PARIS – France is boosting its vaccination campaign in response to the increase in cases of monkeypox. After a sluggish start, newly appointed French health minister François Braun has announced the release of 42,000 vaccine doses. At the same time, medical students will be able to lend a helping hand at vaccination sites. However, some experts have criticized the measures taken as being too lax to combat what the World Health Organization has designated a global health emergency.

For Benjamin Davido, MD, MSc, PhD, an infectious disease specialist at the Raymond-Poincaré Hospital (Paris Public Hospital Trust, AP-HP, Garches region), the risks of this disease have been minimized and the measures taken are not adequate, despite the ready availability of the tools needed to manage the epidemic. We must remain alert to the risks posed by this monkeypox epidemic, which seems different from the sporadic outbreaks that usually crop up in Central and West Africa, he said. Dr. Davido recently shared his opinions in an interview.

Question: What do you think about the monkeypox vaccination campaign currently underway in France?

Dr. Davido: It doesn’t go far enough, and I am surprised by the lack of a concrete and specific objective. The effects of the disease are being minimized, and we seem to be in limbo. It seems we have to wait until the fire is out of control before we can call the fire department. We should have been more reactive and taken a more drastic approach from the get-go. In France, as in other countries affected by this epidemic, we are still, unfortunately, in a phase of observation, reassuring ourselves that this will surely not become another pandemic, as that would be really bad luck.

Yet we find ourselves in an unprecedented situation: We have known about the disease in question for a long time, the target population has been identified, and we have a vaccine immediately available. So, we have all the tools and knowledge acquired from the COVID-19 pandemic at our disposal, yet we are choosing to wait and see. We have clearly underestimated the risks of failing after a stalled start to the vaccination campaign.

Question: What exactly are the risks, in your opinion?  Should we already be worried about how the epidemic is progressing?

Dr. Davido: The situation is definitely worrying. I personally am convinced that this disease will be the syphilis of the 21st century. Although the risk is low, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that this could be the start of a new pandemic. For the time being, its spread is limited to at-risk populations, mainly men who have sex with other men and who have multiple partners, which accounts for around 300,000 people in France. However, the risk for heterosexuals must not be minimized; we must not forget that this disease can also be transmitted through contact with an infected person and by respiratory droplets from people living in the same household. There have been recent cases of women and children infected with monkeypox. If monkeypox starts to spread in the community, rather than being a sexually transmitted infection, the epidemic could spread to the rest of the population. With the rise in cases, scientists are also concerned about transmission to animals. Monkeypox could become endemic like it is in Africa, where rodents are the main reservoir of the virus.

Question: What do we know about the dynamics of this epidemic?  What can be done to effectively improve the situation?

Dr. Davido: Experience gained from African countries affected by monkeypox, as well as from the spate of cases that occurred in the United States in 2003, has shown us that the epidemic can be controlled once the cases have been contained. It is hoped that further waves of the epidemic can be avoided, providing the monkeypox vaccine achieves its objectives.

But we need to give ourselves the means to do so. The expansion of the vaccination program to the most at-risk populations in early July was the right decision. We have seen that ring vaccination targeting close-contact cases does not work with monkeypox. The current problem is that this vaccine is nearly exclusively restricted to hospital settings. We are making the same mistakes as [we did] at the start of the COVID-19 epidemic. We don’t have the right infrastructure in place for this vaccination program. We need to get doctors, paramedics, pharmacists, etc., involved. And cut back on the red tape. After embracing digital procedures during COVID-19, we find ourselves having to complete paper copies of documents for every single person attending a vaccination site. It just doesn’t make sense!

Question: You highlighted the lack of a clear objective with this vaccination campaign. What should we be aiming for?

Dr. Davido: During the COVID-19 vaccination campaign, there was a set number of people to be vaccinated within a given time frame. The approach demanded a fast pace and a desired outcome. Yes, it was an ambitious target from the get-go, but it was one that we stuck to. Currently, no figure, no target, has been set for the monkeypox vaccination program. Ideally, we would have completed the vaccination campaign before the start of the new school year to limit new infections.

As it stands now, only 10% of the target population has received the vaccine. There is talk of the summer period not being favorable. Yet I remember that last year, the COVID-19 vaccination program was strengthened in the middle of August. If the monkeypox vaccination campaign is not given a boost by the end of the summer, we run the risk of encouraging transmission of the virus between close contacts when different groups mix after being on holiday at the start of the new school year. I think that, first and foremost, we must make general practitioners aware of the disease and train them in how to diagnose it so that patients can be isolated and vaccinated as quickly as possible.

Question: There has also been talk of increasing the set 28-day period between the two doses, or even getting rid of it entirely. Would this perhaps lead to better vaccine uptake?

Dr. Davido: The United Kingdom has chosen to give a single dose and recommends a second dose after exposure. I am not sure that this is the best strategy. Although the efficacy data are still limited, the results are not as good after a single dose. According to initial data from the French National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products (the ANSM), the rate of seroconversion after one dose rises from 10% to 56% on D28 in healthy volunteers, but is between 77% and 89% 2 weeks after the second dose administered on D28.

So, the second dose is needed, especially as immunological memory seems to drop 2 years after the first injection. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention proposes leaving 35 days between the two doses. I think this is a reasonable time frame. So, delaying the second dose makes administration of the first dose even easier because the second often fell in the middle of the holiday period and so we also save precious doses. If the time between doses is longer, we risk vaccinated individuals becoming lax and possibly being tempted to skip the “optional” booster or simply forgetting about it.

Question: Are people who have already had the smallpox vaccine better protected against monkeypox?

Dr. Davido: The efficacy of this vaccine against monkeypox is not perfect on a very long-term basis and, to be honest, we don’t really know the level of protection afforded by first-generation vaccines after 20 years. We must not forget that 20% of people infected with monkeypox were vaccinated against smallpox before mandatory vaccination for this disease was abolished [Editor’s note: The requirement of an initial dose of smallpox vaccine was lifted in 1979, once smallpox had been eradicated].

It is hoped that, as a minimum, this vaccine protects against serious illness. Yet in my department, we regularly see severe cases of monkeypox with widespread lesions in the over 45s, who are said to be vaccinated against smallpox.

Question: By comparison, is it likely that a third-generation vaccine would afford better protection against severe illness?

Dr. Davido: We still don’t have enough data or hindsight to assess the real-world impact of third-generation vaccines. This vaccine has a better tolerance profile than its predecessors, but we currently don’t know if it protects against severe forms of monkeypox. We also need to learn more about the disease causing the current epidemic, since it seems different from the sporadic outbreaks that usually crop up in Central and West Africa. The lesions seen are notably milder. The WHO has given this vaccine an efficacy level of 85% against infection by the monkeypox virus, but we must remain cautious: This figure is based on data from Africa. The epidemic in which we find ourselves is not the same. Overall, we must be wary of overly optimistic rhetoric around this new epidemic.

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

PARIS – France is boosting its vaccination campaign in response to the increase in cases of monkeypox. After a sluggish start, newly appointed French health minister François Braun has announced the release of 42,000 vaccine doses. At the same time, medical students will be able to lend a helping hand at vaccination sites. However, some experts have criticized the measures taken as being too lax to combat what the World Health Organization has designated a global health emergency.

For Benjamin Davido, MD, MSc, PhD, an infectious disease specialist at the Raymond-Poincaré Hospital (Paris Public Hospital Trust, AP-HP, Garches region), the risks of this disease have been minimized and the measures taken are not adequate, despite the ready availability of the tools needed to manage the epidemic. We must remain alert to the risks posed by this monkeypox epidemic, which seems different from the sporadic outbreaks that usually crop up in Central and West Africa, he said. Dr. Davido recently shared his opinions in an interview.

Question: What do you think about the monkeypox vaccination campaign currently underway in France?

Dr. Davido: It doesn’t go far enough, and I am surprised by the lack of a concrete and specific objective. The effects of the disease are being minimized, and we seem to be in limbo. It seems we have to wait until the fire is out of control before we can call the fire department. We should have been more reactive and taken a more drastic approach from the get-go. In France, as in other countries affected by this epidemic, we are still, unfortunately, in a phase of observation, reassuring ourselves that this will surely not become another pandemic, as that would be really bad luck.

Yet we find ourselves in an unprecedented situation: We have known about the disease in question for a long time, the target population has been identified, and we have a vaccine immediately available. So, we have all the tools and knowledge acquired from the COVID-19 pandemic at our disposal, yet we are choosing to wait and see. We have clearly underestimated the risks of failing after a stalled start to the vaccination campaign.

Question: What exactly are the risks, in your opinion?  Should we already be worried about how the epidemic is progressing?

Dr. Davido: The situation is definitely worrying. I personally am convinced that this disease will be the syphilis of the 21st century. Although the risk is low, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that this could be the start of a new pandemic. For the time being, its spread is limited to at-risk populations, mainly men who have sex with other men and who have multiple partners, which accounts for around 300,000 people in France. However, the risk for heterosexuals must not be minimized; we must not forget that this disease can also be transmitted through contact with an infected person and by respiratory droplets from people living in the same household. There have been recent cases of women and children infected with monkeypox. If monkeypox starts to spread in the community, rather than being a sexually transmitted infection, the epidemic could spread to the rest of the population. With the rise in cases, scientists are also concerned about transmission to animals. Monkeypox could become endemic like it is in Africa, where rodents are the main reservoir of the virus.

Question: What do we know about the dynamics of this epidemic?  What can be done to effectively improve the situation?

Dr. Davido: Experience gained from African countries affected by monkeypox, as well as from the spate of cases that occurred in the United States in 2003, has shown us that the epidemic can be controlled once the cases have been contained. It is hoped that further waves of the epidemic can be avoided, providing the monkeypox vaccine achieves its objectives.

But we need to give ourselves the means to do so. The expansion of the vaccination program to the most at-risk populations in early July was the right decision. We have seen that ring vaccination targeting close-contact cases does not work with monkeypox. The current problem is that this vaccine is nearly exclusively restricted to hospital settings. We are making the same mistakes as [we did] at the start of the COVID-19 epidemic. We don’t have the right infrastructure in place for this vaccination program. We need to get doctors, paramedics, pharmacists, etc., involved. And cut back on the red tape. After embracing digital procedures during COVID-19, we find ourselves having to complete paper copies of documents for every single person attending a vaccination site. It just doesn’t make sense!

Question: You highlighted the lack of a clear objective with this vaccination campaign. What should we be aiming for?

Dr. Davido: During the COVID-19 vaccination campaign, there was a set number of people to be vaccinated within a given time frame. The approach demanded a fast pace and a desired outcome. Yes, it was an ambitious target from the get-go, but it was one that we stuck to. Currently, no figure, no target, has been set for the monkeypox vaccination program. Ideally, we would have completed the vaccination campaign before the start of the new school year to limit new infections.

As it stands now, only 10% of the target population has received the vaccine. There is talk of the summer period not being favorable. Yet I remember that last year, the COVID-19 vaccination program was strengthened in the middle of August. If the monkeypox vaccination campaign is not given a boost by the end of the summer, we run the risk of encouraging transmission of the virus between close contacts when different groups mix after being on holiday at the start of the new school year. I think that, first and foremost, we must make general practitioners aware of the disease and train them in how to diagnose it so that patients can be isolated and vaccinated as quickly as possible.

Question: There has also been talk of increasing the set 28-day period between the two doses, or even getting rid of it entirely. Would this perhaps lead to better vaccine uptake?

Dr. Davido: The United Kingdom has chosen to give a single dose and recommends a second dose after exposure. I am not sure that this is the best strategy. Although the efficacy data are still limited, the results are not as good after a single dose. According to initial data from the French National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products (the ANSM), the rate of seroconversion after one dose rises from 10% to 56% on D28 in healthy volunteers, but is between 77% and 89% 2 weeks after the second dose administered on D28.

So, the second dose is needed, especially as immunological memory seems to drop 2 years after the first injection. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention proposes leaving 35 days between the two doses. I think this is a reasonable time frame. So, delaying the second dose makes administration of the first dose even easier because the second often fell in the middle of the holiday period and so we also save precious doses. If the time between doses is longer, we risk vaccinated individuals becoming lax and possibly being tempted to skip the “optional” booster or simply forgetting about it.

Question: Are people who have already had the smallpox vaccine better protected against monkeypox?

Dr. Davido: The efficacy of this vaccine against monkeypox is not perfect on a very long-term basis and, to be honest, we don’t really know the level of protection afforded by first-generation vaccines after 20 years. We must not forget that 20% of people infected with monkeypox were vaccinated against smallpox before mandatory vaccination for this disease was abolished [Editor’s note: The requirement of an initial dose of smallpox vaccine was lifted in 1979, once smallpox had been eradicated].

It is hoped that, as a minimum, this vaccine protects against serious illness. Yet in my department, we regularly see severe cases of monkeypox with widespread lesions in the over 45s, who are said to be vaccinated against smallpox.

Question: By comparison, is it likely that a third-generation vaccine would afford better protection against severe illness?

Dr. Davido: We still don’t have enough data or hindsight to assess the real-world impact of third-generation vaccines. This vaccine has a better tolerance profile than its predecessors, but we currently don’t know if it protects against severe forms of monkeypox. We also need to learn more about the disease causing the current epidemic, since it seems different from the sporadic outbreaks that usually crop up in Central and West Africa. The lesions seen are notably milder. The WHO has given this vaccine an efficacy level of 85% against infection by the monkeypox virus, but we must remain cautious: This figure is based on data from Africa. The epidemic in which we find ourselves is not the same. Overall, we must be wary of overly optimistic rhetoric around this new epidemic.

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

PARIS – France is boosting its vaccination campaign in response to the increase in cases of monkeypox. After a sluggish start, newly appointed French health minister François Braun has announced the release of 42,000 vaccine doses. At the same time, medical students will be able to lend a helping hand at vaccination sites. However, some experts have criticized the measures taken as being too lax to combat what the World Health Organization has designated a global health emergency.

For Benjamin Davido, MD, MSc, PhD, an infectious disease specialist at the Raymond-Poincaré Hospital (Paris Public Hospital Trust, AP-HP, Garches region), the risks of this disease have been minimized and the measures taken are not adequate, despite the ready availability of the tools needed to manage the epidemic. We must remain alert to the risks posed by this monkeypox epidemic, which seems different from the sporadic outbreaks that usually crop up in Central and West Africa, he said. Dr. Davido recently shared his opinions in an interview.

Question: What do you think about the monkeypox vaccination campaign currently underway in France?

Dr. Davido: It doesn’t go far enough, and I am surprised by the lack of a concrete and specific objective. The effects of the disease are being minimized, and we seem to be in limbo. It seems we have to wait until the fire is out of control before we can call the fire department. We should have been more reactive and taken a more drastic approach from the get-go. In France, as in other countries affected by this epidemic, we are still, unfortunately, in a phase of observation, reassuring ourselves that this will surely not become another pandemic, as that would be really bad luck.

Yet we find ourselves in an unprecedented situation: We have known about the disease in question for a long time, the target population has been identified, and we have a vaccine immediately available. So, we have all the tools and knowledge acquired from the COVID-19 pandemic at our disposal, yet we are choosing to wait and see. We have clearly underestimated the risks of failing after a stalled start to the vaccination campaign.

