In a phase 2 clinical trial, the combination of an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) and a vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor led to improved overall survival versus standard of care in patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had failed previous ICI therapy.

NSCLC patients usually receive immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy at some point, whether in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting, or among stage 3 patients after radiation. “The majority of patients who get diagnosed with lung cancer will get some sort of immunotherapy, and we know that at least from the advanced setting, about 15% of those will have long-term responses, which means the majority of patients will develop tumor resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy,” said Karen L. Reckamp, MD, who is the lead author of the study published online in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

That clinical need has led to the combination of ICIs with VEGF inhibitors. This approach is approved for first-line therapy of renal cell cancer, endometrial, and hepatocellular cancer. Along with its effect on tumor vasculature, VEGF inhibition assists in the activation and maturation of dendritic cells, as well as to attract cytotoxic T cells to the tumor. “By both changing the vasculature and changing the tumor milieu, there’s a potential to overcome that immune suppression and potentially overcome that (ICI) resistance,” said Dr. Reckamp, who is associate director of clinical research at Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles. “The results of the study were encouraging. The survival benefit was seen from the very beginning of treatment. It wasn’t something that was delayed in its benefit. We would like to confirm this finding in a phase 3 trial and potentially provide to patients an option that does not include chemotherapy and can potentially overcome resistance to their prior immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy,” Dr. Reckamp said.

The study included 136 patients. The median patient age was 66 years and 61% were male. The ICI/VEGF arm had better overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.69; SLR one-sided P = .05). The median overall survival was 14.5 months in the ICI/VEGF arm, versus 11.6 months in the standard care arm. Both arms had similar response rates, and grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events were more common in the chemotherapy arm (60% versus 42%).

The next step is a phase 3 trial and Dr. Reckamp hopes to improve patient selection for VEGF inhibitor and VEGF receptor inhibitor therapy. “The precision medicine that’s associated with other tumor alterations has kind of been elusive for VEGF therapies, but I would hope with potentially a larger trial and understanding of some of the biomarkers that we might find a more select patient population who will benefit the most,” Dr. Reckamp said.

She also noted that the comparative arm in the phase 2 study was a combination of docetaxel and ramucirumab. “That combination has shown to be more effective than single agent docetaxel alone so [the new study] was really improved overall survival over the best standard of care therapy we have,” Dr. Reckamp said.

The study was funded, in part, by Eli Lilly and Company and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Dr. Reckamp disclosed ties to Amgen, Tesaro, Takeda, AstraZeneca, Seattle Genetics, Genentech, Blueprint Medicines, Daiichi Sankyo/Lilly, EMD Serono, Janssen Oncology, Merck KGaA, GlaxoSmithKline, and Mirati Therapeutics.

In a phase 2 clinical trial, the combination of an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) and a vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor led to improved overall survival versus standard of care in patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had failed previous ICI therapy.

NSCLC patients usually receive immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy at some point, whether in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting, or among stage 3 patients after radiation. “The majority of patients who get diagnosed with lung cancer will get some sort of immunotherapy, and we know that at least from the advanced setting, about 15% of those will have long-term responses, which means the majority of patients will develop tumor resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy,” said Karen L. Reckamp, MD, who is the lead author of the study published online in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

That clinical need has led to the combination of ICIs with VEGF inhibitors. This approach is approved for first-line therapy of renal cell cancer, endometrial, and hepatocellular cancer. Along with its effect on tumor vasculature, VEGF inhibition assists in the activation and maturation of dendritic cells, as well as to attract cytotoxic T cells to the tumor. “By both changing the vasculature and changing the tumor milieu, there’s a potential to overcome that immune suppression and potentially overcome that (ICI) resistance,” said Dr. Reckamp, who is associate director of clinical research at Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles. “The results of the study were encouraging. The survival benefit was seen from the very beginning of treatment. It wasn’t something that was delayed in its benefit. We would like to confirm this finding in a phase 3 trial and potentially provide to patients an option that does not include chemotherapy and can potentially overcome resistance to their prior immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy,” Dr. Reckamp said.

The study included 136 patients. The median patient age was 66 years and 61% were male. The ICI/VEGF arm had better overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.69; SLR one-sided P = .05). The median overall survival was 14.5 months in the ICI/VEGF arm, versus 11.6 months in the standard care arm. Both arms had similar response rates, and grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events were more common in the chemotherapy arm (60% versus 42%).

The next step is a phase 3 trial and Dr. Reckamp hopes to improve patient selection for VEGF inhibitor and VEGF receptor inhibitor therapy. “The precision medicine that’s associated with other tumor alterations has kind of been elusive for VEGF therapies, but I would hope with potentially a larger trial and understanding of some of the biomarkers that we might find a more select patient population who will benefit the most,” Dr. Reckamp said.

She also noted that the comparative arm in the phase 2 study was a combination of docetaxel and ramucirumab. “That combination has shown to be more effective than single agent docetaxel alone so [the new study] was really improved overall survival over the best standard of care therapy we have,” Dr. Reckamp said.

The study was funded, in part, by Eli Lilly and Company and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Dr. Reckamp disclosed ties to Amgen, Tesaro, Takeda, AstraZeneca, Seattle Genetics, Genentech, Blueprint Medicines, Daiichi Sankyo/Lilly, EMD Serono, Janssen Oncology, Merck KGaA, GlaxoSmithKline, and Mirati Therapeutics.

In a phase 2 clinical trial, the combination of an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) and a vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor led to improved overall survival versus standard of care in patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had failed previous ICI therapy.

NSCLC patients usually receive immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy at some point, whether in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting, or among stage 3 patients after radiation. “The majority of patients who get diagnosed with lung cancer will get some sort of immunotherapy, and we know that at least from the advanced setting, about 15% of those will have long-term responses, which means the majority of patients will develop tumor resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy,” said Karen L. Reckamp, MD, who is the lead author of the study published online in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

That clinical need has led to the combination of ICIs with VEGF inhibitors. This approach is approved for first-line therapy of renal cell cancer, endometrial, and hepatocellular cancer. Along with its effect on tumor vasculature, VEGF inhibition assists in the activation and maturation of dendritic cells, as well as to attract cytotoxic T cells to the tumor. “By both changing the vasculature and changing the tumor milieu, there’s a potential to overcome that immune suppression and potentially overcome that (ICI) resistance,” said Dr. Reckamp, who is associate director of clinical research at Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles. “The results of the study were encouraging. The survival benefit was seen from the very beginning of treatment. It wasn’t something that was delayed in its benefit. We would like to confirm this finding in a phase 3 trial and potentially provide to patients an option that does not include chemotherapy and can potentially overcome resistance to their prior immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy,” Dr. Reckamp said.

