a statement published in JAMA, remains unchanged from the last update in 2017.

The message also remains simple: Don’t use hormone therapy for preventing chronic conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, and osteoporosis, or bone fracture.

The USPSTF summarized its recommendations in two brief statements: the group “recommends against the use of combined estrogen and progestin for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons” and “recommends against the use of estrogen alone for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons who have had a hysterectomy.”

This wording is identical to that used in the 2017 guidance (except it now refers to postmenopausal persons instead of specifically women). The recommendation against use of estrogen and progestin for prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal women was first made by the USPSTF in 2002.

An editorial accompanying the 2022 revision notes that the evidence cited by the USPSTF includes “only two additional, modest-sized trials” (that focused on the effects of hormone therapy on cognition and brain structure) compared with 2017, “as well as ancillary analyses of previous trials.”
 

A standard 5-year update

The 2022 revision and revisiting of the evidence base by the Task Force regarding the benefits and risks of postmenopausal hormone therapy occurred “as part of the Task Force’s standard approach, which includes updating each recommendation approximately every 5 years,” explained Carol M. Mangione, MD, who is USPSTF chair and chief of the division of general internal medicine and health services research at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“In our review we again found that while hormone therapy may reduce the risk of some conditions, it can also lead to serious harms such as an increase in the risk of blood clots and stroke,” Dr. Mangione said in an interview. “The harms cancel out any potential benefits overall.”

This new statement only applies to using menopausal hormone treatment for preventing chronic conditions in asymptomatic people but does not speak to using this treatment in managing people with perimenopausal symptoms such as hot flashes or vaginal dryness or treating people with premature or surgical menopause, Dr. Mangione highlighted.
 

No review for treating menopausal symptoms

“The Task Force encourages people who are experiencing symptoms of menopause to talk with their health care professional about the best treatment for them,” explained Dr. Mangione. “The Task Force did not review the evidence on the use of hormone therapy to treat symptoms of menopause.”

Osteoporosis and increased risk for bone fracture were among the conditions that accompany menopause reviewed by the USPSTF. The Task Force concluded that while “hormone therapy was associated with decreased risk of fractures,” after weighing the benefits and harms for preventing this condition, “there is no net benefit at the population level.”

This conclusion seems to contrast with the 2022 hormone therapy position statement of the North American Menopause Society (NAMS), released in July, which states: “For women aged younger than 60 years or who are within 10 years of menopause onset and have no contraindications, the benefit-risk ratio is favorable for treatment of bothersome vasomotor symptoms and prevention of bone loss.”
 

USPSTF, NAMS are ‘completely consistent’

However, Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, medical director of NAMS and director of the women’s health clinic at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said the new USPSTF recommendations “are completely consistent” with the recent NAMS statement.

“We are entirely aligned with the recommendation to use hormone therapy for management of menopausal symptoms and not for chronic disease prevention or as an anti-aging strategy,” Dr. Faubion commented in an interview.

Dr. Faubion also stressed that “menopausal hormone therapy remains the most effective treatment for menopausal symptoms,” and that “women should not be reflexively directed to other pharmacologic therapies for management of menopausal symptoms.”

The distinction the USPSTF makes between its recommendations against using hormone therapy to prevent chronic conditions and its deferral of comment on use of the same treatment to manage perimenopausal symptoms is often forgotten, note Alison J. Huang, MD, and Deborah Grady, MD, in their editorial.
 

A problem of conflation

“Many patients and clinicians conflate these two different indications,” they write.

The notion that the net harms of menopausal hormone therapy outweigh the benefits “is now widely adopted as a rationale for foregoing menopausal hormone therapy for symptomatic treatment,” even though “nonhormonal treatments that are as effective as menopausal hormone therapy have not yet been identified,” say Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady, both physicians at the University of California, San Francisco.

In addition, alternative, nonhormonal options for treating perimenopausal symptoms have not received the same level of scrutiny as hormonal treatment, they say.

“It is arguably problematic to avoid menopausal hormone therapy and favor potentially less effective treatments, when the longer-term implications of those treatments for health have not been evaluated,” Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady write in their editorial.

In short, during menopause, people are at risk of being “frightened away from considering using menopausal hormone therapy for distressing symptoms,” they say.

“We can’t speak to whether or how often clinicians might be conflating the role of hormone therapy in treating symptoms and preventing chronic conditions,” answered Dr. Mangione.

“We hope to ensure that health professionals know that hormone therapy is not a beneficial way to reduce the risk of chronic conditions such as heart disease, cancer, and strokes,” she added. The new recommendations are an effort to “raise awareness about the value of considering other safe and effective ways for people to reduce their risk of chronic health problems as they age.”
 

The issue of timing

Another critique offered by Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady in their editorial is that “the scientific and medical community should let go of the past,” and should no longer invest additional resources in “trying to parse out subsets of menopausal patients who may derive some preventive benefit from menopausal hormone therapy for a limited amount of time.”