Question: What exactly are the risks, in your opinion?  Should we already be worried about how the epidemic is progressing?

Dr. Davido: The situation is definitely worrying. I personally am convinced that this disease will be the syphilis of the 21st century. Although the risk is low, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that this could be the start of a new pandemic. For the time being, its spread is limited to at-risk populations, mainly men who have sex with other men and who have multiple partners, which accounts for around 300,000 people in France. However, the risk for heterosexuals must not be minimized; we must not forget that this disease can also be transmitted through contact with an infected person and by respiratory droplets from people living in the same household. There have been recent cases of women and children infected with monkeypox. If monkeypox starts to spread in the community, rather than being a sexually transmitted infection, the epidemic could spread to the rest of the population. With the rise in cases, scientists are also concerned about transmission to animals. Monkeypox could become endemic like it is in Africa, where rodents are the main reservoir of the virus.

Question: What do we know about the dynamics of this epidemic?  What can be done to effectively improve the situation?

Dr. Davido: Experience gained from African countries affected by monkeypox, as well as from the spate of cases that occurred in the United States in 2003, has shown us that the epidemic can be controlled once the cases have been contained. It is hoped that further waves of the epidemic can be avoided, providing the monkeypox vaccine achieves its objectives.

But we need to give ourselves the means to do so. The expansion of the vaccination program to the most at-risk populations in early July was the right decision. We have seen that ring vaccination targeting close-contact cases does not work with monkeypox. The current problem is that this vaccine is nearly exclusively restricted to hospital settings. We are making the same mistakes as [we did] at the start of the COVID-19 epidemic. We don’t have the right infrastructure in place for this vaccination program. We need to get doctors, paramedics, pharmacists, etc., involved. And cut back on the red tape. After embracing digital procedures during COVID-19, we find ourselves having to complete paper copies of documents for every single person attending a vaccination site. It just doesn’t make sense!

Question: You highlighted the lack of a clear objective with this vaccination campaign. What should we be aiming for?

Dr. Davido: During the COVID-19 vaccination campaign, there was a set number of people to be vaccinated within a given time frame. The approach demanded a fast pace and a desired outcome. Yes, it was an ambitious target from the get-go, but it was one that we stuck to. Currently, no figure, no target, has been set for the monkeypox vaccination program. Ideally, we would have completed the vaccination campaign before the start of the new school year to limit new infections.

As it stands now, only 10% of the target population has received the vaccine. There is talk of the summer period not being favorable. Yet I remember that last year, the COVID-19 vaccination program was strengthened in the middle of August. If the monkeypox vaccination campaign is not given a boost by the end of the summer, we run the risk of encouraging transmission of the virus between close contacts when different groups mix after being on holiday at the start of the new school year. I think that, first and foremost, we must make general practitioners aware of the disease and train them in how to diagnose it so that patients can be isolated and vaccinated as quickly as possible.

Question: There has also been talk of increasing the set 28-day period between the two doses, or even getting rid of it entirely. Would this perhaps lead to better vaccine uptake?

Dr. Davido: The United Kingdom has chosen to give a single dose and recommends a second dose after exposure. I am not sure that this is the best strategy. Although the efficacy data are still limited, the results are not as good after a single dose. According to initial data from the French National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products (the ANSM), the rate of seroconversion after one dose rises from 10% to 56% on D28 in healthy volunteers, but is between 77% and 89% 2 weeks after the second dose administered on D28.

So, the second dose is needed, especially as immunological memory seems to drop 2 years after the first injection. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention proposes leaving 35 days between the two doses. I think this is a reasonable time frame. So, delaying the second dose makes administration of the first dose even easier because the second often fell in the middle of the holiday period and so we also save precious doses. If the time between doses is longer, we risk vaccinated individuals becoming lax and possibly being tempted to skip the “optional” booster or simply forgetting about it.

Question: Are people who have already had the smallpox vaccine better protected against monkeypox?

Dr. Davido: The efficacy of this vaccine against monkeypox is not perfect on a very long-term basis and, to be honest, we don’t really know the level of protection afforded by first-generation vaccines after 20 years. We must not forget that 20% of people infected with monkeypox were vaccinated against smallpox before mandatory vaccination for this disease was abolished [Editor’s note: The requirement of an initial dose of smallpox vaccine was lifted in 1979, once smallpox had been eradicated].

It is hoped that, as a minimum, this vaccine protects against serious illness. Yet in my department, we regularly see severe cases of monkeypox with widespread lesions in the over 45s, who are said to be vaccinated against smallpox.

Question: By comparison, is it likely that a third-generation vaccine would afford better protection against severe illness?

Dr. Davido: We still don’t have enough data or hindsight to assess the real-world impact of third-generation vaccines. This vaccine has a better tolerance profile than its predecessors, but we currently don’t know if it protects against severe forms of monkeypox. We also need to learn more about the disease causing the current epidemic, since it seems different from the sporadic outbreaks that usually crop up in Central and West Africa. The lesions seen are notably milder. The WHO has given this vaccine an efficacy level of 85% against infection by the monkeypox virus, but we must remain cautious: This figure is based on data from Africa. The epidemic in which we find ourselves is not the same. Overall, we must be wary of overly optimistic rhetoric around this new epidemic.

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

Thursday night

It was 9 o’clock at night when my phone rang. I didn’t recognize the number but decided to answer it anyway. It was my doctor.

“Chase, I got your labs back and you have a critically low level. I spoke with someone at the hospital, I think I know what is happening, but I need you to go to the pharmacy right now and get a medicine.” She explained further and as I listened electric currents ran through my thighs until I could barely feel my legs.

“I’m so sorry, Chase. I missed it. It was low the last time we did your labs 9 months ago, and I missed it.”

In disbelief, I continued to listen as she instructed me about the next steps I was to take and prepared me for what was to come the next day.

“If you notice any changes overnight, go straight to the ED.”

My chest tingled and I could barely breathe. My mind struggled to comprehend what was happening. I looked at my husband sitting close by on the couch. He looked concerned. I tuned back in and heard her say: “Is your husband there? Can I talk to him?”

“Yes,” is all I could manage, and I handed him the phone. I sat while he listened and asked his questions. My breathing came back under my control, my legs felt wiry, and restlessness set in. “I have to get out of here,” I thought. “I have to go and pick up this medicine.”
 

Monday afternoon

I am sitting across from a PGY3 resident I have been treating since his intern year, as part of his treatment plan for managing a chronic mental illness that began in medical school. Earlier in the day, I received an urgent message from him requesting an emergency appointment.

Within a few minutes of sitting down, the story from his weekend call shift tumbled out of him. His speech became pressured, and his eyes welled with tears as he recounted in detail the steps he had taken to care for a very sick patient overnight.

“I missed it.” The dam broke and he sat sobbing in front of me, his body trembling.

I sat silently across from him. Willing him to breathe.

In time, his breathing came back under his control, and he slowly regained his composure. He continued: “I got the imaging, and I missed a bleed.”
 

Failure and shame

I can recall memorable moments from my training when I came to understand that what I initially perceived to be a mistake was instead part of the work. An example from our practice involves a patient whom I was comanaging with her primary care provider (PCP). She was not doing well following a critical work event. When I met with her after the event, she admitted having thoughts of suicide, refused a voluntary inpatient admission, and would not have met criteria for an involuntary admission. My hands were tied.

Together we created a plan to keep her safe, which included paging her PCP after hours if needed. I told her PCP before leaving that night that he might hear from her and that if she reached out, she would require hospitalization.

I arrived at work the following day, and her PCP shared with me that our patient had overdosed on medication, paged him, and was admitted to the unit.

He seemed forlorn.

I was both relieved by the news and confused by his reaction. I had hoped that she would choose a higher level of care than what we could provide her as an outpatient. I said: “This is good. She followed the plan.”

Her overdose was, of course, not part of the plan. She was struggling with several internal conflicts, including having mixed feelings about coming into the hospital; but, when the critical moment happened and she was faced with a decision to call for help or possibly die, she chose to call her PCP and have him paged as we had talked about.

I looked at her PCP. “You helped get her to where she needed to be.”

In the years of working side by side with medically trained colleagues, I have time and again needed to reframe for them that what they perceive to be a “failure” or a “crisis” is often a catalyst for change. The patient I comanaged with the PCP was a highly skilled caregiver and, as such, had been having a hard time asking for help. The hospitalization that her PCP facilitated allowed her to receive the care she needed and created an opportunity for family and friends to show up for her. Their support fed her, and she only made gains from that point on.

My training had taught me that respecting a patient’s autonomy was of the utmost importance. This instills confidence in patients as the authority in their lives. For a clinician to do this, a certain amount of helplessness must be tolerated. As I became better at identifying these moments of helplessness, feelings of failure and shame transformed.
 

Medical error

Sitting across from the PGY3 resident who I had met with weekly for the past 3 years, I thought about his error.

I thought about my phone call 4 nights earlier. My doctor was called at home by a lab technician, who never met their patients but was simply following protocol and alerted my doctor to the worsening number that she should have been aware of 9 months earlier.

Just like my doctor’s lapse of attention, my patient’s error was not a moment of helplessness to be tolerated. These were mistakes, and there was no way around it.

“People make mistakes.” I said simply.

We sat silently for a time.

I don’t remember who broke the silence. The conversation that followed was centered on our humanity and our capability for both compassion and fallibility. Afterward, I wondered who my doctor confided in and hoped she had a similar conversation.

Dr. Levesque is a clinical psychologist and clinical assistant professor of psychiatry at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., where she also serves on the Committee for a Respectful Learning Environment.

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

Thursday night

It was 9 o’clock at night when my phone rang. I didn’t recognize the number but decided to answer it anyway. It was my doctor.

“Chase, I got your labs back and you have a critically low level. I spoke with someone at the hospital, I think I know what is happening, but I need you to go to the pharmacy right now and get a medicine.” She explained further and as I listened electric currents ran through my thighs until I could barely feel my legs.

“I’m so sorry, Chase. I missed it. It was low the last time we did your labs 9 months ago, and I missed it.”

In disbelief, I continued to listen as she instructed me about the next steps I was to take and prepared me for what was to come the next day.

“If you notice any changes overnight, go straight to the ED.”

My chest tingled and I could barely breathe. My mind struggled to comprehend what was happening. I looked at my husband sitting close by on the couch. He looked concerned. I tuned back in and heard her say: “Is your husband there? Can I talk to him?”

“Yes,” is all I could manage, and I handed him the phone. I sat while he listened and asked his questions. My breathing came back under my control, my legs felt wiry, and restlessness set in. “I have to get out of here,” I thought. “I have to go and pick up this medicine.”
 

Monday afternoon

I am sitting across from a PGY3 resident I have been treating since his intern year, as part of his treatment plan for managing a chronic mental illness that began in medical school. Earlier in the day, I received an urgent message from him requesting an emergency appointment.

Within a few minutes of sitting down, the story from his weekend call shift tumbled out of him. His speech became pressured, and his eyes welled with tears as he recounted in detail the steps he had taken to care for a very sick patient overnight.

“I missed it.” The dam broke and he sat sobbing in front of me, his body trembling.

I sat silently across from him. Willing him to breathe.

In time, his breathing came back under his control, and he slowly regained his composure. He continued: “I got the imaging, and I missed a bleed.”
 

Failure and shame

I can recall memorable moments from my training when I came to understand that what I initially perceived to be a mistake was instead part of the work. An example from our practice involves a patient whom I was comanaging with her primary care provider (PCP). She was not doing well following a critical work event. When I met with her after the event, she admitted having thoughts of suicide, refused a voluntary inpatient admission, and would not have met criteria for an involuntary admission. My hands were tied.

Together we created a plan to keep her safe, which included paging her PCP after hours if needed. I told her PCP before leaving that night that he might hear from her and that if she reached out, she would require hospitalization.

I arrived at work the following day, and her PCP shared with me that our patient had overdosed on medication, paged him, and was admitted to the unit.

He seemed forlorn.

I was both relieved by the news and confused by his reaction. I had hoped that she would choose a higher level of care than what we could provide her as an outpatient. I said: “This is good. She followed the plan.”

Her overdose was, of course, not part of the plan. She was struggling with several internal conflicts, including having mixed feelings about coming into the hospital; but, when the critical moment happened and she was faced with a decision to call for help or possibly die, she chose to call her PCP and have him paged as we had talked about.

I looked at her PCP. “You helped get her to where she needed to be.”

In the years of working side by side with medically trained colleagues, I have time and again needed to reframe for them that what they perceive to be a “failure” or a “crisis” is often a catalyst for change. The patient I comanaged with the PCP was a highly skilled caregiver and, as such, had been having a hard time asking for help. The hospitalization that her PCP facilitated allowed her to receive the care she needed and created an opportunity for family and friends to show up for her. Their support fed her, and she only made gains from that point on.

My training had taught me that respecting a patient’s autonomy was of the utmost importance. This instills confidence in patients as the authority in their lives. For a clinician to do this, a certain amount of helplessness must be tolerated. As I became better at identifying these moments of helplessness, feelings of failure and shame transformed.
 

Medical error

Sitting across from the PGY3 resident who I had met with weekly for the past 3 years, I thought about his error.

I thought about my phone call 4 nights earlier. My doctor was called at home by a lab technician, who never met their patients but was simply following protocol and alerted my doctor to the worsening number that she should have been aware of 9 months earlier.

Just like my doctor’s lapse of attention, my patient’s error was not a moment of helplessness to be tolerated. These were mistakes, and there was no way around it.

“People make mistakes.” I said simply.

We sat silently for a time.

I don’t remember who broke the silence. The conversation that followed was centered on our humanity and our capability for both compassion and fallibility. Afterward, I wondered who my doctor confided in and hoped she had a similar conversation.

Dr. Levesque is a clinical psychologist and clinical assistant professor of psychiatry at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., where she also serves on the Committee for a Respectful Learning Environment.

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

Thursday night

It was 9 o’clock at night when my phone rang. I didn’t recognize the number but decided to answer it anyway. It was my doctor.

“Chase, I got your labs back and you have a critically low level. I spoke with someone at the hospital, I think I know what is happening, but I need you to go to the pharmacy right now and get a medicine.” She explained further and as I listened electric currents ran through my thighs until I could barely feel my legs.

“I’m so sorry, Chase. I missed it. It was low the last time we did your labs 9 months ago, and I missed it.”

In disbelief, I continued to listen as she instructed me about the next steps I was to take and prepared me for what was to come the next day.

“If you notice any changes overnight, go straight to the ED.”

My chest tingled and I could barely breathe. My mind struggled to comprehend what was happening. I looked at my husband sitting close by on the couch. He looked concerned. I tuned back in and heard her say: “Is your husband there? Can I talk to him?”

“Yes,” is all I could manage, and I handed him the phone. I sat while he listened and asked his questions. My breathing came back under my control, my legs felt wiry, and restlessness set in. “I have to get out of here,” I thought. “I have to go and pick up this medicine.”
 