The study included 136 patients. The median patient age was 66 years and 61% were male. The ICI/VEGF arm had better overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.69; SLR one-sided P = .05). The median overall survival was 14.5 months in the ICI/VEGF arm, versus 11.6 months in the standard care arm. Both arms had similar response rates, and grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events were more common in the chemotherapy arm (60% versus 42%).

The next step is a phase 3 trial and Dr. Reckamp hopes to improve patient selection for VEGF inhibitor and VEGF receptor inhibitor therapy. “The precision medicine that’s associated with other tumor alterations has kind of been elusive for VEGF therapies, but I would hope with potentially a larger trial and understanding of some of the biomarkers that we might find a more select patient population who will benefit the most,” Dr. Reckamp said.

She also noted that the comparative arm in the phase 2 study was a combination of docetaxel and ramucirumab. “That combination has shown to be more effective than single agent docetaxel alone so [the new study] was really improved overall survival over the best standard of care therapy we have,” Dr. Reckamp said.

The study was funded, in part, by Eli Lilly and Company and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Dr. Reckamp disclosed ties to Amgen, Tesaro, Takeda, AstraZeneca, Seattle Genetics, Genentech, Blueprint Medicines, Daiichi Sankyo/Lilly, EMD Serono, Janssen Oncology, Merck KGaA, GlaxoSmithKline, and Mirati Therapeutics.

Ten years ago, Stephan Grupp, MD, PhD, plunged into an unexplored area of pediatric cancer treatment with a 6-year-old patient for whom every treatment available for her acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) had been exhausted.

Dr. Grupp, a pioneer in cellular immunotherapy at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, had just got the green light to launch the first phase 1 trial of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy for children.

“The trial opened at the absolute last possible moment that it could have been helpful to her,” he said in an interview. “There was nothing else to do to temporize her further. ... It had to open then or never.”

The patient was Emily Whitehead, who has since become a poster girl for the dramatic results that can be achieved with these novel therapies. After that one CAR T-cell treatment back in 2012, she has been free of her leukemia and has remained in remission for more than 10 years.

Dr. Grupp said that he is, at last, starting to use the “cure” word.

“I’m not just a doctor, I’m a scientist – and one case isn’t enough to have confidence about anything,” he said. “We wanted more patients to be out longer to be able to say that thing which we have for a long time called the ‘c word.’

“CAR T-cell therapy has now been given to hundreds of patients at CHOP, and – we are unique in this – we have a couple dozen patients who are 5, 6, 7, 9 years out or more without further therapy. That feels like a cure to me,” he commented.
 

First patient with ALL

Emily was the first patient with ALL to receive the novel treatment, and also the first child.

There was a precedent, however. After having been “stuck” for decades, the CAR T-cell field had recently made a breakthrough, thanks to research by Dr. Grupp’s colleague Carl June, MD, and associates at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. By tweaking two key steps in the genetic modification of T cells, Dr. June’s team had successfully treated three adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), two of whom were in complete remission.

But using the treatment for a child and for a different type of leukemia was a daunting prospect. Dr. Grupp said that he was candid with Emily’s parents, Tom and Kari Whitehead, emphasizing that there are no guarantees in cancer treatment, particularly in a phase 1 trial.

But the Whiteheads had no time to waste and nowhere else to turn. Her father, Tom, recalled saying: “This is something outside the box, this is going to give her a chance.”

Dr. Grupp, who described himself as being “on the cowboy end” of oncology care, was ready to take the plunge.

Little did any of them know that the treatment would make Emily even sicker than she already was, putting her in intensive care. But thanks to a combination of several lucky breaks and a lot of brain power, she would make a breathtakingly rapid recovery.
 

The ‘magic formula’

CAR T-cell therapy involves harvesting a patient’s T cells and modifying them in the lab with a chimeric antigen receptor to target CD19, a protein found on the surface of ALL cancer cells.

Before the University of Pennsylvania team tweaked the process, clinical trials of the therapy yielded only modest results because the modified T cells “were very powerful in the short term but had almost no proliferative capacity” once they were infused back into the patient, Dr. Grupp explained.

“It does not matter how many cells you give to a patient, what matters is that the cells grow in the patient to the level needed to control the leukemia,” he said.

Dr. June’s team came up with what Dr. Grupp calls “the magic formula”: A bead-based manufacturing process that produced younger T-cell phenotypes with “enormous” proliferative capacity, and a lentiviral approach to the genetic modification, enabling prolonged expression of the CAR-T molecule.

“Was it rogue? Absolutely, positively not,” said Dr. Grupp, thinking back to the day he enrolled Emily in the trial. “Was it risky? Obviously ... we all dived into this pool without knowing what was under the water, so I would say, rogue, no, risky, yes. And I would say we didn’t know nearly enough about the risks.”
 

Cytokine storm

The gravest risk that Dr. Grupp and his team encountered was something they had not anticipated. At the time, they had no name for it.

The three adults with CLL who had received CAR T-cell therapy had experienced a mild version that the researchers referred to as “tumor lysis syndrome”.

But for Emily, on day 3 of her CAR T-cell infusion, there was a ferocious reaction storm that later came to be called cytokine release syndrome.

“The wheels just came off then,” said Mr. Whitehead. “I remember her blood pressure was 53 over 29. They took her to the ICU, induced a coma, and put her on a ventilator. It was brutal to watch. The oscillatory ventilator just pounds on you, and there was blood bubbling out around the hose in her mouth.

“I remember the third or fourth night, a doctor took me in the hallway and said, ‘There’s a one-in-a-thousand chance your daughter is alive when the sun comes up,’” Mr. Whitehead said in an interview. “And I said: ‘All right, I’ll see you at rounds tomorrow, because she’ll still be here.’ ”

“We had some vague notion of toxicity ... but it turned out not nearly enough,” said Dr. Grupp. The ICU “worked flat out” to save her life. “They had deployed everything they had to keep a human being alive and they had nothing more to add. At some point, you run out of things that you can do, and we had run out.”
 

On the fly

It was then that the team ran into some good luck. The first break was when they decided to look at her cytokines. “Our whole knowledge base came together in the moment, on the fly, at the exact moment when Emily was so very sick,” he recalled. “Could we get the result fast enough? The lab dropped everything to run the test.”

They ordered a broad cytokine panel that included 30 analytes. The results showed that a number of cytokines “were just unbelievably elevated,” he said. Among them was interleukin-6.

“IL-6 isn’t even made by T cells, so nobody in the world would have guessed that this would have mattered. If we’d ordered a smaller panel, it might not even have been on it. Yet this was the one cytokine we had a drug for – tocilizumab – so that was chance. And then, another chance was that the drug was at the hospital, because there are rheumatology patients who get it.

“So, we went from making the determination that IL-6 was high and figuring out there was a drug for it at 3:00 o’clock to giving the drug to her at 8:00 o’clock, and then her clinical situation turned around so quickly – I mean hours later.”