But Dr. Mangione disagreed.

The USPSTF “calls for more research that can help us understand whether health outcomes – both benefits and harms – differ depending on a person’s age or when they started hormone therapy related to when they went through menopause,” she said.

Dr. Mangione also highlighted the need for additional research on whether the benefits and risks of menopausal hormone therapy vary across racial and ethnic groups.

USPSTF receives no commercial funding. Dr. Mangione, Dr. Huang, and Dr. Grady have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force moved forward their recommendations for using hormone therapy to prevent chronic conditions in postmenopausal women by keeping them the same.

The central message of the new recommendations, released on Nov. 1 as a statement published in JAMA, remains unchanged from the last update in 2017.

The message also remains simple: Don’t use hormone therapy for preventing chronic conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, and osteoporosis, or bone fracture.

The USPSTF summarized its recommendations in two brief statements: the group “recommends against the use of combined estrogen and progestin for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons” and “recommends against the use of estrogen alone for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons who have had a hysterectomy.”

This wording is identical to that used in the 2017 guidance (except it now refers to postmenopausal persons instead of specifically women). The recommendation against use of estrogen and progestin for prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal women was first made by the USPSTF in 2002.

An editorial accompanying the 2022 revision notes that the evidence cited by the USPSTF includes “only two additional, modest-sized trials” (that focused on the effects of hormone therapy on cognition and brain structure) compared with 2017, “as well as ancillary analyses of previous trials.”
 

A standard 5-year update

The 2022 revision and revisiting of the evidence base by the Task Force regarding the benefits and risks of postmenopausal hormone therapy occurred “as part of the Task Force’s standard approach, which includes updating each recommendation approximately every 5 years,” explained Carol M. Mangione, MD, who is USPSTF chair and chief of the division of general internal medicine and health services research at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“In our review we again found that while hormone therapy may reduce the risk of some conditions, it can also lead to serious harms such as an increase in the risk of blood clots and stroke,” Dr. Mangione said in an interview. “The harms cancel out any potential benefits overall.”

This new statement only applies to using menopausal hormone treatment for preventing chronic conditions in asymptomatic people but does not speak to using this treatment in managing people with perimenopausal symptoms such as hot flashes or vaginal dryness or treating people with premature or surgical menopause, Dr. Mangione highlighted.
 

No review for treating menopausal symptoms

“The Task Force encourages people who are experiencing symptoms of menopause to talk with their health care professional about the best treatment for them,” explained Dr. Mangione. “The Task Force did not review the evidence on the use of hormone therapy to treat symptoms of menopause.”

Osteoporosis and increased risk for bone fracture were among the conditions that accompany menopause reviewed by the USPSTF. The Task Force concluded that while “hormone therapy was associated with decreased risk of fractures,” after weighing the benefits and harms for preventing this condition, “there is no net benefit at the population level.”

This conclusion seems to contrast with the 2022 hormone therapy position statement of the North American Menopause Society (NAMS), released in July, which states: “For women aged younger than 60 years or who are within 10 years of menopause onset and have no contraindications, the benefit-risk ratio is favorable for treatment of bothersome vasomotor symptoms and prevention of bone loss.”
 

USPSTF, NAMS are ‘completely consistent’

However, Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, medical director of NAMS and director of the women’s health clinic at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said the new USPSTF recommendations “are completely consistent” with the recent NAMS statement.

“We are entirely aligned with the recommendation to use hormone therapy for management of menopausal symptoms and not for chronic disease prevention or as an anti-aging strategy,” Dr. Faubion commented in an interview.

Dr. Faubion also stressed that “menopausal hormone therapy remains the most effective treatment for menopausal symptoms,” and that “women should not be reflexively directed to other pharmacologic therapies for management of menopausal symptoms.”

The distinction the USPSTF makes between its recommendations against using hormone therapy to prevent chronic conditions and its deferral of comment on use of the same treatment to manage perimenopausal symptoms is often forgotten, note Alison J. Huang, MD, and Deborah Grady, MD, in their editorial.
 

A problem of conflation

“Many patients and clinicians conflate these two different indications,” they write.

The notion that the net harms of menopausal hormone therapy outweigh the benefits “is now widely adopted as a rationale for foregoing menopausal hormone therapy for symptomatic treatment,” even though “nonhormonal treatments that are as effective as menopausal hormone therapy have not yet been identified,” say Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady, both physicians at the University of California, San Francisco.

In addition, alternative, nonhormonal options for treating perimenopausal symptoms have not received the same level of scrutiny as hormonal treatment, they say.

“It is arguably problematic to avoid menopausal hormone therapy and favor potentially less effective treatments, when the longer-term implications of those treatments for health have not been evaluated,” Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady write in their editorial.

In short, during menopause, people are at risk of being “frightened away from considering using menopausal hormone therapy for distressing symptoms,” they say.