Monday afternoon

I am sitting across from a PGY3 resident I have been treating since his intern year, as part of his treatment plan for managing a chronic mental illness that began in medical school. Earlier in the day, I received an urgent message from him requesting an emergency appointment.

Within a few minutes of sitting down, the story from his weekend call shift tumbled out of him. His speech became pressured, and his eyes welled with tears as he recounted in detail the steps he had taken to care for a very sick patient overnight.

“I missed it.” The dam broke and he sat sobbing in front of me, his body trembling.

I sat silently across from him. Willing him to breathe.

In time, his breathing came back under his control, and he slowly regained his composure. He continued: “I got the imaging, and I missed a bleed.”
 

Failure and shame

I can recall memorable moments from my training when I came to understand that what I initially perceived to be a mistake was instead part of the work. An example from our practice involves a patient whom I was comanaging with her primary care provider (PCP). She was not doing well following a critical work event. When I met with her after the event, she admitted having thoughts of suicide, refused a voluntary inpatient admission, and would not have met criteria for an involuntary admission. My hands were tied.

Together we created a plan to keep her safe, which included paging her PCP after hours if needed. I told her PCP before leaving that night that he might hear from her and that if she reached out, she would require hospitalization.

I arrived at work the following day, and her PCP shared with me that our patient had overdosed on medication, paged him, and was admitted to the unit.

He seemed forlorn.

I was both relieved by the news and confused by his reaction. I had hoped that she would choose a higher level of care than what we could provide her as an outpatient. I said: “This is good. She followed the plan.”

Her overdose was, of course, not part of the plan. She was struggling with several internal conflicts, including having mixed feelings about coming into the hospital; but, when the critical moment happened and she was faced with a decision to call for help or possibly die, she chose to call her PCP and have him paged as we had talked about.

I looked at her PCP. “You helped get her to where she needed to be.”

In the years of working side by side with medically trained colleagues, I have time and again needed to reframe for them that what they perceive to be a “failure” or a “crisis” is often a catalyst for change. The patient I comanaged with the PCP was a highly skilled caregiver and, as such, had been having a hard time asking for help. The hospitalization that her PCP facilitated allowed her to receive the care she needed and created an opportunity for family and friends to show up for her. Their support fed her, and she only made gains from that point on.

My training had taught me that respecting a patient’s autonomy was of the utmost importance. This instills confidence in patients as the authority in their lives. For a clinician to do this, a certain amount of helplessness must be tolerated. As I became better at identifying these moments of helplessness, feelings of failure and shame transformed.
 

Medical error

Sitting across from the PGY3 resident who I had met with weekly for the past 3 years, I thought about his error.

I thought about my phone call 4 nights earlier. My doctor was called at home by a lab technician, who never met their patients but was simply following protocol and alerted my doctor to the worsening number that she should have been aware of 9 months earlier.

Just like my doctor’s lapse of attention, my patient’s error was not a moment of helplessness to be tolerated. These were mistakes, and there was no way around it.

“People make mistakes.” I said simply.

We sat silently for a time.

I don’t remember who broke the silence. The conversation that followed was centered on our humanity and our capability for both compassion and fallibility. Afterward, I wondered who my doctor confided in and hoped she had a similar conversation.

Dr. Levesque is a clinical psychologist and clinical assistant professor of psychiatry at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., where she also serves on the Committee for a Respectful Learning Environment.

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

New research suggests that regular physical activity can help lower the risk of COVID-19 infection and its severity, with a weekly tally of 150 minutes of moderate, or 75 minutes of vigorous, physical activity affording the best protection.

“Our findings highlight the protective effects of engaging in sufficient physical activity as a public health strategy, with potential benefits to reduce the risk of severe COVID-19,” say Antonio García-Hermoso, PhD, Public University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain, and colleagues.

“Regular physical activity seemed to be related to a lower risk of COVID-19 infection, Dr. García-Hermoso said in an interview. “There is evidence that regular physical activity might contribute to a more effective immune response, providing enhanced protective immunity to infections, which could explain the relationship between exercise consistency with COVID-19 infection.”

Regular exercise may also help to boost the body’s anti-inflammatory responses, as well as cardiorespiratory and muscular fitness, all of which may explain its beneficial effects on COVID-19 severity, the researchers say.

The study was published online in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.
 

Strong protection from COVID?

A growing body of evidence suggests that increased physical activity may modulate the course of COVID-19 infection and reduce the risk of poor outcomes. The new analysis is the first to systematically evaluate and pool data on the effect of regular physical activity on COVID-19 outcomes.

The findings are based on data from 16 studies with over 1.8 million adults (53% women, mean age 53 years).

Individuals who included regular physical activity in their weekly routine had an 11% lower risk for infection with SARS-CoV-2 (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.84-0.95), compared with inactive peers.

The physically active adults also had a 36% (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.54-0.76) lower risk of being hospitalized, a 44% (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.58-0.77) lower risk for severe COVID-19 illness, and a 43% (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.46-0.71) lower risk of dying from COVID-19 than their inactive peers.

The greatest protective effect occurs with achieving at least 500 metabolic equivalent of task (MET) minutes per week of physical activity – equivalent to 150 minutes of moderate-intensity or 75 min of vigorous-intensity physical activity per week – with no added benefit beyond this level.

The researchers caution that the analysis included observational studies, differing study designs, subjective assessments of physical activity levels, and concerned only the Beta and Delta variants of SARS-CoV-2, not Omicron.

Despite these limitations, the researchers say their findings “may help guide physicians and health care policymakers in making recommendations and developing guidelines with respect to the degree of physical activity that can help reduce the risk of infectivity, hospitalization, severity, and mortality of COVID-19 at both the individual and the population level, especially in high-risk patients.”
 

Helpful, but not a panacea

Reached for comment, Sean Heffron, MD, a preventive cardiologist and assistant professor of medicine at NYU Langone Health, New York, said the study “supports the well-established nonlinear association of increasing physical activity with adverse outcomes from a diverse array of diseases, including infectious diseases, such as COVID-19.”

The observation is not particularly surprising, he said.

“It is as I would suspect. They compiled data from a large number of studies published over the past several years that all had consistent findings,” Dr. Heffron said.

“The take-away from a public health standpoint is that being physically active improves health in myriad ways. That being said, it is not a panacea, so additional measures (masking, vaccinations, etc.) are important for everyone,” he said.

Also weighing in, Joseph Herrera, DO, chair of the department of rehabilitation for Mount Sinai Health System, New York, said, “If you are physically fit, your body is more resilient and better prepared to handle the stressors of COVID or any other disease process.”

For now, however, the question of whether physical fitness is actually protective against COVID remains unclear. “I’m just not sure right now,” Dr. Herrera said in an interview.

He said he has treated athletes in professional sports – including the National Football League and Major League Baseball – and some of them have had long COVID and have not returned to play. “These are athletes at the peak of fitness and their career.”

Nonetheless, Dr. Herrera said a good public health message in general is to stay fit or get fit.

“That’s something I preach all the time,” he told this news organization.

Dr. García-Hermoso agreed. “In contrast to the vast majority of drugs, exercise is free of adverse effects. It’s time to consider exercise as medicine. It’s never too late to start being physically active.”

The study had no specific funding. Dr. García-Hermoso, Dr. Heffron, and Dr. Herrera have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

New research suggests that regular physical activity can help lower the risk of COVID-19 infection and its severity, with a weekly tally of 150 minutes of moderate, or 75 minutes of vigorous, physical activity affording the best protection.

“Our findings highlight the protective effects of engaging in sufficient physical activity as a public health strategy, with potential benefits to reduce the risk of severe COVID-19,” say Antonio García-Hermoso, PhD, Public University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain, and colleagues.

“Regular physical activity seemed to be related to a lower risk of COVID-19 infection, Dr. García-Hermoso said in an interview. “There is evidence that regular physical activity might contribute to a more effective immune response, providing enhanced protective immunity to infections, which could explain the relationship between exercise consistency with COVID-19 infection.”

Regular exercise may also help to boost the body’s anti-inflammatory responses, as well as cardiorespiratory and muscular fitness, all of which may explain its beneficial effects on COVID-19 severity, the researchers say.

The study was published online in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.
 

Strong protection from COVID?

A growing body of evidence suggests that increased physical activity may modulate the course of COVID-19 infection and reduce the risk of poor outcomes. The new analysis is the first to systematically evaluate and pool data on the effect of regular physical activity on COVID-19 outcomes.

The findings are based on data from 16 studies with over 1.8 million adults (53% women, mean age 53 years).

Individuals who included regular physical activity in their weekly routine had an 11% lower risk for infection with SARS-CoV-2 (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.84-0.95), compared with inactive peers.

The physically active adults also had a 36% (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.54-0.76) lower risk of being hospitalized, a 44% (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.58-0.77) lower risk for severe COVID-19 illness, and a 43% (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.46-0.71) lower risk of dying from COVID-19 than their inactive peers.

The greatest protective effect occurs with achieving at least 500 metabolic equivalent of task (MET) minutes per week of physical activity – equivalent to 150 minutes of moderate-intensity or 75 min of vigorous-intensity physical activity per week – with no added benefit beyond this level.

The researchers caution that the analysis included observational studies, differing study designs, subjective assessments of physical activity levels, and concerned only the Beta and Delta variants of SARS-CoV-2, not Omicron.

Despite these limitations, the researchers say their findings “may help guide physicians and health care policymakers in making recommendations and developing guidelines with respect to the degree of physical activity that can help reduce the risk of infectivity, hospitalization, severity, and mortality of COVID-19 at both the individual and the population level, especially in high-risk patients.”
 

Helpful, but not a panacea

Reached for comment, Sean Heffron, MD, a preventive cardiologist and assistant professor of medicine at NYU Langone Health, New York, said the study “supports the well-established nonlinear association of increasing physical activity with adverse outcomes from a diverse array of diseases, including infectious diseases, such as COVID-19.”

The observation is not particularly surprising, he said.

“It is as I would suspect. They compiled data from a large number of studies published over the past several years that all had consistent findings,” Dr. Heffron said.

“The take-away from a public health standpoint is that being physically active improves health in myriad ways. That being said, it is not a panacea, so additional measures (masking, vaccinations, etc.) are important for everyone,” he said.

Also weighing in, Joseph Herrera, DO, chair of the department of rehabilitation for Mount Sinai Health System, New York, said, “If you are physically fit, your body is more resilient and better prepared to handle the stressors of COVID or any other disease process.”

For now, however, the question of whether physical fitness is actually protective against COVID remains unclear. “I’m just not sure right now,” Dr. Herrera said in an interview.

He said he has treated athletes in professional sports – including the National Football League and Major League Baseball – and some of them have had long COVID and have not returned to play. “These are athletes at the peak of fitness and their career.”

Nonetheless, Dr. Herrera said a good public health message in general is to stay fit or get fit.

“That’s something I preach all the time,” he told this news organization.

Dr. García-Hermoso agreed. “In contrast to the vast majority of drugs, exercise is free of adverse effects. It’s time to consider exercise as medicine. It’s never too late to start being physically active.”

The study had no specific funding. Dr. García-Hermoso, Dr. Heffron, and Dr. Herrera have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

New research suggests that regular physical activity can help lower the risk of COVID-19 infection and its severity, with a weekly tally of 150 minutes of moderate, or 75 minutes of vigorous, physical activity affording the best protection.

“Our findings highlight the protective effects of engaging in sufficient physical activity as a public health strategy, with potential benefits to reduce the risk of severe COVID-19,” say Antonio García-Hermoso, PhD, Public University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain, and colleagues.

“Regular physical activity seemed to be related to a lower risk of COVID-19 infection, Dr. García-Hermoso said in an interview. “There is evidence that regular physical activity might contribute to a more effective immune response, providing enhanced protective immunity to infections, which could explain the relationship between exercise consistency with COVID-19 infection.”

Regular exercise may also help to boost the body’s anti-inflammatory responses, as well as cardiorespiratory and muscular fitness, all of which may explain its beneficial effects on COVID-19 severity, the researchers say.

The study was published online in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.
 

Strong protection from COVID?

A growing body of evidence suggests that increased physical activity may modulate the course of COVID-19 infection and reduce the risk of poor outcomes. The new analysis is the first to systematically evaluate and pool data on the effect of regular physical activity on COVID-19 outcomes.

The findings are based on data from 16 studies with over 1.8 million adults (53% women, mean age 53 years).

Individuals who included regular physical activity in their weekly routine had an 11% lower risk for infection with SARS-CoV-2 (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.84-0.95), compared with inactive peers.

The physically active adults also had a 36% (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.54-0.76) lower risk of being hospitalized, a 44% (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.58-0.77) lower risk for severe COVID-19 illness, and a 43% (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.46-0.71) lower risk of dying from COVID-19 than their inactive peers.

The greatest protective effect occurs with achieving at least 500 metabolic equivalent of task (MET) minutes per week of physical activity – equivalent to 150 minutes of moderate-intensity or 75 min of vigorous-intensity physical activity per week – with no added benefit beyond this level.

The researchers caution that the analysis included observational studies, differing study designs, subjective assessments of physical activity levels, and concerned only the Beta and Delta variants of SARS-CoV-2, not Omicron.

Despite these limitations, the researchers say their findings “may help guide physicians and health care policymakers in making recommendations and developing guidelines with respect to the degree of physical activity that can help reduce the risk of infectivity, hospitalization, severity, and mortality of COVID-19 at both the individual and the population level, especially in high-risk patients.”
 

Helpful, but not a panacea

Reached for comment, Sean Heffron, MD, a preventive cardiologist and assistant professor of medicine at NYU Langone Health, New York, said the study “supports the well-established nonlinear association of increasing physical activity with adverse outcomes from a diverse array of diseases, including infectious diseases, such as COVID-19.”

The observation is not particularly surprising, he said.

“It is as I would suspect. They compiled data from a large number of studies published over the past several years that all had consistent findings,” Dr. Heffron said.

“The take-away from a public health standpoint is that being physically active improves health in myriad ways. That being said, it is not a panacea, so additional measures (masking, vaccinations, etc.) are important for everyone,” he said.

Also weighing in, Joseph Herrera, DO, chair of the department of rehabilitation for Mount Sinai Health System, New York, said, “If you are physically fit, your body is more resilient and better prepared to handle the stressors of COVID or any other disease process.”

For now, however, the question of whether physical fitness is actually protective against COVID remains unclear. “I’m just not sure right now,” Dr. Herrera said in an interview.

He said he has treated athletes in professional sports – including the National Football League and Major League Baseball – and some of them have had long COVID and have not returned to play. “These are athletes at the peak of fitness and their career.”

Nonetheless, Dr. Herrera said a good public health message in general is to stay fit or get fit.

“That’s something I preach all the time,” he told this news organization.

Dr. García-Hermoso agreed. “In contrast to the vast majority of drugs, exercise is free of adverse effects. It’s time to consider exercise as medicine. It’s never too late to start being physically active.”