Emily woke up from a 14-day medically induced coma on her seventh birthday.

Eight days later, her bone marrow showed complete remission. “The doctors said, ‘We’ve never seen anyone this sick get better any faster,’ ” Mr. Whitehead said.

She had already been through a battery of treatments for her leukemia. “It was 22 months of failed, standard treatment, and then just 23 days after they gave her the first dose of CAR T-cells that she was cancer free,” he added.
 

Talking about ‘cure’

Now that Emily, 17, has remained in remission for 10 years, Dr. Grupp is finally willing to use the word “cure” – but it has taken him a long time.

Now, he says, the challenge from the bedside is to keep parents’ and patients’ expectations realistic about what they see as a miracle cure.

“It’s not a miracle. We can get patients into remission 90-plus percent of the time – but some patients do relapse – and then there are the risks [of the cytokine storm, which can be life-threatening].

“Right now, our experience is that about 12% of patients end up in the ICU, but they hardly ever end up as sick as Emily ... because now we’re giving the tocilizumab much earlier,” Dr. Grupp said.
 

Hearing whispers

Since their daughter’s recovery, Tom and Kari Whitehead have dedicated much of their time to spreading the word about the treatment that saved Emily’s life. Mr. Whitehead testified at the Food and Drug Administration’s advisory committee meeting in 2017 when approval was being considered for the CAR T-cell product that Emily received. The product was tisagenlecleucel-T (Novartis); at that meeting, there was a unanimous vote to recommend approval. This was the first CAR T cell to reach the market.

As cofounders of the Emily Whitehead Foundation, Emily’s parents have helped raise more than $2 million to support research in the field, and they travel around the world telling their story to “move this revolution forward.”

Despite their fierce belief in the science that saved Emily, they also acknowledge there was luck – and faith. Early in their journey, when Emily experienced relapse after her initial treatments, Mr. Whitehead drew comfort from two visions, which he calls “whispers,” that guided them through several forks in the road and through tough decisions about Emily’s treatment.

Several times the parents refused treatment that was offered to Emily, and once they had her discharged against medical advice. “I told Kari she’s definitely going to beat her cancer – I saw it. I don’t know how it’s going to happen, but we’re going to be in the bone marrow transplant hallway [at CHOP] teaching her to walk again. I know a lot of doctors don’t want to hear anything about ‘a sign,’ or what guided us, but I don’t think you have to separate faith and science, I think it takes everything to make something like this to happen.”
 

Enduring effect

The key to the CAR T-cell breakthrough that gave rise to Emily’s therapy was cell proliferation, and the effect is enduring, beyond all expectations, said Dr. Grupp. The modified T cells are still detectable in Emily and other patients in long-term remission.

“The fundamental question is, are the cells still working, or are the patients cured and they don’t need them?” said Dr. Grupp. “I think it’s the latter. The data that we have from several large datasets that we developed with Novartis are that, if you get to a year and your minimal residual disease testing both by flow and by next-generation sequencing is negative and you still have B-cell aplasia, the relapse risk is close to zero at that point.”

While it’s still not clear if and when that risk will ever get to zero, Emily and Dr. Grupp have successfully closed the chapter.

“Oncologists have different notions of what the word ‘cure’ means. If your attitude is you’re not cured until you’ve basically reached the end of your life and you haven’t relapsed, well, that’s an impossible bar to hit. My attitude is, if your likelihood of having a disease recurrence is lower than the other risks in your life, like getting into your car and driving to your appointment, then that’s what a functional cure looks like,” he said.

“I’m probably the doctor that still sees her the most, but honestly, the whole conversation is not about leukemia at all. She has B-cell aplasia, so we have to treat that, and then it’s about making sure there’s no long-term side effects from the totality of her treatment. Generally, for a patient who’s gotten a moderate amount of chemotherapy and CAR T, that should not interfere with fertility. Has any patient in the history of the world ever relapsed more than 5 years out from their therapy? Of course. Is that incredibly rare? Yes, it is. You can be paralyzed by that, or you can compartmentalize it.”

As for the Whiteheads, they are focused on Emily’s college applications, her new driver’s license, and her project to cowrite a film about her story with a Hollywood filmmaker.

Mr. Whitehead said the one thing he hopes clinicians take away from their story is that sometimes a parent’s instinct transcends science.

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

Ten years ago, Stephan Grupp, MD, PhD, plunged into an unexplored area of pediatric cancer treatment with a 6-year-old patient for whom every treatment available for her acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) had been exhausted.

Dr. Grupp, a pioneer in cellular immunotherapy at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, had just got the green light to launch the first phase 1 trial of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy for children.

“The trial opened at the absolute last possible moment that it could have been helpful to her,” he said in an interview. “There was nothing else to do to temporize her further. ... It had to open then or never.”

The patient was Emily Whitehead, who has since become a poster girl for the dramatic results that can be achieved with these novel therapies. After that one CAR T-cell treatment back in 2012, she has been free of her leukemia and has remained in remission for more than 10 years.

Dr. Grupp said that he is, at last, starting to use the “cure” word.

“I’m not just a doctor, I’m a scientist – and one case isn’t enough to have confidence about anything,” he said. “We wanted more patients to be out longer to be able to say that thing which we have for a long time called the ‘c word.’

“CAR T-cell therapy has now been given to hundreds of patients at CHOP, and – we are unique in this – we have a couple dozen patients who are 5, 6, 7, 9 years out or more without further therapy. That feels like a cure to me,” he commented.
 

First patient with ALL

Emily was the first patient with ALL to receive the novel treatment, and also the first child.

There was a precedent, however. After having been “stuck” for decades, the CAR T-cell field had recently made a breakthrough, thanks to research by Dr. Grupp’s colleague Carl June, MD, and associates at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. By tweaking two key steps in the genetic modification of T cells, Dr. June’s team had successfully treated three adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), two of whom were in complete remission.

But using the treatment for a child and for a different type of leukemia was a daunting prospect. Dr. Grupp said that he was candid with Emily’s parents, Tom and Kari Whitehead, emphasizing that there are no guarantees in cancer treatment, particularly in a phase 1 trial.

But the Whiteheads had no time to waste and nowhere else to turn. Her father, Tom, recalled saying: “This is something outside the box, this is going to give her a chance.”

Dr. Grupp, who described himself as being “on the cowboy end” of oncology care, was ready to take the plunge.

Little did any of them know that the treatment would make Emily even sicker than she already was, putting her in intensive care. But thanks to a combination of several lucky breaks and a lot of brain power, she would make a breathtakingly rapid recovery.
 

The ‘magic formula’

CAR T-cell therapy involves harvesting a patient’s T cells and modifying them in the lab with a chimeric antigen receptor to target CD19, a protein found on the surface of ALL cancer cells.