“We can’t speak to whether or how often clinicians might be conflating the role of hormone therapy in treating symptoms and preventing chronic conditions,” answered Dr. Mangione.

“We hope to ensure that health professionals know that hormone therapy is not a beneficial way to reduce the risk of chronic conditions such as heart disease, cancer, and strokes,” she added. The new recommendations are an effort to “raise awareness about the value of considering other safe and effective ways for people to reduce their risk of chronic health problems as they age.”
 

The issue of timing

Another critique offered by Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady in their editorial is that “the scientific and medical community should let go of the past,” and should no longer invest additional resources in “trying to parse out subsets of menopausal patients who may derive some preventive benefit from menopausal hormone therapy for a limited amount of time.”

But Dr. Mangione disagreed.

The USPSTF “calls for more research that can help us understand whether health outcomes – both benefits and harms – differ depending on a person’s age or when they started hormone therapy related to when they went through menopause,” she said.

Dr. Mangione also highlighted the need for additional research on whether the benefits and risks of menopausal hormone therapy vary across racial and ethnic groups.

USPSTF receives no commercial funding. Dr. Mangione, Dr. Huang, and Dr. Grady have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

MONTREAL – Children and young people with severe atopic dermatitis had a more rapid treatment response with ciclosporin, but more sustained disease control with methotrexate in the TREAT study, investigators reported at the annual meeting of the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis.

The findings are important, since many regulatory bodies require patients to have tried such first-line conventional systemic therapies before moving on to novel therapeutics, explained Carsten Flohr, MD, PhD, research and development lead at St John’s Institute of Dermatology, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust London.

“We don’t really have much pediatric trial data; very often the pediatric data that we have is buried in adult trials and when it comes to an adequately powered randomized controlled trial with conventional systemic medication in pediatric patients, we don’t have one – so we’re lacking that gold standard,” said Dr. Flohr, chair in dermatology and population health sciences at King’s College London.

In the TREAT trial, 103 patients with AD (mean age, 10 years) who had not responded to topical treatment, were randomly assigned to oral ciclosporin (4 mg/kg daily) or methotrexate (0.4 mg/kg weekly) for 36 weeks and then followed for another 24 weeks off therapy for the co-primary outcomes of change in objective Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (o-SCORAD) at 12 weeks, as well as time to first significant flare after treatment cessation, defined as returning to baseline o-SCORAD, or restarting a systemic treatment.

Secondary outcomes included disease severity and quality of life (QOL) measures, as well as safety. At baseline, the mean o-SCORAD was 46.81, with mean Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) and Patient Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) scores of 28.05 and 20.62 respectively. The mean Children’s Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI) score was 14.96.

Looking at change in eczema severity measured by o-SCORAD at 12 weeks, ciclosporin was superior to methotrexate, with a mean difference in o-SCORAD change of -5.69 (P =.01). For the co-primary endpoint of time to first significant flare during the 24 weeks after treatment cessation, “there was a trend toward more flare activity in the ciclosporin group, although with a hazard ratio of 1.55, this was statistically not significant,” Dr. Flohr said.

On a graph showing mean EASI scores from baseline through the 60-week study period, Dr. Flohr explained how the score first dropped more precipitously in patients treated with ciclosporin compared with those treated with methotrexate, reaching a statistically significant difference between the groups by 12 weeks (–3.13, P = .0145).

However, after that time, while the EASI score among those on methotrexate continued to drop, the ciclosporin score evened out, so that by 20 weeks, methotrexate EASI scores were better, and remained so until the end of treatment and further, out to 60 weeks (mean difference -6.36, P < .001). “The most interesting bit of this graph is [that] the curve is pointing downwards for methotrexate up to the 9-month point, suggesting these people had not reached their full therapeutic potential yet, whereas if you’re on ciclosporin you plateau and there’s not much additional improvement, if at all, and then people [on ciclosporin] start going up in their disease activity off therapy,” he said.

The same pattern was seen with all the other outcome measures, including o-SCORAD and POEM.

Quality of life significantly improved by about 8 points in both treatment groups, with no significant differences between groups, and this improvement was sustained through the 24 weeks following cessation of therapy. However, during this treatment-free phase, patients on methotrexate had fewer parent-reported flares compared with those on ciclosporin (mean 6.19 vs 5.40 flares, P =.0251), although there was no difference between groups in time to first flare.

Describing the treatment safety as “overall reassuring,” Dr. Flohr said there were slightly more nonserious adverse events in the methotrexate arm (407 vs. 369), with nausea occurring more often in this group (43.1% vs. 17.6%).

“I think we were seeing this clinically, but to see it in a clinical trial gives us more confidence in discussing with parents,” said session moderator Melinda Gooderham, MD, assistant professor at Queens University, Kingston, Ont., and medical director at the SKiN Centre for Dermatology in Peterborough.