The study had no specific funding. Dr. García-Hermoso, Dr. Heffron, and Dr. Herrera have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Liver transplantation has the opportunity to cure both localized HCC as well as underlying liver cirrhosis. Donor organ shortage has led to the implementation of the Milan criteria as a way to identify patients whose tumor burden is low enough to predict a good outcome. Downstaging liver cancer to fit within Milan criteria has been controversial.

Tabrizian and colleagues undertook a retrospective cohort analysis of 2645 adult patients with HCC who underwent liver transplant. Out of those, 2122 patients always had disease that was within the Milan criteria, 341 patients had HCC that was downstaged to fit within the Milan criteria, and 182 patients had HCC that was outside the Milan criteria at the time of liver transplantation. The authors report that the 10-year post-transplant survival and recurrence rates were 61.5% and 13.3%, respectively, in those always within the Milan criteria, 52.1% and 20.6% among those whose disease was downstaged, and 43.3% and 41.1% in those whose disease was never downstaged. Characteristics that predicted recurrence after downstaging were tumor size > 7 cm at diagnosis (odds ratio [OR] 2.62; 95% CI 1.20-5.75; P = .02), more than three tumors at diagnosis (OR 2.34; 95% CI 1.22-4.50; P = .01), and alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) response ≥ 20 ng/mL with < 50% improvement from maximum AFP before transplantation (OR 1.99; 95% CI 1.14-3.46; P = .02). Additionally, patients with recurrent tumors that were surgically resected had improved 5-year post-recurrence survival (31.6% vs 7.3%; P < .001). The conclusion was that the national downstaging policies were valid and should continue.

For patients who have unresectable HCC, systemic therapy is the mainstay of treatment. Peng and colleagues reported the results of the LAUNCH phase 3 clinical trial that randomized patients to receive lenvatinib alone or lenvatinib plus transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). Out of 338 patients, 170 received lenvatinib plus TACE. Unsurprisingly, the response rate was higher with the combination (54.1% vs 25.0%; P < .001); however, so was the median overall survival (17.8 vs 11.5 months; hazard ratio 0.45; P < .001), and median progression-free survival (10.6 vs 6.4 months; hazard ratio 0.43; P < .001). The investigators concluded that the addition of TACE to lenvatinib had manageable toxicities, improved clinical outcomes, and could be used as a potential first-line treatment for some patients with unresectable HCC.

Finally, in patients whose HCC progressed after a single TACE treatment, the question remains whether repeated TACE is worthwhile. Zhao and colleagues retrospectively reviewed the outcomes of 94 patients who underwent at least one TACE. Of these, 28 (29.8%) had a response to the first TACE, and these patients tended to have a longer OS compared with nonresponders (36.7 vs 21.5 months; P = .071). Of the 43 initial nonresponders who underwent a second TACE, 15 of 43 (34.9%) achieved a response and had an improved median overall survival (47.8 v. 13.6 months; P = .01), suggesting that repeat TACE may offer a benefit to some patients, even after no response to the initial treatment.

Liver transplantation has the opportunity to cure both localized HCC as well as underlying liver cirrhosis. Donor organ shortage has led to the implementation of the Milan criteria as a way to identify patients whose tumor burden is low enough to predict a good outcome. Downstaging liver cancer to fit within Milan criteria has been controversial.

Tabrizian and colleagues undertook a retrospective cohort analysis of 2645 adult patients with HCC who underwent liver transplant. Out of those, 2122 patients always had disease that was within the Milan criteria, 341 patients had HCC that was downstaged to fit within the Milan criteria, and 182 patients had HCC that was outside the Milan criteria at the time of liver transplantation. The authors report that the 10-year post-transplant survival and recurrence rates were 61.5% and 13.3%, respectively, in those always within the Milan criteria, 52.1% and 20.6% among those whose disease was downstaged, and 43.3% and 41.1% in those whose disease was never downstaged. Characteristics that predicted recurrence after downstaging were tumor size > 7 cm at diagnosis (odds ratio [OR] 2.62; 95% CI 1.20-5.75; P = .02), more than three tumors at diagnosis (OR 2.34; 95% CI 1.22-4.50; P = .01), and alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) response ≥ 20 ng/mL with < 50% improvement from maximum AFP before transplantation (OR 1.99; 95% CI 1.14-3.46; P = .02). Additionally, patients with recurrent tumors that were surgically resected had improved 5-year post-recurrence survival (31.6% vs 7.3%; P < .001). The conclusion was that the national downstaging policies were valid and should continue.

For patients who have unresectable HCC, systemic therapy is the mainstay of treatment. Peng and colleagues reported the results of the LAUNCH phase 3 clinical trial that randomized patients to receive lenvatinib alone or lenvatinib plus transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). Out of 338 patients, 170 received lenvatinib plus TACE. Unsurprisingly, the response rate was higher with the combination (54.1% vs 25.0%; P < .001); however, so was the median overall survival (17.8 vs 11.5 months; hazard ratio 0.45; P < .001), and median progression-free survival (10.6 vs 6.4 months; hazard ratio 0.43; P < .001). The investigators concluded that the addition of TACE to lenvatinib had manageable toxicities, improved clinical outcomes, and could be used as a potential first-line treatment for some patients with unresectable HCC.

Finally, in patients whose HCC progressed after a single TACE treatment, the question remains whether repeated TACE is worthwhile. Zhao and colleagues retrospectively reviewed the outcomes of 94 patients who underwent at least one TACE. Of these, 28 (29.8%) had a response to the first TACE, and these patients tended to have a longer OS compared with nonresponders (36.7 vs 21.5 months; P = .071). Of the 43 initial nonresponders who underwent a second TACE, 15 of 43 (34.9%) achieved a response and had an improved median overall survival (47.8 v. 13.6 months; P = .01), suggesting that repeat TACE may offer a benefit to some patients, even after no response to the initial treatment.

Liver transplantation has the opportunity to cure both localized HCC as well as underlying liver cirrhosis. Donor organ shortage has led to the implementation of the Milan criteria as a way to identify patients whose tumor burden is low enough to predict a good outcome. Downstaging liver cancer to fit within Milan criteria has been controversial.

Tabrizian and colleagues undertook a retrospective cohort analysis of 2645 adult patients with HCC who underwent liver transplant. Out of those, 2122 patients always had disease that was within the Milan criteria, 341 patients had HCC that was downstaged to fit within the Milan criteria, and 182 patients had HCC that was outside the Milan criteria at the time of liver transplantation. The authors report that the 10-year post-transplant survival and recurrence rates were 61.5% and 13.3%, respectively, in those always within the Milan criteria, 52.1% and 20.6% among those whose disease was downstaged, and 43.3% and 41.1% in those whose disease was never downstaged. Characteristics that predicted recurrence after downstaging were tumor size > 7 cm at diagnosis (odds ratio [OR] 2.62; 95% CI 1.20-5.75; P = .02), more than three tumors at diagnosis (OR 2.34; 95% CI 1.22-4.50; P = .01), and alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) response ≥ 20 ng/mL with < 50% improvement from maximum AFP before transplantation (OR 1.99; 95% CI 1.14-3.46; P = .02). Additionally, patients with recurrent tumors that were surgically resected had improved 5-year post-recurrence survival (31.6% vs 7.3%; P < .001). The conclusion was that the national downstaging policies were valid and should continue.

For patients who have unresectable HCC, systemic therapy is the mainstay of treatment. Peng and colleagues reported the results of the LAUNCH phase 3 clinical trial that randomized patients to receive lenvatinib alone or lenvatinib plus transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). Out of 338 patients, 170 received lenvatinib plus TACE. Unsurprisingly, the response rate was higher with the combination (54.1% vs 25.0%; P < .001); however, so was the median overall survival (17.8 vs 11.5 months; hazard ratio 0.45; P < .001), and median progression-free survival (10.6 vs 6.4 months; hazard ratio 0.43; P < .001). The investigators concluded that the addition of TACE to lenvatinib had manageable toxicities, improved clinical outcomes, and could be used as a potential first-line treatment for some patients with unresectable HCC.

Finally, in patients whose HCC progressed after a single TACE treatment, the question remains whether repeated TACE is worthwhile. Zhao and colleagues retrospectively reviewed the outcomes of 94 patients who underwent at least one TACE. Of these, 28 (29.8%) had a response to the first TACE, and these patients tended to have a longer OS compared with nonresponders (36.7 vs 21.5 months; P = .071). Of the 43 initial nonresponders who underwent a second TACE, 15 of 43 (34.9%) achieved a response and had an improved median overall survival (47.8 v. 13.6 months; P = .01), suggesting that repeat TACE may offer a benefit to some patients, even after no response to the initial treatment.

Researchers in France have discovered monkeypox virus in anal samples of men with no symptoms of the disease, advancing the possibility that asymptomatic carriers may be hidden drivers of the global outbreak.

The findings, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, follow a similar, non–peer-reviewed report from Belgium. Researchers in both studies tested swabs for monkeypox in men who have sex with men. These swabs had been collected for routine STI screening.

It’s unclear whether asymptomatic individuals who test positive for monkeypox can spread the virus, the French team wrote. But if so, public health strategies to vaccinate those with known exposure “may not be sufficient to contain spread.”

In an editorial accompanying their paper, Stuart Isaacs, MD, associate professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said it “raises the question of whether asymptomatic or subclinical infections are contributing to the current worldwide outbreak.”

Historically, transmission of monkeypox and its close relative, smallpox, was thought to be greatest when a rash was present, Dr. Isaacs wrote. “Long chains of human-to-human transmission were rare” with monkeypox.

That’s changed with the current outbreak, which was first detected in May. On Aug. 17, the World Health Organization reported more than 35,000 cases in 92 countries, with 12 deaths.
 

Research methods

For the French study, researchers conducted polymerase chain reaction tests on 200 anorectal swabs from asymptomatic individuals that had been collected from June 5 to July 11 in order to screen for gonorrhea and chlamydia. Of those, 13 (6.5%) were positive for monkeypox.

During the study period, STI testing had been suspended in individuals with monkeypox symptoms because of safety concerns, the researchers reported.

The research team contacted the 13 monkeypox-positive patients and advised them to limit sexual activity for 21 days following their test and notify recent sexual partners. None reported having developed symptoms, but two subsequently returned to the clinic with symptoms – one had an anal rash and the other a sore throat.

In the Belgian report, posted publicly on June 21 as a preprint, 3 of 224 anal samples collected for STI screening in May tested positive for monkeypox. All three of the men who tested positive said they did not have any symptoms in the weeks before and after the sample was taken.

At follow-up testing, 21-37 days after the initial samples were taken, all patients who had previously tested positive were negative. This was “likely as a consequence of spontaneous clearance of the infection,” the authors of that paper wrote.
 

Clinical implications of findings are uncertain

Monica Gandhi, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview that the clinical implications of the findings are uncertain because it’s not known how much viral transmission results from asymptomatic individuals.

Nevertheless, Dr. Gandhi said that “vaccinating all gay men for monkeypox who will accept the vaccine is prudent,” compared with a less aggressive strategy of only vaccinating those with known exposure, which is called ring vaccination. That way, “we can be assured to provide immunity to large swaths of the at-risk population.”

Dr. Gandhi said that movement toward mass vaccination of gay men is occurring in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia, despite limited vaccine supply.

She added that, although monkeypox has been concentrated in communities of men who have sex with men, “anyone with multiple sexual partners should be vaccinated given the data.”

However, a WHO official recently cautioned that reports of breakthrough infections in individuals who were vaccinated against monkeypox constitute a reminder that “vaccine is not a silver bullet.”
 

Non-vaccine interventions are also needed

Other experts stressed the need for nonvaccine interventions.

In his editorial, Dr. Isaacs said an “expanded” ring vaccination strategy in communities of high risk is likely needed, but ultimately the outbreak will only be controlled if vaccination is accompanied by other measures such as identifying and isolating cases, making treatment available, and educating individuals about how to reduce their risk.

Aileen Marty, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at Florida International University, Miami, said in an interview that the new evidence makes it “incredibly important” to inform people that they might be infected by a sex partner even if that person does not have telltale lesions.

Dr. Marty said she has been advising men who have sex with men to “reduce or eliminate situations in which they find themselves with multiple anonymous individuals.”

Although most individuals recover from monkeypox, the disease can lead to hospitalization, disfigurement, blindness, and even death, Dr. Marty noted, adding that monkeypox is “absolutely a disease to avoid.”

Authors of the French study reported financial relationships with Gilead Sciences, Viiv Healthcare, MSD, AstraZeneca, Theratechnologies, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, and bioMérieux. Dr. Isaacs reported grants from the Department of Veterans Affairs and the National Institutes of Health and royalties from UpToDate. Dr. Gandhi and Dr. Marty reported no relevant financial interests.

Researchers in France have discovered monkeypox virus in anal samples of men with no symptoms of the disease, advancing the possibility that asymptomatic carriers may be hidden drivers of the global outbreak.

The findings, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, follow a similar, non–peer-reviewed report from Belgium. Researchers in both studies tested swabs for monkeypox in men who have sex with men. These swabs had been collected for routine STI screening.

It’s unclear whether asymptomatic individuals who test positive for monkeypox can spread the virus, the French team wrote. But if so, public health strategies to vaccinate those with known exposure “may not be sufficient to contain spread.”

In an editorial accompanying their paper, Stuart Isaacs, MD, associate professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said it “raises the question of whether asymptomatic or subclinical infections are contributing to the current worldwide outbreak.”

Historically, transmission of monkeypox and its close relative, smallpox, was thought to be greatest when a rash was present, Dr. Isaacs wrote. “Long chains of human-to-human transmission were rare” with monkeypox.

That’s changed with the current outbreak, which was first detected in May. On Aug. 17, the World Health Organization reported more than 35,000 cases in 92 countries, with 12 deaths.
 

Research methods

For the French study, researchers conducted polymerase chain reaction tests on 200 anorectal swabs from asymptomatic individuals that had been collected from June 5 to July 11 in order to screen for gonorrhea and chlamydia. Of those, 13 (6.5%) were positive for monkeypox.

During the study period, STI testing had been suspended in individuals with monkeypox symptoms because of safety concerns, the researchers reported.

The research team contacted the 13 monkeypox-positive patients and advised them to limit sexual activity for 21 days following their test and notify recent sexual partners. None reported having developed symptoms, but two subsequently returned to the clinic with symptoms – one had an anal rash and the other a sore throat.

In the Belgian report, posted publicly on June 21 as a preprint, 3 of 224 anal samples collected for STI screening in May tested positive for monkeypox. All three of the men who tested positive said they did not have any symptoms in the weeks before and after the sample was taken.

At follow-up testing, 21-37 days after the initial samples were taken, all patients who had previously tested positive were negative. This was “likely as a consequence of spontaneous clearance of the infection,” the authors of that paper wrote.
 

Clinical implications of findings are uncertain

Monica Gandhi, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview that the clinical implications of the findings are uncertain because it’s not known how much viral transmission results from asymptomatic individuals.

Nevertheless, Dr. Gandhi said that “vaccinating all gay men for monkeypox who will accept the vaccine is prudent,” compared with a less aggressive strategy of only vaccinating those with known exposure, which is called ring vaccination. That way, “we can be assured to provide immunity to large swaths of the at-risk population.”