Before the University of Pennsylvania team tweaked the process, clinical trials of the therapy yielded only modest results because the modified T cells “were very powerful in the short term but had almost no proliferative capacity” once they were infused back into the patient, Dr. Grupp explained.

“It does not matter how many cells you give to a patient, what matters is that the cells grow in the patient to the level needed to control the leukemia,” he said.

Dr. June’s team came up with what Dr. Grupp calls “the magic formula”: A bead-based manufacturing process that produced younger T-cell phenotypes with “enormous” proliferative capacity, and a lentiviral approach to the genetic modification, enabling prolonged expression of the CAR-T molecule.

“Was it rogue? Absolutely, positively not,” said Dr. Grupp, thinking back to the day he enrolled Emily in the trial. “Was it risky? Obviously ... we all dived into this pool without knowing what was under the water, so I would say, rogue, no, risky, yes. And I would say we didn’t know nearly enough about the risks.”
 

Cytokine storm

The gravest risk that Dr. Grupp and his team encountered was something they had not anticipated. At the time, they had no name for it.

The three adults with CLL who had received CAR T-cell therapy had experienced a mild version that the researchers referred to as “tumor lysis syndrome”.

But for Emily, on day 3 of her CAR T-cell infusion, there was a ferocious reaction storm that later came to be called cytokine release syndrome.

“The wheels just came off then,” said Mr. Whitehead. “I remember her blood pressure was 53 over 29. They took her to the ICU, induced a coma, and put her on a ventilator. It was brutal to watch. The oscillatory ventilator just pounds on you, and there was blood bubbling out around the hose in her mouth.

“I remember the third or fourth night, a doctor took me in the hallway and said, ‘There’s a one-in-a-thousand chance your daughter is alive when the sun comes up,’” Mr. Whitehead said in an interview. “And I said: ‘All right, I’ll see you at rounds tomorrow, because she’ll still be here.’ ”

“We had some vague notion of toxicity ... but it turned out not nearly enough,” said Dr. Grupp. The ICU “worked flat out” to save her life. “They had deployed everything they had to keep a human being alive and they had nothing more to add. At some point, you run out of things that you can do, and we had run out.”
 

On the fly

It was then that the team ran into some good luck. The first break was when they decided to look at her cytokines. “Our whole knowledge base came together in the moment, on the fly, at the exact moment when Emily was so very sick,” he recalled. “Could we get the result fast enough? The lab dropped everything to run the test.”

They ordered a broad cytokine panel that included 30 analytes. The results showed that a number of cytokines “were just unbelievably elevated,” he said. Among them was interleukin-6.

“IL-6 isn’t even made by T cells, so nobody in the world would have guessed that this would have mattered. If we’d ordered a smaller panel, it might not even have been on it. Yet this was the one cytokine we had a drug for – tocilizumab – so that was chance. And then, another chance was that the drug was at the hospital, because there are rheumatology patients who get it.

“So, we went from making the determination that IL-6 was high and figuring out there was a drug for it at 3:00 o’clock to giving the drug to her at 8:00 o’clock, and then her clinical situation turned around so quickly – I mean hours later.”

Emily woke up from a 14-day medically induced coma on her seventh birthday.

Eight days later, her bone marrow showed complete remission. “The doctors said, ‘We’ve never seen anyone this sick get better any faster,’ ” Mr. Whitehead said.

She had already been through a battery of treatments for her leukemia. “It was 22 months of failed, standard treatment, and then just 23 days after they gave her the first dose of CAR T-cells that she was cancer free,” he added.
 

Talking about ‘cure’

Now that Emily, 17, has remained in remission for 10 years, Dr. Grupp is finally willing to use the word “cure” – but it has taken him a long time.

Now, he says, the challenge from the bedside is to keep parents’ and patients’ expectations realistic about what they see as a miracle cure.

“It’s not a miracle. We can get patients into remission 90-plus percent of the time – but some patients do relapse – and then there are the risks [of the cytokine storm, which can be life-threatening].

“Right now, our experience is that about 12% of patients end up in the ICU, but they hardly ever end up as sick as Emily ... because now we’re giving the tocilizumab much earlier,” Dr. Grupp said.
 

Hearing whispers

Since their daughter’s recovery, Tom and Kari Whitehead have dedicated much of their time to spreading the word about the treatment that saved Emily’s life. Mr. Whitehead testified at the Food and Drug Administration’s advisory committee meeting in 2017 when approval was being considered for the CAR T-cell product that Emily received. The product was tisagenlecleucel-T (Novartis); at that meeting, there was a unanimous vote to recommend approval. This was the first CAR T cell to reach the market.

As cofounders of the Emily Whitehead Foundation, Emily’s parents have helped raise more than $2 million to support research in the field, and they travel around the world telling their story to “move this revolution forward.”

Despite their fierce belief in the science that saved Emily, they also acknowledge there was luck – and faith. Early in their journey, when Emily experienced relapse after her initial treatments, Mr. Whitehead drew comfort from two visions, which he calls “whispers,” that guided them through several forks in the road and through tough decisions about Emily’s treatment.

Several times the parents refused treatment that was offered to Emily, and once they had her discharged against medical advice. “I told Kari she’s definitely going to beat her cancer – I saw it. I don’t know how it’s going to happen, but we’re going to be in the bone marrow transplant hallway [at CHOP] teaching her to walk again. I know a lot of doctors don’t want to hear anything about ‘a sign,’ or what guided us, but I don’t think you have to separate faith and science, I think it takes everything to make something like this to happen.”
 

Enduring effect

The key to the CAR T-cell breakthrough that gave rise to Emily’s therapy was cell proliferation, and the effect is enduring, beyond all expectations, said Dr. Grupp. The modified T cells are still detectable in Emily and other patients in long-term remission.

“The fundamental question is, are the cells still working, or are the patients cured and they don’t need them?” said Dr. Grupp. “I think it’s the latter. The data that we have from several large datasets that we developed with Novartis are that, if you get to a year and your minimal residual disease testing both by flow and by next-generation sequencing is negative and you still have B-cell aplasia, the relapse risk is close to zero at that point.”

While it’s still not clear if and when that risk will ever get to zero, Emily and Dr. Grupp have successfully closed the chapter.

“Oncologists have different notions of what the word ‘cure’ means. If your attitude is you’re not cured until you’ve basically reached the end of your life and you haven’t relapsed, well, that’s an impossible bar to hit. My attitude is, if your likelihood of having a disease recurrence is lower than the other risks in your life, like getting into your car and driving to your appointment, then that’s what a functional cure looks like,” he said.

“I’m probably the doctor that still sees her the most, but honestly, the whole conversation is not about leukemia at all. She has B-cell aplasia, so we have to treat that, and then it’s about making sure there’s no long-term side effects from the totality of her treatment. Generally, for a patient who’s gotten a moderate amount of chemotherapy and CAR T, that should not interfere with fertility. Has any patient in the history of the world ever relapsed more than 5 years out from their therapy? Of course. Is that incredibly rare? Yes, it is. You can be paralyzed by that, or you can compartmentalize it.”