What she also took away from the study was safety of these treatments. “The discontinuation rate was not different with either drug, so it’s not like ciclosporin works fast but all these people have problems and discontinue,” Dr. Gooderham told this news organization. “That’s also reassuring.”

Asked which treatment she prefers, Dr. Gooderham, a consultant physician at Peterborough Regional Health Centre, picked methotrexate “because of the lasting effect. But there are times when you may need more rapid control ... where I might choose ciclosporin first, but for me it’s maybe 90% methotrexate first, 10% ciclosporin.”

Dr. Flohr and Dr. Gooderham report no relevant financial relationships. The study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research.

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

MONTREAL – Children and young people with severe atopic dermatitis had a more rapid treatment response with ciclosporin, but more sustained disease control with methotrexate in the TREAT study, investigators reported at the annual meeting of the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis.

The findings are important, since many regulatory bodies require patients to have tried such first-line conventional systemic therapies before moving on to novel therapeutics, explained Carsten Flohr, MD, PhD, research and development lead at St John’s Institute of Dermatology, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust London.

“We don’t really have much pediatric trial data; very often the pediatric data that we have is buried in adult trials and when it comes to an adequately powered randomized controlled trial with conventional systemic medication in pediatric patients, we don’t have one – so we’re lacking that gold standard,” said Dr. Flohr, chair in dermatology and population health sciences at King’s College London.

In the TREAT trial, 103 patients with AD (mean age, 10 years) who had not responded to topical treatment, were randomly assigned to oral ciclosporin (4 mg/kg daily) or methotrexate (0.4 mg/kg weekly) for 36 weeks and then followed for another 24 weeks off therapy for the co-primary outcomes of change in objective Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (o-SCORAD) at 12 weeks, as well as time to first significant flare after treatment cessation, defined as returning to baseline o-SCORAD, or restarting a systemic treatment.

Secondary outcomes included disease severity and quality of life (QOL) measures, as well as safety. At baseline, the mean o-SCORAD was 46.81, with mean Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) and Patient Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) scores of 28.05 and 20.62 respectively. The mean Children’s Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI) score was 14.96.

Looking at change in eczema severity measured by o-SCORAD at 12 weeks, ciclosporin was superior to methotrexate, with a mean difference in o-SCORAD change of -5.69 (P =.01). For the co-primary endpoint of time to first significant flare during the 24 weeks after treatment cessation, “there was a trend toward more flare activity in the ciclosporin group, although with a hazard ratio of 1.55, this was statistically not significant,” Dr. Flohr said.

On a graph showing mean EASI scores from baseline through the 60-week study period, Dr. Flohr explained how the score first dropped more precipitously in patients treated with ciclosporin compared with those treated with methotrexate, reaching a statistically significant difference between the groups by 12 weeks (–3.13, P = .0145).

However, after that time, while the EASI score among those on methotrexate continued to drop, the ciclosporin score evened out, so that by 20 weeks, methotrexate EASI scores were better, and remained so until the end of treatment and further, out to 60 weeks (mean difference -6.36, P < .001). “The most interesting bit of this graph is [that] the curve is pointing downwards for methotrexate up to the 9-month point, suggesting these people had not reached their full therapeutic potential yet, whereas if you’re on ciclosporin you plateau and there’s not much additional improvement, if at all, and then people [on ciclosporin] start going up in their disease activity off therapy,” he said.

The same pattern was seen with all the other outcome measures, including o-SCORAD and POEM.

Quality of life significantly improved by about 8 points in both treatment groups, with no significant differences between groups, and this improvement was sustained through the 24 weeks following cessation of therapy. However, during this treatment-free phase, patients on methotrexate had fewer parent-reported flares compared with those on ciclosporin (mean 6.19 vs 5.40 flares, P =.0251), although there was no difference between groups in time to first flare.

Describing the treatment safety as “overall reassuring,” Dr. Flohr said there were slightly more nonserious adverse events in the methotrexate arm (407 vs. 369), with nausea occurring more often in this group (43.1% vs. 17.6%).

“I think we were seeing this clinically, but to see it in a clinical trial gives us more confidence in discussing with parents,” said session moderator Melinda Gooderham, MD, assistant professor at Queens University, Kingston, Ont., and medical director at the SKiN Centre for Dermatology in Peterborough.

What she also took away from the study was safety of these treatments. “The discontinuation rate was not different with either drug, so it’s not like ciclosporin works fast but all these people have problems and discontinue,” Dr. Gooderham told this news organization. “That’s also reassuring.”

Asked which treatment she prefers, Dr. Gooderham, a consultant physician at Peterborough Regional Health Centre, picked methotrexate “because of the lasting effect. But there are times when you may need more rapid control ... where I might choose ciclosporin first, but for me it’s maybe 90% methotrexate first, 10% ciclosporin.”

Dr. Flohr and Dr. Gooderham report no relevant financial relationships. The study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research.