Dr. Gandhi said that movement toward mass vaccination of gay men is occurring in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia, despite limited vaccine supply.

She added that, although monkeypox has been concentrated in communities of men who have sex with men, “anyone with multiple sexual partners should be vaccinated given the data.”

However, a WHO official recently cautioned that reports of breakthrough infections in individuals who were vaccinated against monkeypox constitute a reminder that “vaccine is not a silver bullet.”
 

Non-vaccine interventions are also needed

Other experts stressed the need for nonvaccine interventions.

In his editorial, Dr. Isaacs said an “expanded” ring vaccination strategy in communities of high risk is likely needed, but ultimately the outbreak will only be controlled if vaccination is accompanied by other measures such as identifying and isolating cases, making treatment available, and educating individuals about how to reduce their risk.

Aileen Marty, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at Florida International University, Miami, said in an interview that the new evidence makes it “incredibly important” to inform people that they might be infected by a sex partner even if that person does not have telltale lesions.

Dr. Marty said she has been advising men who have sex with men to “reduce or eliminate situations in which they find themselves with multiple anonymous individuals.”

Although most individuals recover from monkeypox, the disease can lead to hospitalization, disfigurement, blindness, and even death, Dr. Marty noted, adding that monkeypox is “absolutely a disease to avoid.”

Authors of the French study reported financial relationships with Gilead Sciences, Viiv Healthcare, MSD, AstraZeneca, Theratechnologies, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, and bioMérieux. Dr. Isaacs reported grants from the Department of Veterans Affairs and the National Institutes of Health and royalties from UpToDate. Dr. Gandhi and Dr. Marty reported no relevant financial interests.

Researchers in France have discovered monkeypox virus in anal samples of men with no symptoms of the disease, advancing the possibility that asymptomatic carriers may be hidden drivers of the global outbreak.

The findings, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, follow a similar, non–peer-reviewed report from Belgium. Researchers in both studies tested swabs for monkeypox in men who have sex with men. These swabs had been collected for routine STI screening.

It’s unclear whether asymptomatic individuals who test positive for monkeypox can spread the virus, the French team wrote. But if so, public health strategies to vaccinate those with known exposure “may not be sufficient to contain spread.”

In an editorial accompanying their paper, Stuart Isaacs, MD, associate professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said it “raises the question of whether asymptomatic or subclinical infections are contributing to the current worldwide outbreak.”

Historically, transmission of monkeypox and its close relative, smallpox, was thought to be greatest when a rash was present, Dr. Isaacs wrote. “Long chains of human-to-human transmission were rare” with monkeypox.

That’s changed with the current outbreak, which was first detected in May. On Aug. 17, the World Health Organization reported more than 35,000 cases in 92 countries, with 12 deaths.
 

Research methods

For the French study, researchers conducted polymerase chain reaction tests on 200 anorectal swabs from asymptomatic individuals that had been collected from June 5 to July 11 in order to screen for gonorrhea and chlamydia. Of those, 13 (6.5%) were positive for monkeypox.

During the study period, STI testing had been suspended in individuals with monkeypox symptoms because of safety concerns, the researchers reported.

The research team contacted the 13 monkeypox-positive patients and advised them to limit sexual activity for 21 days following their test and notify recent sexual partners. None reported having developed symptoms, but two subsequently returned to the clinic with symptoms – one had an anal rash and the other a sore throat.

In the Belgian report, posted publicly on June 21 as a preprint, 3 of 224 anal samples collected for STI screening in May tested positive for monkeypox. All three of the men who tested positive said they did not have any symptoms in the weeks before and after the sample was taken.

At follow-up testing, 21-37 days after the initial samples were taken, all patients who had previously tested positive were negative. This was “likely as a consequence of spontaneous clearance of the infection,” the authors of that paper wrote.
 

Clinical implications of findings are uncertain

Monica Gandhi, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview that the clinical implications of the findings are uncertain because it’s not known how much viral transmission results from asymptomatic individuals.

Nevertheless, Dr. Gandhi said that “vaccinating all gay men for monkeypox who will accept the vaccine is prudent,” compared with a less aggressive strategy of only vaccinating those with known exposure, which is called ring vaccination. That way, “we can be assured to provide immunity to large swaths of the at-risk population.”

Dr. Gandhi said that movement toward mass vaccination of gay men is occurring in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia, despite limited vaccine supply.

She added that, although monkeypox has been concentrated in communities of men who have sex with men, “anyone with multiple sexual partners should be vaccinated given the data.”

However, a WHO official recently cautioned that reports of breakthrough infections in individuals who were vaccinated against monkeypox constitute a reminder that “vaccine is not a silver bullet.”
 

Non-vaccine interventions are also needed

Other experts stressed the need for nonvaccine interventions.

In his editorial, Dr. Isaacs said an “expanded” ring vaccination strategy in communities of high risk is likely needed, but ultimately the outbreak will only be controlled if vaccination is accompanied by other measures such as identifying and isolating cases, making treatment available, and educating individuals about how to reduce their risk.

Aileen Marty, MD, a professor of infectious diseases at Florida International University, Miami, said in an interview that the new evidence makes it “incredibly important” to inform people that they might be infected by a sex partner even if that person does not have telltale lesions.

Dr. Marty said she has been advising men who have sex with men to “reduce or eliminate situations in which they find themselves with multiple anonymous individuals.”

Although most individuals recover from monkeypox, the disease can lead to hospitalization, disfigurement, blindness, and even death, Dr. Marty noted, adding that monkeypox is “absolutely a disease to avoid.”

Authors of the French study reported financial relationships with Gilead Sciences, Viiv Healthcare, MSD, AstraZeneca, Theratechnologies, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, and bioMérieux. Dr. Isaacs reported grants from the Department of Veterans Affairs and the National Institutes of Health and royalties from UpToDate. Dr. Gandhi and Dr. Marty reported no relevant financial interests.

Polyneuropathy (PNP) remains a common comorbidity among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and better screening strategies are needed to identify the condition and improve patients’ quality of life, according to authors of a recent review.

“Recent advances demonstrate that the relationship between COPD and the nervous system is extensive, and patients are at increased risk of stroke, dementia, depression, and other neurological and psychiatric conditions, even after controlling for the main confounding risk factors, such as age and smoking,” write Irina Odajiu, MD, of Colentina Clinical Hospital, Bucharest, Romania, and colleagues. However, data on the relationship between COPD and peripheral nervous system pathology are limited.

PNP is distinct from peripheral neuropathy and neuropathy, the researchers emphasize.

“Polyneuropathy implies a homogeneous process affecting peripheral nerves, specifically distal nerves, more severely than proximal ones,” while peripheral neuropathy refers to any disorder of the peripheral nervous system, they explain.

In an article published in Respiratory Medicine, the authors summarize the latest data on the association between COPD and polyneuropathy. They reviewed data from 21 studies published between 1981 and 2021. All studies included adults with COPD. The mean age of the patients was 55-65 years.

Peripheral neuropathy represents a significant comorbidity among patients with COPD. The percentage of cases of peripheral neuropathy among patients in the study populations ranged from 15% to 93.8%. Of these cases, the majority were of axonal sensory polyneuropathy. In most of the studies, the neuropathy affected the lower limbs more than the upper limbs.

“Additionally, in most presented studies, peripheral neuropathy correlated with disease duration and hypoxemia severity; the longer the duration and the more severe hypoxia, the more severe peripheral neuropathy was,” the researchers note.

Overall, potential predisposing factors for PNP among patients with COPD (in addition to chronic hypoxemia) included older age, poor nutrition, systemic inflammation, COPD medications, smoking, and increased partial pressure of carbon dioxide (hypercapnia).

Several strategies for managing peripheral neuropathy for patients with COPD were described. Prophylaxis options include neuroprotection with hormones such as progesterone, neuronal growth factors, and corticosteroids, although none have shown high levels of effectiveness, the researchers write. Topical treatment with muscarinic antagonists has shown some potential and may be a practical therapeutic choice, they say. Oxygen support, including hyperbaric oxygen therapy, has demonstrated healing of diabetic leg ulcers associated with PNP and has led to improvements in pain-related symptoms and quality-of-life scores, they add.

Although PNP is often present in patients with COPD, no association between COPD severity and PNP has been determined, the researchers write in their discussion section.

“Moreover, the current data do not indicate a relationship between COPD stages, GOLD classification, or degree of obstruction and PNP,” they say.

The data support screening of all COPD patients for PNP, both clinically and with electrodiagnostic studies, despite the absence of current specific COPD-related PNP screening tools, they write.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Polyneuropathy (PNP) remains a common comorbidity among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and better screening strategies are needed to identify the condition and improve patients’ quality of life, according to authors of a recent review.

“Recent advances demonstrate that the relationship between COPD and the nervous system is extensive, and patients are at increased risk of stroke, dementia, depression, and other neurological and psychiatric conditions, even after controlling for the main confounding risk factors, such as age and smoking,” write Irina Odajiu, MD, of Colentina Clinical Hospital, Bucharest, Romania, and colleagues. However, data on the relationship between COPD and peripheral nervous system pathology are limited.

PNP is distinct from peripheral neuropathy and neuropathy, the researchers emphasize.

“Polyneuropathy implies a homogeneous process affecting peripheral nerves, specifically distal nerves, more severely than proximal ones,” while peripheral neuropathy refers to any disorder of the peripheral nervous system, they explain.

In an article published in Respiratory Medicine, the authors summarize the latest data on the association between COPD and polyneuropathy. They reviewed data from 21 studies published between 1981 and 2021. All studies included adults with COPD. The mean age of the patients was 55-65 years.

Peripheral neuropathy represents a significant comorbidity among patients with COPD. The percentage of cases of peripheral neuropathy among patients in the study populations ranged from 15% to 93.8%. Of these cases, the majority were of axonal sensory polyneuropathy. In most of the studies, the neuropathy affected the lower limbs more than the upper limbs.

“Additionally, in most presented studies, peripheral neuropathy correlated with disease duration and hypoxemia severity; the longer the duration and the more severe hypoxia, the more severe peripheral neuropathy was,” the researchers note.

Overall, potential predisposing factors for PNP among patients with COPD (in addition to chronic hypoxemia) included older age, poor nutrition, systemic inflammation, COPD medications, smoking, and increased partial pressure of carbon dioxide (hypercapnia).

Several strategies for managing peripheral neuropathy for patients with COPD were described. Prophylaxis options include neuroprotection with hormones such as progesterone, neuronal growth factors, and corticosteroids, although none have shown high levels of effectiveness, the researchers write. Topical treatment with muscarinic antagonists has shown some potential and may be a practical therapeutic choice, they say. Oxygen support, including hyperbaric oxygen therapy, has demonstrated healing of diabetic leg ulcers associated with PNP and has led to improvements in pain-related symptoms and quality-of-life scores, they add.

Although PNP is often present in patients with COPD, no association between COPD severity and PNP has been determined, the researchers write in their discussion section.

“Moreover, the current data do not indicate a relationship between COPD stages, GOLD classification, or degree of obstruction and PNP,” they say.

The data support screening of all COPD patients for PNP, both clinically and with electrodiagnostic studies, despite the absence of current specific COPD-related PNP screening tools, they write.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Polyneuropathy (PNP) remains a common comorbidity among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and better screening strategies are needed to identify the condition and improve patients’ quality of life, according to authors of a recent review.

“Recent advances demonstrate that the relationship between COPD and the nervous system is extensive, and patients are at increased risk of stroke, dementia, depression, and other neurological and psychiatric conditions, even after controlling for the main confounding risk factors, such as age and smoking,” write Irina Odajiu, MD, of Colentina Clinical Hospital, Bucharest, Romania, and colleagues. However, data on the relationship between COPD and peripheral nervous system pathology are limited.

PNP is distinct from peripheral neuropathy and neuropathy, the researchers emphasize.

“Polyneuropathy implies a homogeneous process affecting peripheral nerves, specifically distal nerves, more severely than proximal ones,” while peripheral neuropathy refers to any disorder of the peripheral nervous system, they explain.

In an article published in Respiratory Medicine, the authors summarize the latest data on the association between COPD and polyneuropathy. They reviewed data from 21 studies published between 1981 and 2021. All studies included adults with COPD. The mean age of the patients was 55-65 years.

Peripheral neuropathy represents a significant comorbidity among patients with COPD. The percentage of cases of peripheral neuropathy among patients in the study populations ranged from 15% to 93.8%. Of these cases, the majority were of axonal sensory polyneuropathy. In most of the studies, the neuropathy affected the lower limbs more than the upper limbs.

“Additionally, in most presented studies, peripheral neuropathy correlated with disease duration and hypoxemia severity; the longer the duration and the more severe hypoxia, the more severe peripheral neuropathy was,” the researchers note.

Overall, potential predisposing factors for PNP among patients with COPD (in addition to chronic hypoxemia) included older age, poor nutrition, systemic inflammation, COPD medications, smoking, and increased partial pressure of carbon dioxide (hypercapnia).

Several strategies for managing peripheral neuropathy for patients with COPD were described. Prophylaxis options include neuroprotection with hormones such as progesterone, neuronal growth factors, and corticosteroids, although none have shown high levels of effectiveness, the researchers write. Topical treatment with muscarinic antagonists has shown some potential and may be a practical therapeutic choice, they say. Oxygen support, including hyperbaric oxygen therapy, has demonstrated healing of diabetic leg ulcers associated with PNP and has led to improvements in pain-related symptoms and quality-of-life scores, they add.

Although PNP is often present in patients with COPD, no association between COPD severity and PNP has been determined, the researchers write in their discussion section.

“Moreover, the current data do not indicate a relationship between COPD stages, GOLD classification, or degree of obstruction and PNP,” they say.

The data support screening of all COPD patients for PNP, both clinically and with electrodiagnostic studies, despite the absence of current specific COPD-related PNP screening tools, they write.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

PORTLAND, ORE. – When patients present to Brandon L. Adler, MD, with dermatitis on the eyelid, face, or neck, he routinely asks them if they apply essential oils on their skin, or if they have an essential oil diffuser or nebulizer in their home.

“The answer is frequently ‘yes,’ ” Dr. Adler, clinical assistant professor of dermatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association. “Essential oils are widely used throughout the wellness industry. They are contained in personal care products, beauty products, natural cleaning products, and they’re being diffused by our patients into the air. More than 75 essential oils are reported to cause allergic contact dermatitis.”

yangna/iStock/Getty Images

Natural chemical components contained in essential oils can cause skin reactions, especially linalool and limonene. “Linalool is most classically associated with lavender, while limonene is associated with citrus, but they’re found in many different plants,” said Dr. Adler, who directs USC’s contact dermatitis clinic. “On their own, linalool and limonene are not particularly allergenic; they’re not a big deal in the patch test clinic. The problem comes when we add air to the mix, because they oxidize to hydroperoxides of linalool and limonene. These are quite potent allergens.”

According to the most recent North American Contact Dermatitis Group data, 8.9% of patients undergoing patch testing tested positive to linalool hydroperoxides and 2.6% were positive to limonene hydroperoxides.