As for the Whiteheads, they are focused on Emily’s college applications, her new driver’s license, and her project to cowrite a film about her story with a Hollywood filmmaker.

Mr. Whitehead said the one thing he hopes clinicians take away from their story is that sometimes a parent’s instinct transcends science.

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

Ten years ago, Stephan Grupp, MD, PhD, plunged into an unexplored area of pediatric cancer treatment with a 6-year-old patient for whom every treatment available for her acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) had been exhausted.

Dr. Grupp, a pioneer in cellular immunotherapy at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, had just got the green light to launch the first phase 1 trial of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy for children.

“The trial opened at the absolute last possible moment that it could have been helpful to her,” he said in an interview. “There was nothing else to do to temporize her further. ... It had to open then or never.”

The patient was Emily Whitehead, who has since become a poster girl for the dramatic results that can be achieved with these novel therapies. After that one CAR T-cell treatment back in 2012, she has been free of her leukemia and has remained in remission for more than 10 years.

Dr. Grupp said that he is, at last, starting to use the “cure” word.

“I’m not just a doctor, I’m a scientist – and one case isn’t enough to have confidence about anything,” he said. “We wanted more patients to be out longer to be able to say that thing which we have for a long time called the ‘c word.’

“CAR T-cell therapy has now been given to hundreds of patients at CHOP, and – we are unique in this – we have a couple dozen patients who are 5, 6, 7, 9 years out or more without further therapy. That feels like a cure to me,” he commented.
 

First patient with ALL

Emily was the first patient with ALL to receive the novel treatment, and also the first child.

There was a precedent, however. After having been “stuck” for decades, the CAR T-cell field had recently made a breakthrough, thanks to research by Dr. Grupp’s colleague Carl June, MD, and associates at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. By tweaking two key steps in the genetic modification of T cells, Dr. June’s team had successfully treated three adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), two of whom were in complete remission.

But using the treatment for a child and for a different type of leukemia was a daunting prospect. Dr. Grupp said that he was candid with Emily’s parents, Tom and Kari Whitehead, emphasizing that there are no guarantees in cancer treatment, particularly in a phase 1 trial.

But the Whiteheads had no time to waste and nowhere else to turn. Her father, Tom, recalled saying: “This is something outside the box, this is going to give her a chance.”

Dr. Grupp, who described himself as being “on the cowboy end” of oncology care, was ready to take the plunge.

Little did any of them know that the treatment would make Emily even sicker than she already was, putting her in intensive care. But thanks to a combination of several lucky breaks and a lot of brain power, she would make a breathtakingly rapid recovery.
 

The ‘magic formula’

CAR T-cell therapy involves harvesting a patient’s T cells and modifying them in the lab with a chimeric antigen receptor to target CD19, a protein found on the surface of ALL cancer cells.

Before the University of Pennsylvania team tweaked the process, clinical trials of the therapy yielded only modest results because the modified T cells “were very powerful in the short term but had almost no proliferative capacity” once they were infused back into the patient, Dr. Grupp explained.

“It does not matter how many cells you give to a patient, what matters is that the cells grow in the patient to the level needed to control the leukemia,” he said.

Dr. June’s team came up with what Dr. Grupp calls “the magic formula”: A bead-based manufacturing process that produced younger T-cell phenotypes with “enormous” proliferative capacity, and a lentiviral approach to the genetic modification, enabling prolonged expression of the CAR-T molecule.

“Was it rogue? Absolutely, positively not,” said Dr. Grupp, thinking back to the day he enrolled Emily in the trial. “Was it risky? Obviously ... we all dived into this pool without knowing what was under the water, so I would say, rogue, no, risky, yes. And I would say we didn’t know nearly enough about the risks.”
 

Cytokine storm

The gravest risk that Dr. Grupp and his team encountered was something they had not anticipated. At the time, they had no name for it.

The three adults with CLL who had received CAR T-cell therapy had experienced a mild version that the researchers referred to as “tumor lysis syndrome”.

But for Emily, on day 3 of her CAR T-cell infusion, there was a ferocious reaction storm that later came to be called cytokine release syndrome.

“The wheels just came off then,” said Mr. Whitehead. “I remember her blood pressure was 53 over 29. They took her to the ICU, induced a coma, and put her on a ventilator. It was brutal to watch. The oscillatory ventilator just pounds on you, and there was blood bubbling out around the hose in her mouth.

“I remember the third or fourth night, a doctor took me in the hallway and said, ‘There’s a one-in-a-thousand chance your daughter is alive when the sun comes up,’” Mr. Whitehead said in an interview. “And I said: ‘All right, I’ll see you at rounds tomorrow, because she’ll still be here.’ ”

“We had some vague notion of toxicity ... but it turned out not nearly enough,” said Dr. Grupp. The ICU “worked flat out” to save her life. “They had deployed everything they had to keep a human being alive and they had nothing more to add. At some point, you run out of things that you can do, and we had run out.”
 

On the fly

It was then that the team ran into some good luck. The first break was when they decided to look at her cytokines. “Our whole knowledge base came together in the moment, on the fly, at the exact moment when Emily was so very sick,” he recalled. “Could we get the result fast enough? The lab dropped everything to run the test.”

They ordered a broad cytokine panel that included 30 analytes. The results showed that a number of cytokines “were just unbelievably elevated,” he said. Among them was interleukin-6.

“IL-6 isn’t even made by T cells, so nobody in the world would have guessed that this would have mattered. If we’d ordered a smaller panel, it might not even have been on it. Yet this was the one cytokine we had a drug for – tocilizumab – so that was chance. And then, another chance was that the drug was at the hospital, because there are rheumatology patients who get it.

“So, we went from making the determination that IL-6 was high and figuring out there was a drug for it at 3:00 o’clock to giving the drug to her at 8:00 o’clock, and then her clinical situation turned around so quickly – I mean hours later.”

Emily woke up from a 14-day medically induced coma on her seventh birthday.

Eight days later, her bone marrow showed complete remission. “The doctors said, ‘We’ve never seen anyone this sick get better any faster,’ ” Mr. Whitehead said.

She had already been through a battery of treatments for her leukemia. “It was 22 months of failed, standard treatment, and then just 23 days after they gave her the first dose of CAR T-cells that she was cancer free,” he added.
 

Talking about ‘cure’

Now that Emily, 17, has remained in remission for 10 years, Dr. Grupp is finally willing to use the word “cure” – but it has taken him a long time.

Now, he says, the challenge from the bedside is to keep parents’ and patients’ expectations realistic about what they see as a miracle cure.

“It’s not a miracle. We can get patients into remission 90-plus percent of the time – but some patients do relapse – and then there are the risks [of the cytokine storm, which can be life-threatening].