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

MONTREAL – Children and young people with severe atopic dermatitis had a more rapid treatment response with ciclosporin, but more sustained disease control with methotrexate in the TREAT study, investigators reported at the annual meeting of the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis.

The findings are important, since many regulatory bodies require patients to have tried such first-line conventional systemic therapies before moving on to novel therapeutics, explained Carsten Flohr, MD, PhD, research and development lead at St John’s Institute of Dermatology, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust London.

“We don’t really have much pediatric trial data; very often the pediatric data that we have is buried in adult trials and when it comes to an adequately powered randomized controlled trial with conventional systemic medication in pediatric patients, we don’t have one – so we’re lacking that gold standard,” said Dr. Flohr, chair in dermatology and population health sciences at King’s College London.

In the TREAT trial, 103 patients with AD (mean age, 10 years) who had not responded to topical treatment, were randomly assigned to oral ciclosporin (4 mg/kg daily) or methotrexate (0.4 mg/kg weekly) for 36 weeks and then followed for another 24 weeks off therapy for the co-primary outcomes of change in objective Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (o-SCORAD) at 12 weeks, as well as time to first significant flare after treatment cessation, defined as returning to baseline o-SCORAD, or restarting a systemic treatment.

Secondary outcomes included disease severity and quality of life (QOL) measures, as well as safety. At baseline, the mean o-SCORAD was 46.81, with mean Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) and Patient Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) scores of 28.05 and 20.62 respectively. The mean Children’s Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI) score was 14.96.

Looking at change in eczema severity measured by o-SCORAD at 12 weeks, ciclosporin was superior to methotrexate, with a mean difference in o-SCORAD change of -5.69 (P =.01). For the co-primary endpoint of time to first significant flare during the 24 weeks after treatment cessation, “there was a trend toward more flare activity in the ciclosporin group, although with a hazard ratio of 1.55, this was statistically not significant,” Dr. Flohr said.

On a graph showing mean EASI scores from baseline through the 60-week study period, Dr. Flohr explained how the score first dropped more precipitously in patients treated with ciclosporin compared with those treated with methotrexate, reaching a statistically significant difference between the groups by 12 weeks (–3.13, P = .0145).

However, after that time, while the EASI score among those on methotrexate continued to drop, the ciclosporin score evened out, so that by 20 weeks, methotrexate EASI scores were better, and remained so until the end of treatment and further, out to 60 weeks (mean difference -6.36, P < .001). “The most interesting bit of this graph is [that] the curve is pointing downwards for methotrexate up to the 9-month point, suggesting these people had not reached their full therapeutic potential yet, whereas if you’re on ciclosporin you plateau and there’s not much additional improvement, if at all, and then people [on ciclosporin] start going up in their disease activity off therapy,” he said.

The same pattern was seen with all the other outcome measures, including o-SCORAD and POEM.

Quality of life significantly improved by about 8 points in both treatment groups, with no significant differences between groups, and this improvement was sustained through the 24 weeks following cessation of therapy. However, during this treatment-free phase, patients on methotrexate had fewer parent-reported flares compared with those on ciclosporin (mean 6.19 vs 5.40 flares, P =.0251), although there was no difference between groups in time to first flare.

Describing the treatment safety as “overall reassuring,” Dr. Flohr said there were slightly more nonserious adverse events in the methotrexate arm (407 vs. 369), with nausea occurring more often in this group (43.1% vs. 17.6%).

“I think we were seeing this clinically, but to see it in a clinical trial gives us more confidence in discussing with parents,” said session moderator Melinda Gooderham, MD, assistant professor at Queens University, Kingston, Ont., and medical director at the SKiN Centre for Dermatology in Peterborough.

What she also took away from the study was safety of these treatments. “The discontinuation rate was not different with either drug, so it’s not like ciclosporin works fast but all these people have problems and discontinue,” Dr. Gooderham told this news organization. “That’s also reassuring.”

Asked which treatment she prefers, Dr. Gooderham, a consultant physician at Peterborough Regional Health Centre, picked methotrexate “because of the lasting effect. But there are times when you may need more rapid control ... where I might choose ciclosporin first, but for me it’s maybe 90% methotrexate first, 10% ciclosporin.”

Dr. Flohr and Dr. Gooderham report no relevant financial relationships. The study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research.

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

Estimated travel time to abortion facilities in the United States has increased significantly since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, according to results from an original investigation published online in JAMA.

In the wake of the ruling, many clinics have closed and now 33.3% of females of reproductive age live more than an hour from an abortion facility, more than double the 14.6% who lived that far before the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization court ruling, the paper states.

A 2022 study found that when people live 50 miles or more from an abortion facility they “were more likely to still be seeking an abortion on a 4-week follow-up than those who lived closer to an abortion facility,” wrote the authors, led by Benjamin Rader, MPH, from the Computational Epidemiology Lab at Boston Children’s Hospital.