Dr. Adler discussed the case of a female massage therapist who presented with refractory hand dermatitis and was on methotrexate and dupilumab at the time of consultation but was still symptomatic. She patch-tested positive to limonene and linalool hydroperoxides as well as multiple essential oils that she had been using with her clients, ranging from sacred frankincense oil to basil oil, and she was advised to massage using only coconut or vegetable oils.

Essential oil allergy may also be related to cannabis allergy. According to Dr. Adler, allergic contact dermatitis to cannabis has been rarely reported, but in an analysis of 103 commercial topical cannabinoid preparations that he published with Vincent DeLeo, MD, also with USC, 84% contained a NACDG allergen, frequently essential oils.

More recently, Dr. Adler and colleagues reported the case of a 40-year-old woman who was referred for patch testing for nummular dermatitis that wasn’t responding to treatment. The patient was found to be using topical cannabis and also grew cannabis at home. “She asked to be patch-tested to her homegrown cannabis and had a strong positive patch test to the cannabis, linalool and limonene hydroperoxides, and other essential oils,” Dr. Adler recalled. “We sent her cannabis sample for analysis at a commercial lab and found that it contained limonene and other allergenic terpene chemicals.

“We’re just starting to unravel what this means in terms of our patients and how to manage them, but many are using topical cannabis and topical CBD. I suspect this is a lot less rare than we realize.”

Another recent case from Europe reported allergic contact dermatitis to Cannabis sativa (hemp) seed oil following topical application, with positive patch testing.

Dr. Adler disclosed that he has received research grants from the American Contact Dermatitis Society. He is also an investigator for AbbVie and a consultant for the Skin Research Institute.

PORTLAND, ORE. – When patients present to Brandon L. Adler, MD, with dermatitis on the eyelid, face, or neck, he routinely asks them if they apply essential oils on their skin, or if they have an essential oil diffuser or nebulizer in their home.

“The answer is frequently ‘yes,’ ” Dr. Adler, clinical assistant professor of dermatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association. “Essential oils are widely used throughout the wellness industry. They are contained in personal care products, beauty products, natural cleaning products, and they’re being diffused by our patients into the air. More than 75 essential oils are reported to cause allergic contact dermatitis.”

yangna/iStock/Getty Images

Natural chemical components contained in essential oils can cause skin reactions, especially linalool and limonene. “Linalool is most classically associated with lavender, while limonene is associated with citrus, but they’re found in many different plants,” said Dr. Adler, who directs USC’s contact dermatitis clinic. “On their own, linalool and limonene are not particularly allergenic; they’re not a big deal in the patch test clinic. The problem comes when we add air to the mix, because they oxidize to hydroperoxides of linalool and limonene. These are quite potent allergens.”

According to the most recent North American Contact Dermatitis Group data, 8.9% of patients undergoing patch testing tested positive to linalool hydroperoxides and 2.6% were positive to limonene hydroperoxides.

Dr. Adler discussed the case of a female massage therapist who presented with refractory hand dermatitis and was on methotrexate and dupilumab at the time of consultation but was still symptomatic. She patch-tested positive to limonene and linalool hydroperoxides as well as multiple essential oils that she had been using with her clients, ranging from sacred frankincense oil to basil oil, and she was advised to massage using only coconut or vegetable oils.

Essential oil allergy may also be related to cannabis allergy. According to Dr. Adler, allergic contact dermatitis to cannabis has been rarely reported, but in an analysis of 103 commercial topical cannabinoid preparations that he published with Vincent DeLeo, MD, also with USC, 84% contained a NACDG allergen, frequently essential oils.

More recently, Dr. Adler and colleagues reported the case of a 40-year-old woman who was referred for patch testing for nummular dermatitis that wasn’t responding to treatment. The patient was found to be using topical cannabis and also grew cannabis at home. “She asked to be patch-tested to her homegrown cannabis and had a strong positive patch test to the cannabis, linalool and limonene hydroperoxides, and other essential oils,” Dr. Adler recalled. “We sent her cannabis sample for analysis at a commercial lab and found that it contained limonene and other allergenic terpene chemicals.

“We’re just starting to unravel what this means in terms of our patients and how to manage them, but many are using topical cannabis and topical CBD. I suspect this is a lot less rare than we realize.”

Another recent case from Europe reported allergic contact dermatitis to Cannabis sativa (hemp) seed oil following topical application, with positive patch testing.

Dr. Adler disclosed that he has received research grants from the American Contact Dermatitis Society. He is also an investigator for AbbVie and a consultant for the Skin Research Institute.

PORTLAND, ORE. – When patients present to Brandon L. Adler, MD, with dermatitis on the eyelid, face, or neck, he routinely asks them if they apply essential oils on their skin, or if they have an essential oil diffuser or nebulizer in their home.

“The answer is frequently ‘yes,’ ” Dr. Adler, clinical assistant professor of dermatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association. “Essential oils are widely used throughout the wellness industry. They are contained in personal care products, beauty products, natural cleaning products, and they’re being diffused by our patients into the air. More than 75 essential oils are reported to cause allergic contact dermatitis.”

yangna/iStock/Getty Images

Natural chemical components contained in essential oils can cause skin reactions, especially linalool and limonene. “Linalool is most classically associated with lavender, while limonene is associated with citrus, but they’re found in many different plants,” said Dr. Adler, who directs USC’s contact dermatitis clinic. “On their own, linalool and limonene are not particularly allergenic; they’re not a big deal in the patch test clinic. The problem comes when we add air to the mix, because they oxidize to hydroperoxides of linalool and limonene. These are quite potent allergens.”

According to the most recent North American Contact Dermatitis Group data, 8.9% of patients undergoing patch testing tested positive to linalool hydroperoxides and 2.6% were positive to limonene hydroperoxides.

Dr. Adler discussed the case of a female massage therapist who presented with refractory hand dermatitis and was on methotrexate and dupilumab at the time of consultation but was still symptomatic. She patch-tested positive to limonene and linalool hydroperoxides as well as multiple essential oils that she had been using with her clients, ranging from sacred frankincense oil to basil oil, and she was advised to massage using only coconut or vegetable oils.

Essential oil allergy may also be related to cannabis allergy. According to Dr. Adler, allergic contact dermatitis to cannabis has been rarely reported, but in an analysis of 103 commercial topical cannabinoid preparations that he published with Vincent DeLeo, MD, also with USC, 84% contained a NACDG allergen, frequently essential oils.

More recently, Dr. Adler and colleagues reported the case of a 40-year-old woman who was referred for patch testing for nummular dermatitis that wasn’t responding to treatment. The patient was found to be using topical cannabis and also grew cannabis at home. “She asked to be patch-tested to her homegrown cannabis and had a strong positive patch test to the cannabis, linalool and limonene hydroperoxides, and other essential oils,” Dr. Adler recalled. “We sent her cannabis sample for analysis at a commercial lab and found that it contained limonene and other allergenic terpene chemicals.

“We’re just starting to unravel what this means in terms of our patients and how to manage them, but many are using topical cannabis and topical CBD. I suspect this is a lot less rare than we realize.”

Another recent case from Europe reported allergic contact dermatitis to Cannabis sativa (hemp) seed oil following topical application, with positive patch testing.

Dr. Adler disclosed that he has received research grants from the American Contact Dermatitis Society. He is also an investigator for AbbVie and a consultant for the Skin Research Institute.

PORTLAND, ORE. – For those who hesitate to prescribe Janus kinase inhibitors for patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) because of the boxed warnings on currently approved agents, it’s time to reconsider, according to Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA.

“In dermatology, you need to know about JAK inhibitors, and you need to know how to use them,” Dr. Blauvelt, president of Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association. “Making the choice, ‘I’m not going to use those drugs because of safety concerns,’ may be okay in 2022, but we are going to be getting a lot more indications for these drugs. So instead of avoiding JAK inhibitors, I would say try to learn [about] them, understand them, and get your messaging out on safety.”

It’s difficult to imagine a clinician-researcher who has more experience with the use of biologics and JAK inhibitors in AD than Dr. Blauvelt, who has been the international investigator on several important trials of treatments that include dupilumab, tralokinumab, abrocitinib, and upadacitinib for AD such as CHRONOS, ECZTEND, JADE REGIMEN, and HEADS UP. At the meeting, he discussed his clinical approach to selecting systemic agents for AD and shared prescribing tips. He began by noting that the approval of dupilumab for moderate to severe AD in 2017 ushered in a new era of treating the disease systemically.

“When it was approved, experts went right to dupilumab if they could, and avoided the use of cyclosporine or methotrexate,” said Dr. Blauvelt, who is also an elected member of the American Society for Clinical Investigation and the International Eczema Council. “I still think that dupilumab is a great agent to start with. We’ve had a bit of difficulty improving upon it.”

Following dupilumab’s approval, three other systemic options became available for patients with moderate to severe AD: the human IgG4 monoclonal antibody tralokinumab that binds to interleukin-13, which is administered subcutaneously; and, more recently, the oral JAK inhibitors abrocitinib and upadacitinib, approved in January for moderate to severe AD.

“I’m a big fan of JAK inhibitors because I think they offer things that biologic and topical therapies can’t offer,” Dr. Blauvelt said. “Patients like the pills versus shots. They also like the speed; JAK inhibitors work faster than dupilumab and tralokinumab. So, if you have a patient with bad AD who wants to get better quickly, that would be a reason to choose a JAK inhibitor over a biologic if you can.”

When Dr. Blauvelt has asked AD clinical trial participants if they’d rather be treated with a biologic agent or with a JAK inhibitor, about half choose one over the other.

“Patients who shy away from the safety issues would choose the biologic trial while the ones who wanted the fast relief would choose the JAK trial,” he said. “But if you present both options and the patients prefer a pill, I think the JAK inhibitors do better with a rapid control of inflammation as well as pruritus – the latter within 2 days of taking the pills.”

When counseling patients initiating a JAK inhibitor, Dr. Blauvelt mentioned three advantages, compared with biologics: the pill formulation, the rapidity of response in pruritus control, and better efficacy. “The downside is the safety,” he said. “Safety is the elephant in the room for the JAK inhibitors.”

The risks listed in the boxed warning in the labeling for JAK inhibitors include: an increased risk of serious bacterial, fungal, and opportunistic infections such as TB; a higher rate of all-cause mortality, including cardiovascular death; a higher rate of MACE (major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as cardiovascular death, MI, and stroke); the potential for malignancy, including lymphoma; and the potential for thrombosis, including an increased incidence of pulmonary embolism (PE).

“Risk of thrombosis seems to be a class effect for all JAK inhibitors,” Dr. Blauvelt said. “As far as I know, it’s idiosyncratic. For nearly all the DVT [deep vein thrombosis] cases that have been reported, patients had baseline risk factors for DVT and PE, which are obesity, smoking, and use of oral contraceptives.”

Dr. Blauvelt pointed out that the boxed warning related to mortality, malignancies, and MACE stemmed from a long-term trial of the JAK inhibitor tofacitinib in RA patients. “Those patients had to be at least 50 years old, 75% of them were on concomitant methotrexate and/or prednisone, and they had to have at least one cardiac risk factor to get into the trial,” he said.

“I’m not saying those things can’t happen in dermatology patients, but if you look at the safety data of JAK inhibitors in the AD studies and in the alopecia areata studies, we are seeing a few cases of these things here and there, but not major signals,” he said. To date, “they look safer in dermatologic diseases compared to tofacitinib in RA data in older populations.”

He emphasized the importance of discussing each of the risks in the boxed warning with patients who are candidates for JAK inhibitor therapy.

Dr. Blauvelt likened the lab monitoring required for JAK inhibitors to that required for methotrexate. This means ordering at baseline, a CBC with differential, a chem-20, a lipid panel, and a QuantiFERON-TB Gold test. The JAK inhibitor labels do not include information on the frequency of monitoring, “but I have a distinct opinion on this because of my blood test monitoring experience in the trials for many years,” he said.

“I think it’s good to do follow-up testing at 1 month, then every 3 months in the first year. In my experience, the people who drop blood cell counts or increase their lipids tend to do it in the first year.”

After 1 year of treatment, he continued, follow-up testing once every 6 months is reasonable. “If CPK [creatine phosphokinase] goes up, I don’t worry about it; it’s not clinically relevant. There is no recommendation for CPK monitoring, so if you’re getting that on your chem-20, I’d say don’t worry about it.”

Dr. Blauvelt reported that he is an investigator and a scientific adviser for several pharmaceutical companies developing treatments for AD, including companies that are evaluating or marketing JAK inhibitors for AD, including AbbVie, Incyte, and Pfizer, as well as dupilumab’s joint developers Sanofi and Regeneron.

PORTLAND, ORE. – For those who hesitate to prescribe Janus kinase inhibitors for patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) because of the boxed warnings on currently approved agents, it’s time to reconsider, according to Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA.

“In dermatology, you need to know about JAK inhibitors, and you need to know how to use them,” Dr. Blauvelt, president of Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association. “Making the choice, ‘I’m not going to use those drugs because of safety concerns,’ may be okay in 2022, but we are going to be getting a lot more indications for these drugs. So instead of avoiding JAK inhibitors, I would say try to learn [about] them, understand them, and get your messaging out on safety.”

It’s difficult to imagine a clinician-researcher who has more experience with the use of biologics and JAK inhibitors in AD than Dr. Blauvelt, who has been the international investigator on several important trials of treatments that include dupilumab, tralokinumab, abrocitinib, and upadacitinib for AD such as CHRONOS, ECZTEND, JADE REGIMEN, and HEADS UP. At the meeting, he discussed his clinical approach to selecting systemic agents for AD and shared prescribing tips. He began by noting that the approval of dupilumab for moderate to severe AD in 2017 ushered in a new era of treating the disease systemically.

“When it was approved, experts went right to dupilumab if they could, and avoided the use of cyclosporine or methotrexate,” said Dr. Blauvelt, who is also an elected member of the American Society for Clinical Investigation and the International Eczema Council. “I still think that dupilumab is a great agent to start with. We’ve had a bit of difficulty improving upon it.”

Following dupilumab’s approval, three other systemic options became available for patients with moderate to severe AD: the human IgG4 monoclonal antibody tralokinumab that binds to interleukin-13, which is administered subcutaneously; and, more recently, the oral JAK inhibitors abrocitinib and upadacitinib, approved in January for moderate to severe AD.

“I’m a big fan of JAK inhibitors because I think they offer things that biologic and topical therapies can’t offer,” Dr. Blauvelt said. “Patients like the pills versus shots. They also like the speed; JAK inhibitors work faster than dupilumab and tralokinumab. So, if you have a patient with bad AD who wants to get better quickly, that would be a reason to choose a JAK inhibitor over a biologic if you can.”

When Dr. Blauvelt has asked AD clinical trial participants if they’d rather be treated with a biologic agent or with a JAK inhibitor, about half choose one over the other.

“Patients who shy away from the safety issues would choose the biologic trial while the ones who wanted the fast relief would choose the JAK trial,” he said. “But if you present both options and the patients prefer a pill, I think the JAK inhibitors do better with a rapid control of inflammation as well as pruritus – the latter within 2 days of taking the pills.”