“Right now, our experience is that about 12% of patients end up in the ICU, but they hardly ever end up as sick as Emily ... because now we’re giving the tocilizumab much earlier,” Dr. Grupp said.
 

Hearing whispers

Since their daughter’s recovery, Tom and Kari Whitehead have dedicated much of their time to spreading the word about the treatment that saved Emily’s life. Mr. Whitehead testified at the Food and Drug Administration’s advisory committee meeting in 2017 when approval was being considered for the CAR T-cell product that Emily received. The product was tisagenlecleucel-T (Novartis); at that meeting, there was a unanimous vote to recommend approval. This was the first CAR T cell to reach the market.

As cofounders of the Emily Whitehead Foundation, Emily’s parents have helped raise more than $2 million to support research in the field, and they travel around the world telling their story to “move this revolution forward.”

Despite their fierce belief in the science that saved Emily, they also acknowledge there was luck – and faith. Early in their journey, when Emily experienced relapse after her initial treatments, Mr. Whitehead drew comfort from two visions, which he calls “whispers,” that guided them through several forks in the road and through tough decisions about Emily’s treatment.

Several times the parents refused treatment that was offered to Emily, and once they had her discharged against medical advice. “I told Kari she’s definitely going to beat her cancer – I saw it. I don’t know how it’s going to happen, but we’re going to be in the bone marrow transplant hallway [at CHOP] teaching her to walk again. I know a lot of doctors don’t want to hear anything about ‘a sign,’ or what guided us, but I don’t think you have to separate faith and science, I think it takes everything to make something like this to happen.”
 

Enduring effect

The key to the CAR T-cell breakthrough that gave rise to Emily’s therapy was cell proliferation, and the effect is enduring, beyond all expectations, said Dr. Grupp. The modified T cells are still detectable in Emily and other patients in long-term remission.

“The fundamental question is, are the cells still working, or are the patients cured and they don’t need them?” said Dr. Grupp. “I think it’s the latter. The data that we have from several large datasets that we developed with Novartis are that, if you get to a year and your minimal residual disease testing both by flow and by next-generation sequencing is negative and you still have B-cell aplasia, the relapse risk is close to zero at that point.”

While it’s still not clear if and when that risk will ever get to zero, Emily and Dr. Grupp have successfully closed the chapter.

“Oncologists have different notions of what the word ‘cure’ means. If your attitude is you’re not cured until you’ve basically reached the end of your life and you haven’t relapsed, well, that’s an impossible bar to hit. My attitude is, if your likelihood of having a disease recurrence is lower than the other risks in your life, like getting into your car and driving to your appointment, then that’s what a functional cure looks like,” he said.

“I’m probably the doctor that still sees her the most, but honestly, the whole conversation is not about leukemia at all. She has B-cell aplasia, so we have to treat that, and then it’s about making sure there’s no long-term side effects from the totality of her treatment. Generally, for a patient who’s gotten a moderate amount of chemotherapy and CAR T, that should not interfere with fertility. Has any patient in the history of the world ever relapsed more than 5 years out from their therapy? Of course. Is that incredibly rare? Yes, it is. You can be paralyzed by that, or you can compartmentalize it.”

As for the Whiteheads, they are focused on Emily’s college applications, her new driver’s license, and her project to cowrite a film about her story with a Hollywood filmmaker.

Mr. Whitehead said the one thing he hopes clinicians take away from their story is that sometimes a parent’s instinct transcends science.

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

The Health Terminology/Ontology Portal (HeTOP), on which the curious can discover information about off-label use, lists 645 medications prescribed for migraine worldwide. Treatments ranging from blood pressure medications to antidepressants, and anticonvulsants to antiepileptics, along with their doses and administrations, are all listed. The number of migraine-indicated medications is 114.  Dominated by triptans and topiramate, the list also includes erenumab, the calcitonin gene-related peptide CGRP agonist. The difference in figures between the predominately off label and migraine-approved lists is a good indicator of the struggle that health care providers have had through the years to help their patients.

 The idea now is to make that list even longer by finding biomarkers that lead to new therapies.

But first, a conversation about the trigeminal ganglia.

The trigeminal ganglia

The trigeminal ganglia sit on either side of the head, in front of the ears. Their primary role is to receive stimuli and convey it to the brain. The humantrigeminal ganglia contain 20,000 to 35,000 neurons and express an array of neuropeptides, including CGRP. Some neuropeptides, like CGRP and pituitary adenylate cyclase–activating peptide 38 (PACAP38) are vasodilators. Others, like substance P, are vasoconstrictors. Edvinsson and Goadsby discussed in 1994 how CGRP was released simultaneously in those with “spontaneous attacks of migraine.”

Over the past 30 years, researchers in our institution  and elsewhere have shown repeatedly that migraine develops in individuals who are exposed to certain signaling molecules, namely nitroglycerin, CGRP, cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP), intracellular cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP), potassium, and PACAP38, among others. Such exposure reinforces the notion that peripheral sensitization of trigeminal sensory neurons brings on headache. The attack could occur due to vasodilation, mast cell degranulation, involvement of the parasympathetic system, or activation of nerve fibers.

Some examples from the literature:

• In our research, results from a small study of patients under spontaneous migraine attack, who underwent a 3-Tesla MRI scan, showed that cortical thickness diminishes in the prefrontal and pericalcarine cortices. The analysis we performed involving individuals with migraine without aura revealed that these patients experience reduced cortical thickness and volume when migraine attacks come on, suggesting that cortical thickness and volume may serve as a potential biomarker.
• A comparison of 20 individuals with chronic migraine and 20 healthy controls by way of 3-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging scans revealed that those with headache appeared to have substantially increased neural connectivity between the hypothalamus and certain brain areas – yet there appeared to be no connectivity irregularities between the hypothalamus and brainstem, which as the authors noted, is the “migraine generator.”

In other words, vasodilation might be  a secondary symptom of migraine but likely isn’t its source.

Other migraine makers

Neurochemicals and nucleotides play a role in migraine formation, too:

• Nitric oxide. Can open blood vessels in the head and brain and has been shown to set migraine in motion. It leads to peak headache intensity 5.5 hours after infusion and causes migraine without aura.

• GRP. Gastrin-releasing peptide receptors cause delayed headache, including what qualifies as an induced migraine attack. Researchers also note that similar pathways trigger migraine with and without aura. 

• Intracellular cGMP and intracellular cAMP. These 2 cyclic nucleotides are found extensively in the trigeminovascular system and have a role in the pathogenesis of migraine.  Studies demonstrate that cGMP levels increase after nitroglycerin administration and cAMP increases after CGRP and PACAP38 exposure.