Of 1,134 abortion facilities in the United States, 749 were considered active before the ruling and 671 were considered active in a simulated post-Dobbs period.
 

More than 15 states have total or partial bans

The researchers accounted for the closure of abortion facilities in states with total bans or 6-week abortion bans, compared with the period before the ruling, “during which all facilities providing abortions in 2021 were considered active.” The authors noted that more than 15 states have such bans.

Researchers found median and mean travel times to abortion facilities were estimated to be 10.9 minutes (interquartile ratio, 4.3-32.4) and 27.8 (standard deviation, 42.0) minutes before the ruling and used a paired sample t test (P < .001) to estimate the increase to a median of 17.0 (IQR, 4.9-124.5) minutes and a mean 100.4 (SD, 161.5) minutes after the ruling.

The numbers “highlight the catastrophe in terms of where we are,” Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH, professor, obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Davis, said in an interview.

Behind those numbers, she said, are brick walls for people who can’t take off work to drive that far or can’t leave their responsibilities of care for dependents or don’t have a car or even a driver’s license. It also calculates only land travel (car or public transportation) and doesn’t capture the financial and logistical burdens for some to fly to other states.

Dr. Cansino serves on the board of the Society of Family Planning, which publishes #WeCount, a national reporting effort that attempts to capture the effect of the Dobbs decision on abortion access. In a report published Oct. 28, #WeCount stated the numbers show that since the decision, there were 5,270 fewer abortions in July and 5,400 fewer in August, for a total of 10,670 fewer people in the United States who had abortions in the 2 months.

For Dr. Cansino, the numbers are only one measure of the wider problem.

“If it affects one person, it’s really the spirit of the consequence,” she said. “It’s difficult to wrap your mind around these numbers but the bottom line is that someone other than the person experiencing this health issue is making a decision for them.

“You will see physicians leaving states,” she said, “because their hands are tied in giving care.”
 

Glimpse of future from Texas example

The experience of abortion restrictions in Texas, described in another original investigation published in JAMA, provides a window into what could happen as access to abortions continues to decrease.

Texas has banned abortions after detectable embryonic cardiac activity since Sept. 1, 2021. Researchers obtained data on 80,107 abortions performed between September 2020 and February 2022.

In the first month following implementation of the Texas law, SB-8, the number of abortions in Texas dropped by 50%, compared with September 2020, and many pregnant Texas residents traveled out of state for abortion care.

But out-of-state abortions didn’t fully offset the overall drop in facility-based abortions.

“This decrease in facility-based abortion care suggests that many Texas residents continued their pregnancies, traveled beyond a neighboring state, or self-managed their abortion,” the authors wrote.
 

Increased time comes with costs

Sarah W. Prager, MD, professor in obstetrics and gynecology at University of Washington, Seattle, and director of the family planning division, explained that the travel time has to be seen in addition to the time it takes to complete the procedure.

Depending on state law, an abortion may take more than one visit to a clinic, which may mean adding lodging costs and overnight hours, or taking time off work, or finding childcare.

“A typical time to be at a clinic is upwards of 6 hours,” Dr. Prager explained, including paperwork, counseling, consent, the procedure, and recovery. That time is growing as active clinics overbook with others closing, she noted.

“We already know that 75% of people getting abortions are economically burdened at baseline. Gas is super expensive so the farther they have to drive – if they have their own car – that’s going to be expensive,” she noted.

In Washington, she said, abortion access is centralized in the western part of the state and located primarily between Seattle and Olympia. Though Oregon to the south has some of the nation’s most supportive laws for abortion, the other surrounding states have restrictive laws.

People in Alaska, Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana all have restrictive access, she noted, so people seeking abortions from those states have long distances to drive to western Washington and Oregon.

“Even for people living in eastern Washington, they are sometimes driving hours to get abortion care,” she said. “We’re really looking at health care that is dictated by geography, not by evidence, medicine, or science.”

The study by Dr. White and colleagues was supported by grants from the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation and Collaborative for Gender + Reproductive Equity, as well as a center grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development awarded to the Population Research Center at the University of Texas at Austin. One coauthor reported receiving compensation from the University of Texas at Austin for providing data during the conduct of the study, as well as grants from Merck and Gynuity Health Projects and personal fees from Merck and Organon outside the submitted work; another reported being named plaintiff in the case Planned Parenthood of Montana v State of Montana, a lawsuit challenging abortion restrictions in that state. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Cansino and Dr. Prager reported no relevant financial relationships.

Estimated travel time to abortion facilities in the United States has increased significantly since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, according to results from an original investigation published online in JAMA.

In the wake of the ruling, many clinics have closed and now 33.3% of females of reproductive age live more than an hour from an abortion facility, more than double the 14.6% who lived that far before the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization court ruling, the paper states.