When counseling patients initiating a JAK inhibitor, Dr. Blauvelt mentioned three advantages, compared with biologics: the pill formulation, the rapidity of response in pruritus control, and better efficacy. “The downside is the safety,” he said. “Safety is the elephant in the room for the JAK inhibitors.”

The risks listed in the boxed warning in the labeling for JAK inhibitors include: an increased risk of serious bacterial, fungal, and opportunistic infections such as TB; a higher rate of all-cause mortality, including cardiovascular death; a higher rate of MACE (major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as cardiovascular death, MI, and stroke); the potential for malignancy, including lymphoma; and the potential for thrombosis, including an increased incidence of pulmonary embolism (PE).

“Risk of thrombosis seems to be a class effect for all JAK inhibitors,” Dr. Blauvelt said. “As far as I know, it’s idiosyncratic. For nearly all the DVT [deep vein thrombosis] cases that have been reported, patients had baseline risk factors for DVT and PE, which are obesity, smoking, and use of oral contraceptives.”

Dr. Blauvelt pointed out that the boxed warning related to mortality, malignancies, and MACE stemmed from a long-term trial of the JAK inhibitor tofacitinib in RA patients. “Those patients had to be at least 50 years old, 75% of them were on concomitant methotrexate and/or prednisone, and they had to have at least one cardiac risk factor to get into the trial,” he said.

“I’m not saying those things can’t happen in dermatology patients, but if you look at the safety data of JAK inhibitors in the AD studies and in the alopecia areata studies, we are seeing a few cases of these things here and there, but not major signals,” he said. To date, “they look safer in dermatologic diseases compared to tofacitinib in RA data in older populations.”

He emphasized the importance of discussing each of the risks in the boxed warning with patients who are candidates for JAK inhibitor therapy.

Dr. Blauvelt likened the lab monitoring required for JAK inhibitors to that required for methotrexate. This means ordering at baseline, a CBC with differential, a chem-20, a lipid panel, and a QuantiFERON-TB Gold test. The JAK inhibitor labels do not include information on the frequency of monitoring, “but I have a distinct opinion on this because of my blood test monitoring experience in the trials for many years,” he said.

“I think it’s good to do follow-up testing at 1 month, then every 3 months in the first year. In my experience, the people who drop blood cell counts or increase their lipids tend to do it in the first year.”

After 1 year of treatment, he continued, follow-up testing once every 6 months is reasonable. “If CPK [creatine phosphokinase] goes up, I don’t worry about it; it’s not clinically relevant. There is no recommendation for CPK monitoring, so if you’re getting that on your chem-20, I’d say don’t worry about it.”

Dr. Blauvelt reported that he is an investigator and a scientific adviser for several pharmaceutical companies developing treatments for AD, including companies that are evaluating or marketing JAK inhibitors for AD, including AbbVie, Incyte, and Pfizer, as well as dupilumab’s joint developers Sanofi and Regeneron.

PORTLAND, ORE. – For those who hesitate to prescribe Janus kinase inhibitors for patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) because of the boxed warnings on currently approved agents, it’s time to reconsider, according to Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA.

“In dermatology, you need to know about JAK inhibitors, and you need to know how to use them,” Dr. Blauvelt, president of Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association. “Making the choice, ‘I’m not going to use those drugs because of safety concerns,’ may be okay in 2022, but we are going to be getting a lot more indications for these drugs. So instead of avoiding JAK inhibitors, I would say try to learn [about] them, understand them, and get your messaging out on safety.”

It’s difficult to imagine a clinician-researcher who has more experience with the use of biologics and JAK inhibitors in AD than Dr. Blauvelt, who has been the international investigator on several important trials of treatments that include dupilumab, tralokinumab, abrocitinib, and upadacitinib for AD such as CHRONOS, ECZTEND, JADE REGIMEN, and HEADS UP. At the meeting, he discussed his clinical approach to selecting systemic agents for AD and shared prescribing tips. He began by noting that the approval of dupilumab for moderate to severe AD in 2017 ushered in a new era of treating the disease systemically.

“When it was approved, experts went right to dupilumab if they could, and avoided the use of cyclosporine or methotrexate,” said Dr. Blauvelt, who is also an elected member of the American Society for Clinical Investigation and the International Eczema Council. “I still think that dupilumab is a great agent to start with. We’ve had a bit of difficulty improving upon it.”

Following dupilumab’s approval, three other systemic options became available for patients with moderate to severe AD: the human IgG4 monoclonal antibody tralokinumab that binds to interleukin-13, which is administered subcutaneously; and, more recently, the oral JAK inhibitors abrocitinib and upadacitinib, approved in January for moderate to severe AD.

“I’m a big fan of JAK inhibitors because I think they offer things that biologic and topical therapies can’t offer,” Dr. Blauvelt said. “Patients like the pills versus shots. They also like the speed; JAK inhibitors work faster than dupilumab and tralokinumab. So, if you have a patient with bad AD who wants to get better quickly, that would be a reason to choose a JAK inhibitor over a biologic if you can.”

When Dr. Blauvelt has asked AD clinical trial participants if they’d rather be treated with a biologic agent or with a JAK inhibitor, about half choose one over the other.

“Patients who shy away from the safety issues would choose the biologic trial while the ones who wanted the fast relief would choose the JAK trial,” he said. “But if you present both options and the patients prefer a pill, I think the JAK inhibitors do better with a rapid control of inflammation as well as pruritus – the latter within 2 days of taking the pills.”

When counseling patients initiating a JAK inhibitor, Dr. Blauvelt mentioned three advantages, compared with biologics: the pill formulation, the rapidity of response in pruritus control, and better efficacy. “The downside is the safety,” he said. “Safety is the elephant in the room for the JAK inhibitors.”

The risks listed in the boxed warning in the labeling for JAK inhibitors include: an increased risk of serious bacterial, fungal, and opportunistic infections such as TB; a higher rate of all-cause mortality, including cardiovascular death; a higher rate of MACE (major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as cardiovascular death, MI, and stroke); the potential for malignancy, including lymphoma; and the potential for thrombosis, including an increased incidence of pulmonary embolism (PE).

“Risk of thrombosis seems to be a class effect for all JAK inhibitors,” Dr. Blauvelt said. “As far as I know, it’s idiosyncratic. For nearly all the DVT [deep vein thrombosis] cases that have been reported, patients had baseline risk factors for DVT and PE, which are obesity, smoking, and use of oral contraceptives.”

Dr. Blauvelt pointed out that the boxed warning related to mortality, malignancies, and MACE stemmed from a long-term trial of the JAK inhibitor tofacitinib in RA patients. “Those patients had to be at least 50 years old, 75% of them were on concomitant methotrexate and/or prednisone, and they had to have at least one cardiac risk factor to get into the trial,” he said.

“I’m not saying those things can’t happen in dermatology patients, but if you look at the safety data of JAK inhibitors in the AD studies and in the alopecia areata studies, we are seeing a few cases of these things here and there, but not major signals,” he said. To date, “they look safer in dermatologic diseases compared to tofacitinib in RA data in older populations.”

He emphasized the importance of discussing each of the risks in the boxed warning with patients who are candidates for JAK inhibitor therapy.

Dr. Blauvelt likened the lab monitoring required for JAK inhibitors to that required for methotrexate. This means ordering at baseline, a CBC with differential, a chem-20, a lipid panel, and a QuantiFERON-TB Gold test. The JAK inhibitor labels do not include information on the frequency of monitoring, “but I have a distinct opinion on this because of my blood test monitoring experience in the trials for many years,” he said.

“I think it’s good to do follow-up testing at 1 month, then every 3 months in the first year. In my experience, the people who drop blood cell counts or increase their lipids tend to do it in the first year.”

After 1 year of treatment, he continued, follow-up testing once every 6 months is reasonable. “If CPK [creatine phosphokinase] goes up, I don’t worry about it; it’s not clinically relevant. There is no recommendation for CPK monitoring, so if you’re getting that on your chem-20, I’d say don’t worry about it.”

Dr. Blauvelt reported that he is an investigator and a scientific adviser for several pharmaceutical companies developing treatments for AD, including companies that are evaluating or marketing JAK inhibitors for AD, including AbbVie, Incyte, and Pfizer, as well as dupilumab’s joint developers Sanofi and Regeneron.

The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) was an effective tool for measuring general and specific psychiatric symptoms across the diagnostic spectrum, based on data from 600 psychiatric inpatients.

“Current DSM and ICD diagnoses do not depict psychopathology accurately, therefore their validity in research and utility in clinical practice is questioned,” wrote Andreas B. Hofmann, PhD, of the University of Zürich and colleagues.

The BPRS was developed to assess changes in psychopathology across a range of severe psychiatric disorders, but its potential to assess symptoms in nonpsychotic disorders has not been explored, the researchers said.

In a study published in Psychiatry Research, the investigators analyzed data from 600 adult psychiatric inpatients divided equally into six diagnostic categories: alcohol use disorder, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorders, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and personality disorders. The mean age of the patients was 41.5 years and 45.5% were women. The demographic characteristics were similar across most groups, although patients with a personality disorder were significantly more likely than other patients to be younger and female.

Patients were assessed using the BPRS based on their main diagnosis. The mini-ICF-APP, another validated measure for assessing psychiatric disorders, served as a comparator, and both were compared to the Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI).

Overall, the BPRS and mini-ICF-APP showed moderate correlation and good agreement, the researchers said. The Pearson correlation coefficient for the BPRS and mini-ICF-APP scales was 0.53 and the concordance correlation coefficient was 0.52. The mean sum scores for the BPRS, the mini-ICF-APP, and the CGI were 45.4 (standard deviation, 14.4), 19.93 (SD, 8.21), and 5.55 (SD, 0.84), respectively, which indicated “markedly ill” to “severely ill” patients, the researchers said.

The researchers were able to detect three clusters of symptoms corresponding to externalizing, internalizing, and thought disturbance domains using the BPRS, and four clusters using the mini-ICF-APP.

The symptoms using BPRS and the functionality domains using the mini-ICF-APP “showed a close interplay,” the researchers noted.

“The symptoms and functional domains we found to be central within the network structure are among the first targets of any psychiatric or psychotherapeutic intervention, namely the building of a common language and understanding as well as the establishment of confidence in relationships and a trustworthy therapeutic alliance,” they wrote in their discussion.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the collection of data from routine practice rather than clinical trials, the focus on only the main diagnosis without comorbidities, and the inclusion only of patients requiring hospitalization, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size, and demonstrate the validity of the BPRS as a measurement tool across a range of psychiatric diagnoses, they said.

“Since the BPRS is a widely known and readily available psychometric scale, our results support its use as a transdiagnostic measurement instrument of psychopathology,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) was an effective tool for measuring general and specific psychiatric symptoms across the diagnostic spectrum, based on data from 600 psychiatric inpatients.

“Current DSM and ICD diagnoses do not depict psychopathology accurately, therefore their validity in research and utility in clinical practice is questioned,” wrote Andreas B. Hofmann, PhD, of the University of Zürich and colleagues.

The BPRS was developed to assess changes in psychopathology across a range of severe psychiatric disorders, but its potential to assess symptoms in nonpsychotic disorders has not been explored, the researchers said.

In a study published in Psychiatry Research, the investigators analyzed data from 600 adult psychiatric inpatients divided equally into six diagnostic categories: alcohol use disorder, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorders, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and personality disorders. The mean age of the patients was 41.5 years and 45.5% were women. The demographic characteristics were similar across most groups, although patients with a personality disorder were significantly more likely than other patients to be younger and female.

Patients were assessed using the BPRS based on their main diagnosis. The mini-ICF-APP, another validated measure for assessing psychiatric disorders, served as a comparator, and both were compared to the Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI).

Overall, the BPRS and mini-ICF-APP showed moderate correlation and good agreement, the researchers said. The Pearson correlation coefficient for the BPRS and mini-ICF-APP scales was 0.53 and the concordance correlation coefficient was 0.52. The mean sum scores for the BPRS, the mini-ICF-APP, and the CGI were 45.4 (standard deviation, 14.4), 19.93 (SD, 8.21), and 5.55 (SD, 0.84), respectively, which indicated “markedly ill” to “severely ill” patients, the researchers said.

The researchers were able to detect three clusters of symptoms corresponding to externalizing, internalizing, and thought disturbance domains using the BPRS, and four clusters using the mini-ICF-APP.

The symptoms using BPRS and the functionality domains using the mini-ICF-APP “showed a close interplay,” the researchers noted.

“The symptoms and functional domains we found to be central within the network structure are among the first targets of any psychiatric or psychotherapeutic intervention, namely the building of a common language and understanding as well as the establishment of confidence in relationships and a trustworthy therapeutic alliance,” they wrote in their discussion.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the collection of data from routine practice rather than clinical trials, the focus on only the main diagnosis without comorbidities, and the inclusion only of patients requiring hospitalization, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size, and demonstrate the validity of the BPRS as a measurement tool across a range of psychiatric diagnoses, they said.

“Since the BPRS is a widely known and readily available psychometric scale, our results support its use as a transdiagnostic measurement instrument of psychopathology,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) was an effective tool for measuring general and specific psychiatric symptoms across the diagnostic spectrum, based on data from 600 psychiatric inpatients.

“Current DSM and ICD diagnoses do not depict psychopathology accurately, therefore their validity in research and utility in clinical practice is questioned,” wrote Andreas B. Hofmann, PhD, of the University of Zürich and colleagues.

The BPRS was developed to assess changes in psychopathology across a range of severe psychiatric disorders, but its potential to assess symptoms in nonpsychotic disorders has not been explored, the researchers said.

In a study published in Psychiatry Research, the investigators analyzed data from 600 adult psychiatric inpatients divided equally into six diagnostic categories: alcohol use disorder, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorders, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and personality disorders. The mean age of the patients was 41.5 years and 45.5% were women. The demographic characteristics were similar across most groups, although patients with a personality disorder were significantly more likely than other patients to be younger and female.

Patients were assessed using the BPRS based on their main diagnosis. The mini-ICF-APP, another validated measure for assessing psychiatric disorders, served as a comparator, and both were compared to the Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI).

Overall, the BPRS and mini-ICF-APP showed moderate correlation and good agreement, the researchers said. The Pearson correlation coefficient for the BPRS and mini-ICF-APP scales was 0.53 and the concordance correlation coefficient was 0.52. The mean sum scores for the BPRS, the mini-ICF-APP, and the CGI were 45.4 (standard deviation, 14.4), 19.93 (SD, 8.21), and 5.55 (SD, 0.84), respectively, which indicated “markedly ill” to “severely ill” patients, the researchers said.

The researchers were able to detect three clusters of symptoms corresponding to externalizing, internalizing, and thought disturbance domains using the BPRS, and four clusters using the mini-ICF-APP.

The symptoms using BPRS and the functionality domains using the mini-ICF-APP “showed a close interplay,” the researchers noted.

“The symptoms and functional domains we found to be central within the network structure are among the first targets of any psychiatric or psychotherapeutic intervention, namely the building of a common language and understanding as well as the establishment of confidence in relationships and a trustworthy therapeutic alliance,” they wrote in their discussion.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the collection of data from routine practice rather than clinical trials, the focus on only the main diagnosis without comorbidities, and the inclusion only of patients requiring hospitalization, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size, and demonstrate the validity of the BPRS as a measurement tool across a range of psychiatric diagnoses, they said.