• Levcromakalim. This potassium channel opener is sensitive to ATP. In a trial published in 2019, researchers showed that modulating potassium channels could cause some headache pain, even in those without migraine. They infused 20 healthy volunteers with levcromakalim; over the next 5-plus hours, the middle meningeal artery of all 20 became and remained dilated. Later research showed that this dilation is linked to substance P. 

Identifying migraine types

Diagnosing migraine is 1 step; determining its type is another.

Consider that a person with a posttraumatic headache can have migraine-like symptoms. To find objective separate characteristics, researchers at Mayo Clinic designed a headache classification model using questionnaires, which were then paired with the patient’s MRI data. The questionnaires delved into headache characteristics, sensory hypersensitivities, cognitive functioning, and mood. The system worked well with primary migraine, with 97% accuracy. But with posttraumatic headache, the system was 65% accurate. What proved to differentiate persistent posttraumatic headache were questions regarding decision making and anxiety. These patients had severe symptoms of anxiety, depression, physical issues, and mild brain injury attributed to blasts.

All of which explains why we and others are actively looking for biomarkers.

The biomarkers

A look at clinicaltrials.gov shows that 15 trials are recruiting patients (including us) in the search for biomarkers. One wants to identify a computational algorithm using AI, based on 9 types of markers in hopes of identifying those predictive elements that will respond to CGRP-targeting monoclonal antibodies (mABs). The factors range from the clinical to epigenetic to structural and functional brain imaging. Another registered study is using ocular coherence tomography, among other technologies, to identify photophobia.

Our interests are in identifying CGRP as a definitive biomarker; finding structural and functional cerebral changes, using MRI, in study subjects before and after they are given erenumab. We also want to create a registry for migraine based on the structural and functional MRI findings.

Another significant reason for finding biomarkers is to identify the alteration that accompany progression from episodic to chronic migraine. Pozo-Rosich et al write that these imaging, neurophysiological, and biochemical changes that occur with this progression could be used “for developing chronic migraine biomarkers that might assist with diagnosis, prognosticating individual patient outcomes, and predicting responses to migraine therapies.” And, ultimately, in practicing precision medicine to improve care of patients.

Significant barriers still exist in declaring a molecule is a biomarker. For example, a meta-analysis points to the replication challenge observed in neuroimaging research. Additionally, several genetic variants produce small effect sizes, which also might be impacted by environmental factors. This makes it difficult to map genetic biomarkers. Large prospective studies are needed to bring this area of research out of infancy to a place where treatment response can be clinically assessed. Additionally, while research evaluating provocation biomarkers has already contributed to the treatment landscape, large-scale registry studies may help uncover a predictive biomarker of treatment response. Blood biomarker research still needs a standardized protocol. Imaging-based biomarkers show much potential, but standardized imaging protocols and improved characterization and data integration are necessary going forward.

The patients

The discovery of the CGRPs couldn’t have been more timely.

Those of us who have been treating patients with migraine for years have seen the prevalence of this disease slowly rise. In 2018, the age-adjusted prevalence was 15.9% for all adults in the United States; in 2010, it was 13.2%. Worldwide, in 2019, it was 14%. In 2015, it was 11.6%.

In the past few years, journal articles have appeared regarding the connection between obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and migraine severity. Numerous other comorbidities affect our patients – not just the well-known psychiatric disorders – but also the respiratory, digestive, and central nervous system illnesses.

In other words, many of our patients come to us sicker than in years past.

Some cannot take one or more medications designed for acute migraine attacks due to comorbidities, including cardiovascular disease or related risk factors, and gastrointestinal bleeding.

A large survey of 15,133 people with migraine confirmed the findings on these numerous comorbidities; they reported that they have more insomnia, depression, and anxiety. As the authors point out, identifying these comorbidities can help with accurate diagnosis, treatment and its adherence, and prognosis. The authors also noted that as migraine days increase per month, so do the rates of comorbidities.

But the CGRPs are showing how beneficial they can be. One study assessing medication overuse showed how 60% of the enrolled patients no longer fit that description 6 months after receiving erenumab or galcanezumab. Some patients who contend with episodic migraine showed a complete response after receiving eptinezumab and galcanezumab. They also have helped patients with menstrual migraine and refractory migraine.

But they are not complete responses to these medications, which is an excellent reason to continue viewing, recording, and assessing the migraine brain, for all it can tell us.

The Health Terminology/Ontology Portal (HeTOP), on which the curious can discover information about off-label use, lists 645 medications prescribed for migraine worldwide. Treatments ranging from blood pressure medications to antidepressants, and anticonvulsants to antiepileptics, along with their doses and administrations, are all listed. The number of migraine-indicated medications is 114.  Dominated by triptans and topiramate, the list also includes erenumab, the calcitonin gene-related peptide CGRP agonist. The difference in figures between the predominately off label and migraine-approved lists is a good indicator of the struggle that health care providers have had through the years to help their patients.

 The idea now is to make that list even longer by finding biomarkers that lead to new therapies.

But first, a conversation about the trigeminal ganglia.

The trigeminal ganglia

The trigeminal ganglia sit on either side of the head, in front of the ears. Their primary role is to receive stimuli and convey it to the brain. The humantrigeminal ganglia contain 20,000 to 35,000 neurons and express an array of neuropeptides, including CGRP. Some neuropeptides, like CGRP and pituitary adenylate cyclase–activating peptide 38 (PACAP38) are vasodilators. Others, like substance P, are vasoconstrictors. Edvinsson and Goadsby discussed in 1994 how CGRP was released simultaneously in those with “spontaneous attacks of migraine.”

Over the past 30 years, researchers in our institution  and elsewhere have shown repeatedly that migraine develops in individuals who are exposed to certain signaling molecules, namely nitroglycerin, CGRP, cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP), intracellular cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP), potassium, and PACAP38, among others. Such exposure reinforces the notion that peripheral sensitization of trigeminal sensory neurons brings on headache. The attack could occur due to vasodilation, mast cell degranulation, involvement of the parasympathetic system, or activation of nerve fibers.

Some examples from the literature:

• In our research, results from a small study of patients under spontaneous migraine attack, who underwent a 3-Tesla MRI scan, showed that cortical thickness diminishes in the prefrontal and pericalcarine cortices. The analysis we performed involving individuals with migraine without aura revealed that these patients experience reduced cortical thickness and volume when migraine attacks come on, suggesting that cortical thickness and volume may serve as a potential biomarker.
• A comparison of 20 individuals with chronic migraine and 20 healthy controls by way of 3-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging scans revealed that those with headache appeared to have substantially increased neural connectivity between the hypothalamus and certain brain areas – yet there appeared to be no connectivity irregularities between the hypothalamus and brainstem, which as the authors noted, is the “migraine generator.”

In other words, vasodilation might be  a secondary symptom of migraine but likely isn’t its source.