A 2022 study found that when people live 50 miles or more from an abortion facility they “were more likely to still be seeking an abortion on a 4-week follow-up than those who lived closer to an abortion facility,” wrote the authors, led by Benjamin Rader, MPH, from the Computational Epidemiology Lab at Boston Children’s Hospital.

Of 1,134 abortion facilities in the United States, 749 were considered active before the ruling and 671 were considered active in a simulated post-Dobbs period.
 

More than 15 states have total or partial bans

The researchers accounted for the closure of abortion facilities in states with total bans or 6-week abortion bans, compared with the period before the ruling, “during which all facilities providing abortions in 2021 were considered active.” The authors noted that more than 15 states have such bans.

Researchers found median and mean travel times to abortion facilities were estimated to be 10.9 minutes (interquartile ratio, 4.3-32.4) and 27.8 (standard deviation, 42.0) minutes before the ruling and used a paired sample t test (P < .001) to estimate the increase to a median of 17.0 (IQR, 4.9-124.5) minutes and a mean 100.4 (SD, 161.5) minutes after the ruling.

The numbers “highlight the catastrophe in terms of where we are,” Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH, professor, obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Davis, said in an interview.

Behind those numbers, she said, are brick walls for people who can’t take off work to drive that far or can’t leave their responsibilities of care for dependents or don’t have a car or even a driver’s license. It also calculates only land travel (car or public transportation) and doesn’t capture the financial and logistical burdens for some to fly to other states.

Dr. Cansino serves on the board of the Society of Family Planning, which publishes #WeCount, a national reporting effort that attempts to capture the effect of the Dobbs decision on abortion access. In a report published Oct. 28, #WeCount stated the numbers show that since the decision, there were 5,270 fewer abortions in July and 5,400 fewer in August, for a total of 10,670 fewer people in the United States who had abortions in the 2 months.

For Dr. Cansino, the numbers are only one measure of the wider problem.

“If it affects one person, it’s really the spirit of the consequence,” she said. “It’s difficult to wrap your mind around these numbers but the bottom line is that someone other than the person experiencing this health issue is making a decision for them.

“You will see physicians leaving states,” she said, “because their hands are tied in giving care.”
 

Glimpse of future from Texas example

The experience of abortion restrictions in Texas, described in another original investigation published in JAMA, provides a window into what could happen as access to abortions continues to decrease.

Texas has banned abortions after detectable embryonic cardiac activity since Sept. 1, 2021. Researchers obtained data on 80,107 abortions performed between September 2020 and February 2022.

In the first month following implementation of the Texas law, SB-8, the number of abortions in Texas dropped by 50%, compared with September 2020, and many pregnant Texas residents traveled out of state for abortion care.

But out-of-state abortions didn’t fully offset the overall drop in facility-based abortions.

“This decrease in facility-based abortion care suggests that many Texas residents continued their pregnancies, traveled beyond a neighboring state, or self-managed their abortion,” the authors wrote.
 

Increased time comes with costs

Sarah W. Prager, MD, professor in obstetrics and gynecology at University of Washington, Seattle, and director of the family planning division, explained that the travel time has to be seen in addition to the time it takes to complete the procedure.

Depending on state law, an abortion may take more than one visit to a clinic, which may mean adding lodging costs and overnight hours, or taking time off work, or finding childcare.

“A typical time to be at a clinic is upwards of 6 hours,” Dr. Prager explained, including paperwork, counseling, consent, the procedure, and recovery. That time is growing as active clinics overbook with others closing, she noted.

“We already know that 75% of people getting abortions are economically burdened at baseline. Gas is super expensive so the farther they have to drive – if they have their own car – that’s going to be expensive,” she noted.

In Washington, she said, abortion access is centralized in the western part of the state and located primarily between Seattle and Olympia. Though Oregon to the south has some of the nation’s most supportive laws for abortion, the other surrounding states have restrictive laws.

People in Alaska, Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana all have restrictive access, she noted, so people seeking abortions from those states have long distances to drive to western Washington and Oregon.

“Even for people living in eastern Washington, they are sometimes driving hours to get abortion care,” she said. “We’re really looking at health care that is dictated by geography, not by evidence, medicine, or science.”

The study by Dr. White and colleagues was supported by grants from the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation and Collaborative for Gender + Reproductive Equity, as well as a center grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development awarded to the Population Research Center at the University of Texas at Austin. One coauthor reported receiving compensation from the University of Texas at Austin for providing data during the conduct of the study, as well as grants from Merck and Gynuity Health Projects and personal fees from Merck and Organon outside the submitted work; another reported being named plaintiff in the case Planned Parenthood of Montana v State of Montana, a lawsuit challenging abortion restrictions in that state. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Cansino and Dr. Prager reported no relevant financial relationships.

Estimated travel time to abortion facilities in the United States has increased significantly since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, according to results from an original investigation published online in JAMA.