“Since the BPRS is a widely known and readily available psychometric scale, our results support its use as a transdiagnostic measurement instrument of psychopathology,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

People exposed to high levels of perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) – a widely used synthetic chemical – run an increased risk of hepatocellular carcinoma, researchers say.

The correlation does not prove that PFOS causes this cancer, and more research is needed, but in the meantime, people should limit their exposure to it and others in its class, said Jesse Goodrich, PhD, a postdoctoral scholar in environmental medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

“If you’re at risk for liver cancer because you have other risk factors, then these chemicals have the potential to kind of send you over the edge,” he told this news organization.

Dr. Goodrich and colleagues published their research online in JHEP Reports.

Dubbed “forever chemicals” because they can take thousands of years to break down, polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) figure in makeup, food packaging, waterproof clothing, nonstick cookware, firefighting foams, and groundwater. They have spread through the atmosphere into rain and can be found in the blood of most Americans. PFOS is one of the most widely used PFAS.

“You can’t really escape them,” Dr. Goodrich said.

Previous research has linked PFAS to infertility, pregnancy complications, learning and behavioral problems in children, immune system issues, and higher cholesterol, as well as other cancers. Some experiments in animals suggested PFAS could cause liver cancer, and others showed a correlation between PFAS serum levels and biomarkers associated with liver cancer. But many of these health effects take a long time to develop.

“It wasn’t until we started to get really highly exposed groups of people that we started, as scientists, to be able to figure out what was going on,” said Dr. Goodrich.
 

High exposure, increased incidence

To measure the relationship between PFAS exposure and the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma more definitively, Dr. Goodrich and colleagues analyzed data from the Multiethnic Cohort Study, a cohort of more than 200,000 people of African, Latin, Native Hawaiian, Japanese, and European ancestry tracked since the early 1990s in California and Hawaii. About 67,000 participants provided blood samples from 2001 to 2007.

From this cohort, the researchers found 50 people who later developed hepatocellular carcinoma. The researchers matched these patients with 50 controls of similar age at blood collection, sex, race, ethnicity, and study area who did not develop the cancer.

They found that people with more than 54.9 mcg/L of PFOS in their blood before any diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma were almost five times more likely to get the cancer (odds ratio 4.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-16.0), which was statistically significant (P = .02).

This level of PFOS corresponds to the 90th percentile found in the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).

To get some idea of the mechanism by which PFOS might do its damage, the researchers also looked for linkage to levels of metabolites.

They found an overlap among high PFOS levels, hepatocellular carcinoma, and high levels of glucose, butyric acid (a short chain fatty acid), alpha-Ketoisovaleric acid (alpha branched-chain alpha-keto acid), and 7alpha-Hydroxy-3-oxo-4-cholestenoate (a bile acid). These metabolites have been associated in previous studies with metabolic disorders and liver disease.

Similarly, the researchers identified an association among the cancer, PFOS, and alterations in amino acid and glycan biosynthesis pathways.
 

Risk mitigation

The half-life of PFAS in the human body is about 3-7 years, said Dr. Goodrich.

“There’s not much you can do once they’re in there,” he said. “So, the focus needs to be on preventing the exposure in the first place.”

People can limit exposure by avoiding water contaminated with PFAS or filtering it out, Dr. Goodrich said. He recommended avoiding fish from contaminated waterways and nonstick cookware. The Environmental Protection Agency has more detailed recommendations.

But giving patients individualized recommendations is difficult, said Vincent Chen, MD, MS, a clinical instructor in gastroenterology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who was not involved in the study. Most clinicians don’t know their patients’ PFOS levels.

“It’s not that easy to get a test,” Dr. Chen told this news organization.

People can also mitigate their risk factors for hepatocellular carcinoma, such as a poor diet, a lack of exercise, and smoking, said Dr. Goodrich.

The researchers found that patients with hepatocellular carcinoma were more likely to be overweight and have diabetes, and PFOS was associated with higher fasting glucose levels. This raises the possibility that PFOS increases the risk for hepatocellular carcinoma by causing diabetes and obesity.

Dr. Goodrich and his colleagues tried to address this question by adjusting for baseline body mass index (BMI) and diabetes diagnosis in their statistical analysis.

After adjusting for BMI, they found that the association between PFOS and hepatocellular carcinoma diminished to a threefold risk (OR, 2.90; 95% CI, 0.78-10.00) and was no longer statistically significant (P = .11).

On the other hand, adjusting for diabetes did not change the significance of the relationship between PFOS and the cancer (OR, 5.7; 95% CI, 1.10-30.00; P = .04).

The sample size was probably too small to adequately tease out this relationship, Dr. Chen said. Still, he said, “I thought it was a very, very important study.”

The levels of PFOS found in the blood of Americans has been declining since the 1999-2000 NHANES, Dr. Chen pointed out. But that’s not as reassuring as it sounds.

“The problem is that if you put a regulation limiting the use of one PFAS, what people can do is just substitute with another PFAS or another molecule, which for all we know could be equally harmful,” Dr. Chen said.

Funding was provided by the Southern California Environmental Health Science Center supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Goodrich and Dr. Chen report no relevant financial relationships.

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

People exposed to high levels of perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) – a widely used synthetic chemical – run an increased risk of hepatocellular carcinoma, researchers say.

The correlation does not prove that PFOS causes this cancer, and more research is needed, but in the meantime, people should limit their exposure to it and others in its class, said Jesse Goodrich, PhD, a postdoctoral scholar in environmental medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

“If you’re at risk for liver cancer because you have other risk factors, then these chemicals have the potential to kind of send you over the edge,” he told this news organization.

Dr. Goodrich and colleagues published their research online in JHEP Reports.

Dubbed “forever chemicals” because they can take thousands of years to break down, polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) figure in makeup, food packaging, waterproof clothing, nonstick cookware, firefighting foams, and groundwater. They have spread through the atmosphere into rain and can be found in the blood of most Americans. PFOS is one of the most widely used PFAS.

“You can’t really escape them,” Dr. Goodrich said.

Previous research has linked PFAS to infertility, pregnancy complications, learning and behavioral problems in children, immune system issues, and higher cholesterol, as well as other cancers. Some experiments in animals suggested PFAS could cause liver cancer, and others showed a correlation between PFAS serum levels and biomarkers associated with liver cancer. But many of these health effects take a long time to develop.

“It wasn’t until we started to get really highly exposed groups of people that we started, as scientists, to be able to figure out what was going on,” said Dr. Goodrich.
 

High exposure, increased incidence

To measure the relationship between PFAS exposure and the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma more definitively, Dr. Goodrich and colleagues analyzed data from the Multiethnic Cohort Study, a cohort of more than 200,000 people of African, Latin, Native Hawaiian, Japanese, and European ancestry tracked since the early 1990s in California and Hawaii. About 67,000 participants provided blood samples from 2001 to 2007.

From this cohort, the researchers found 50 people who later developed hepatocellular carcinoma. The researchers matched these patients with 50 controls of similar age at blood collection, sex, race, ethnicity, and study area who did not develop the cancer.

They found that people with more than 54.9 mcg/L of PFOS in their blood before any diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma were almost five times more likely to get the cancer (odds ratio 4.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-16.0), which was statistically significant (P = .02).

This level of PFOS corresponds to the 90th percentile found in the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).

To get some idea of the mechanism by which PFOS might do its damage, the researchers also looked for linkage to levels of metabolites.

They found an overlap among high PFOS levels, hepatocellular carcinoma, and high levels of glucose, butyric acid (a short chain fatty acid), alpha-Ketoisovaleric acid (alpha branched-chain alpha-keto acid), and 7alpha-Hydroxy-3-oxo-4-cholestenoate (a bile acid). These metabolites have been associated in previous studies with metabolic disorders and liver disease.

Similarly, the researchers identified an association among the cancer, PFOS, and alterations in amino acid and glycan biosynthesis pathways.
 

Risk mitigation

The half-life of PFAS in the human body is about 3-7 years, said Dr. Goodrich.

“There’s not much you can do once they’re in there,” he said. “So, the focus needs to be on preventing the exposure in the first place.”

People can limit exposure by avoiding water contaminated with PFAS or filtering it out, Dr. Goodrich said. He recommended avoiding fish from contaminated waterways and nonstick cookware. The Environmental Protection Agency has more detailed recommendations.

But giving patients individualized recommendations is difficult, said Vincent Chen, MD, MS, a clinical instructor in gastroenterology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who was not involved in the study. Most clinicians don’t know their patients’ PFOS levels.

“It’s not that easy to get a test,” Dr. Chen told this news organization.

People can also mitigate their risk factors for hepatocellular carcinoma, such as a poor diet, a lack of exercise, and smoking, said Dr. Goodrich.

The researchers found that patients with hepatocellular carcinoma were more likely to be overweight and have diabetes, and PFOS was associated with higher fasting glucose levels. This raises the possibility that PFOS increases the risk for hepatocellular carcinoma by causing diabetes and obesity.

Dr. Goodrich and his colleagues tried to address this question by adjusting for baseline body mass index (BMI) and diabetes diagnosis in their statistical analysis.

After adjusting for BMI, they found that the association between PFOS and hepatocellular carcinoma diminished to a threefold risk (OR, 2.90; 95% CI, 0.78-10.00) and was no longer statistically significant (P = .11).

On the other hand, adjusting for diabetes did not change the significance of the relationship between PFOS and the cancer (OR, 5.7; 95% CI, 1.10-30.00; P = .04).

The sample size was probably too small to adequately tease out this relationship, Dr. Chen said. Still, he said, “I thought it was a very, very important study.”

The levels of PFOS found in the blood of Americans has been declining since the 1999-2000 NHANES, Dr. Chen pointed out. But that’s not as reassuring as it sounds.

“The problem is that if you put a regulation limiting the use of one PFAS, what people can do is just substitute with another PFAS or another molecule, which for all we know could be equally harmful,” Dr. Chen said.

Funding was provided by the Southern California Environmental Health Science Center supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Goodrich and Dr. Chen report no relevant financial relationships.

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

People exposed to high levels of perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) – a widely used synthetic chemical – run an increased risk of hepatocellular carcinoma, researchers say.

The correlation does not prove that PFOS causes this cancer, and more research is needed, but in the meantime, people should limit their exposure to it and others in its class, said Jesse Goodrich, PhD, a postdoctoral scholar in environmental medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

“If you’re at risk for liver cancer because you have other risk factors, then these chemicals have the potential to kind of send you over the edge,” he told this news organization.

Dr. Goodrich and colleagues published their research online in JHEP Reports.

Dubbed “forever chemicals” because they can take thousands of years to break down, polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) figure in makeup, food packaging, waterproof clothing, nonstick cookware, firefighting foams, and groundwater. They have spread through the atmosphere into rain and can be found in the blood of most Americans. PFOS is one of the most widely used PFAS.

“You can’t really escape them,” Dr. Goodrich said.

Previous research has linked PFAS to infertility, pregnancy complications, learning and behavioral problems in children, immune system issues, and higher cholesterol, as well as other cancers. Some experiments in animals suggested PFAS could cause liver cancer, and others showed a correlation between PFAS serum levels and biomarkers associated with liver cancer. But many of these health effects take a long time to develop.

“It wasn’t until we started to get really highly exposed groups of people that we started, as scientists, to be able to figure out what was going on,” said Dr. Goodrich.
 

High exposure, increased incidence

To measure the relationship between PFAS exposure and the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma more definitively, Dr. Goodrich and colleagues analyzed data from the Multiethnic Cohort Study, a cohort of more than 200,000 people of African, Latin, Native Hawaiian, Japanese, and European ancestry tracked since the early 1990s in California and Hawaii. About 67,000 participants provided blood samples from 2001 to 2007.

From this cohort, the researchers found 50 people who later developed hepatocellular carcinoma. The researchers matched these patients with 50 controls of similar age at blood collection, sex, race, ethnicity, and study area who did not develop the cancer.

They found that people with more than 54.9 mcg/L of PFOS in their blood before any diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma were almost five times more likely to get the cancer (odds ratio 4.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-16.0), which was statistically significant (P = .02).

This level of PFOS corresponds to the 90th percentile found in the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).

To get some idea of the mechanism by which PFOS might do its damage, the researchers also looked for linkage to levels of metabolites.

They found an overlap among high PFOS levels, hepatocellular carcinoma, and high levels of glucose, butyric acid (a short chain fatty acid), alpha-Ketoisovaleric acid (alpha branched-chain alpha-keto acid), and 7alpha-Hydroxy-3-oxo-4-cholestenoate (a bile acid). These metabolites have been associated in previous studies with metabolic disorders and liver disease.

Similarly, the researchers identified an association among the cancer, PFOS, and alterations in amino acid and glycan biosynthesis pathways.
 

Risk mitigation

The half-life of PFAS in the human body is about 3-7 years, said Dr. Goodrich.

“There’s not much you can do once they’re in there,” he said. “So, the focus needs to be on preventing the exposure in the first place.”

People can limit exposure by avoiding water contaminated with PFAS or filtering it out, Dr. Goodrich said. He recommended avoiding fish from contaminated waterways and nonstick cookware. The Environmental Protection Agency has more detailed recommendations.

But giving patients individualized recommendations is difficult, said Vincent Chen, MD, MS, a clinical instructor in gastroenterology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who was not involved in the study. Most clinicians don’t know their patients’ PFOS levels.

“It’s not that easy to get a test,” Dr. Chen told this news organization.

People can also mitigate their risk factors for hepatocellular carcinoma, such as a poor diet, a lack of exercise, and smoking, said Dr. Goodrich.

The researchers found that patients with hepatocellular carcinoma were more likely to be overweight and have diabetes, and PFOS was associated with higher fasting glucose levels. This raises the possibility that PFOS increases the risk for hepatocellular carcinoma by causing diabetes and obesity.

Dr. Goodrich and his colleagues tried to address this question by adjusting for baseline body mass index (BMI) and diabetes diagnosis in their statistical analysis.

After adjusting for BMI, they found that the association between PFOS and hepatocellular carcinoma diminished to a threefold risk (OR, 2.90; 95% CI, 0.78-10.00) and was no longer statistically significant (P = .11).

On the other hand, adjusting for diabetes did not change the significance of the relationship between PFOS and the cancer (OR, 5.7; 95% CI, 1.10-30.00; P = .04).

The sample size was probably too small to adequately tease out this relationship, Dr. Chen said. Still, he said, “I thought it was a very, very important study.”

The levels of PFOS found in the blood of Americans has been declining since the 1999-2000 NHANES, Dr. Chen pointed out. But that’s not as reassuring as it sounds.

“The problem is that if you put a regulation limiting the use of one PFAS, what people can do is just substitute with another PFAS or another molecule, which for all we know could be equally harmful,” Dr. Chen said.

Funding was provided by the Southern California Environmental Health Science Center supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Goodrich and Dr. Chen report no relevant financial relationships.

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