In the wake of the ruling, many clinics have closed and now 33.3% of females of reproductive age live more than an hour from an abortion facility, more than double the 14.6% who lived that far before the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization court ruling, the paper states.

A 2022 study found that when people live 50 miles or more from an abortion facility they “were more likely to still be seeking an abortion on a 4-week follow-up than those who lived closer to an abortion facility,” wrote the authors, led by Benjamin Rader, MPH, from the Computational Epidemiology Lab at Boston Children’s Hospital.

Of 1,134 abortion facilities in the United States, 749 were considered active before the ruling and 671 were considered active in a simulated post-Dobbs period.
 

More than 15 states have total or partial bans

The researchers accounted for the closure of abortion facilities in states with total bans or 6-week abortion bans, compared with the period before the ruling, “during which all facilities providing abortions in 2021 were considered active.” The authors noted that more than 15 states have such bans.

Researchers found median and mean travel times to abortion facilities were estimated to be 10.9 minutes (interquartile ratio, 4.3-32.4) and 27.8 (standard deviation, 42.0) minutes before the ruling and used a paired sample t test (P < .001) to estimate the increase to a median of 17.0 (IQR, 4.9-124.5) minutes and a mean 100.4 (SD, 161.5) minutes after the ruling.

The numbers “highlight the catastrophe in terms of where we are,” Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH, professor, obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Davis, said in an interview.

Behind those numbers, she said, are brick walls for people who can’t take off work to drive that far or can’t leave their responsibilities of care for dependents or don’t have a car or even a driver’s license. It also calculates only land travel (car or public transportation) and doesn’t capture the financial and logistical burdens for some to fly to other states.

Dr. Cansino serves on the board of the Society of Family Planning, which publishes #WeCount, a national reporting effort that attempts to capture the effect of the Dobbs decision on abortion access. In a report published Oct. 28, #WeCount stated the numbers show that since the decision, there were 5,270 fewer abortions in July and 5,400 fewer in August, for a total of 10,670 fewer people in the United States who had abortions in the 2 months.

For Dr. Cansino, the numbers are only one measure of the wider problem.

“If it affects one person, it’s really the spirit of the consequence,” she said. “It’s difficult to wrap your mind around these numbers but the bottom line is that someone other than the person experiencing this health issue is making a decision for them.

“You will see physicians leaving states,” she said, “because their hands are tied in giving care.”
 

Glimpse of future from Texas example

The experience of abortion restrictions in Texas, described in another original investigation published in JAMA, provides a window into what could happen as access to abortions continues to decrease.

Texas has banned abortions after detectable embryonic cardiac activity since Sept. 1, 2021. Researchers obtained data on 80,107 abortions performed between September 2020 and February 2022.

In the first month following implementation of the Texas law, SB-8, the number of abortions in Texas dropped by 50%, compared with September 2020, and many pregnant Texas residents traveled out of state for abortion care.

But out-of-state abortions didn’t fully offset the overall drop in facility-based abortions.

“This decrease in facility-based abortion care suggests that many Texas residents continued their pregnancies, traveled beyond a neighboring state, or self-managed their abortion,” the authors wrote.
 

Increased time comes with costs

Sarah W. Prager, MD, professor in obstetrics and gynecology at University of Washington, Seattle, and director of the family planning division, explained that the travel time has to be seen in addition to the time it takes to complete the procedure.

Depending on state law, an abortion may take more than one visit to a clinic, which may mean adding lodging costs and overnight hours, or taking time off work, or finding childcare.

“A typical time to be at a clinic is upwards of 6 hours,” Dr. Prager explained, including paperwork, counseling, consent, the procedure, and recovery. That time is growing as active clinics overbook with others closing, she noted.

“We already know that 75% of people getting abortions are economically burdened at baseline. Gas is super expensive so the farther they have to drive – if they have their own car – that’s going to be expensive,” she noted.

In Washington, she said, abortion access is centralized in the western part of the state and located primarily between Seattle and Olympia. Though Oregon to the south has some of the nation’s most supportive laws for abortion, the other surrounding states have restrictive laws.

People in Alaska, Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana all have restrictive access, she noted, so people seeking abortions from those states have long distances to drive to western Washington and Oregon.

“Even for people living in eastern Washington, they are sometimes driving hours to get abortion care,” she said. “We’re really looking at health care that is dictated by geography, not by evidence, medicine, or science.”

The study by Dr. White and colleagues was supported by grants from the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation and Collaborative for Gender + Reproductive Equity, as well as a center grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development awarded to the Population Research Center at the University of Texas at Austin. One coauthor reported receiving compensation from the University of Texas at Austin for providing data during the conduct of the study, as well as grants from Merck and Gynuity Health Projects and personal fees from Merck and Organon outside the submitted work; another reported being named plaintiff in the case Planned Parenthood of Montana v State of Montana, a lawsuit challenging abortion restrictions in that state. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Cansino and Dr. Prager reported no relevant financial relationships.