Other migraine makers

Neurochemicals and nucleotides play a role in migraine formation, too:

• Nitric oxide. Can open blood vessels in the head and brain and has been shown to set migraine in motion. It leads to peak headache intensity 5.5 hours after infusion and causes migraine without aura.

• GRP. Gastrin-releasing peptide receptors cause delayed headache, including what qualifies as an induced migraine attack. Researchers also note that similar pathways trigger migraine with and without aura. 

• Intracellular cGMP and intracellular cAMP. These 2 cyclic nucleotides are found extensively in the trigeminovascular system and have a role in the pathogenesis of migraine.  Studies demonstrate that cGMP levels increase after nitroglycerin administration and cAMP increases after CGRP and PACAP38 exposure.

• Levcromakalim. This potassium channel opener is sensitive to ATP. In a trial published in 2019, researchers showed that modulating potassium channels could cause some headache pain, even in those without migraine. They infused 20 healthy volunteers with levcromakalim; over the next 5-plus hours, the middle meningeal artery of all 20 became and remained dilated. Later research showed that this dilation is linked to substance P. 

Identifying migraine types

Diagnosing migraine is 1 step; determining its type is another.

Consider that a person with a posttraumatic headache can have migraine-like symptoms. To find objective separate characteristics, researchers at Mayo Clinic designed a headache classification model using questionnaires, which were then paired with the patient’s MRI data. The questionnaires delved into headache characteristics, sensory hypersensitivities, cognitive functioning, and mood. The system worked well with primary migraine, with 97% accuracy. But with posttraumatic headache, the system was 65% accurate. What proved to differentiate persistent posttraumatic headache were questions regarding decision making and anxiety. These patients had severe symptoms of anxiety, depression, physical issues, and mild brain injury attributed to blasts.

All of which explains why we and others are actively looking for biomarkers.

The biomarkers

A look at clinicaltrials.gov shows that 15 trials are recruiting patients (including us) in the search for biomarkers. One wants to identify a computational algorithm using AI, based on 9 types of markers in hopes of identifying those predictive elements that will respond to CGRP-targeting monoclonal antibodies (mABs). The factors range from the clinical to epigenetic to structural and functional brain imaging. Another registered study is using ocular coherence tomography, among other technologies, to identify photophobia.

Our interests are in identifying CGRP as a definitive biomarker; finding structural and functional cerebral changes, using MRI, in study subjects before and after they are given erenumab. We also want to create a registry for migraine based on the structural and functional MRI findings.

Another significant reason for finding biomarkers is to identify the alteration that accompany progression from episodic to chronic migraine. Pozo-Rosich et al write that these imaging, neurophysiological, and biochemical changes that occur with this progression could be used “for developing chronic migraine biomarkers that might assist with diagnosis, prognosticating individual patient outcomes, and predicting responses to migraine therapies.” And, ultimately, in practicing precision medicine to improve care of patients.

Significant barriers still exist in declaring a molecule is a biomarker. For example, a meta-analysis points to the replication challenge observed in neuroimaging research. Additionally, several genetic variants produce small effect sizes, which also might be impacted by environmental factors. This makes it difficult to map genetic biomarkers. Large prospective studies are needed to bring this area of research out of infancy to a place where treatment response can be clinically assessed. Additionally, while research evaluating provocation biomarkers has already contributed to the treatment landscape, large-scale registry studies may help uncover a predictive biomarker of treatment response. Blood biomarker research still needs a standardized protocol. Imaging-based biomarkers show much potential, but standardized imaging protocols and improved characterization and data integration are necessary going forward.

The patients

The discovery of the CGRPs couldn’t have been more timely.

Those of us who have been treating patients with migraine for years have seen the prevalence of this disease slowly rise. In 2018, the age-adjusted prevalence was 15.9% for all adults in the United States; in 2010, it was 13.2%. Worldwide, in 2019, it was 14%. In 2015, it was 11.6%.

In the past few years, journal articles have appeared regarding the connection between obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and migraine severity. Numerous other comorbidities affect our patients – not just the well-known psychiatric disorders – but also the respiratory, digestive, and central nervous system illnesses.

In other words, many of our patients come to us sicker than in years past.

Some cannot take one or more medications designed for acute migraine attacks due to comorbidities, including cardiovascular disease or related risk factors, and gastrointestinal bleeding.

A large survey of 15,133 people with migraine confirmed the findings on these numerous comorbidities; they reported that they have more insomnia, depression, and anxiety. As the authors point out, identifying these comorbidities can help with accurate diagnosis, treatment and its adherence, and prognosis. The authors also noted that as migraine days increase per month, so do the rates of comorbidities.

But the CGRPs are showing how beneficial they can be. One study assessing medication overuse showed how 60% of the enrolled patients no longer fit that description 6 months after receiving erenumab or galcanezumab. Some patients who contend with episodic migraine showed a complete response after receiving eptinezumab and galcanezumab. They also have helped patients with menstrual migraine and refractory migraine.

But they are not complete responses to these medications, which is an excellent reason to continue viewing, recording, and assessing the migraine brain, for all it can tell us.

The Health Terminology/Ontology Portal (HeTOP), on which the curious can discover information about off-label use, lists 645 medications prescribed for migraine worldwide. Treatments ranging from blood pressure medications to antidepressants, and anticonvulsants to antiepileptics, along with their doses and administrations, are all listed. The number of migraine-indicated medications is 114.  Dominated by triptans and topiramate, the list also includes erenumab, the calcitonin gene-related peptide CGRP agonist. The difference in figures between the predominately off label and migraine-approved lists is a good indicator of the struggle that health care providers have had through the years to help their patients.

 The idea now is to make that list even longer by finding biomarkers that lead to new therapies.

But first, a conversation about the trigeminal ganglia.

The trigeminal ganglia

The trigeminal ganglia sit on either side of the head, in front of the ears. Their primary role is to receive stimuli and convey it to the brain. The humantrigeminal ganglia contain 20,000 to 35,000 neurons and express an array of neuropeptides, including CGRP. Some neuropeptides, like CGRP and pituitary adenylate cyclase–activating peptide 38 (PACAP38) are vasodilators. Others, like substance P, are vasoconstrictors. Edvinsson and Goadsby discussed in 1994 how CGRP was released simultaneously in those with “spontaneous attacks of migraine.”

Over the past 30 years, researchers in our institution  and elsewhere have shown repeatedly that migraine develops in individuals who are exposed to certain signaling molecules, namely nitroglycerin, CGRP, cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP), intracellular cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP), potassium, and PACAP38, among others. Such exposure reinforces the notion that peripheral sensitization of trigeminal sensory neurons brings on headache. The attack could occur due to vasodilation, mast cell degranulation, involvement of the parasympathetic system, or activation of nerve fibers.

Some examples from the literature:

• In our research, results from a small study of patients under spontaneous migraine attack, who underwent a 3-Tesla MRI scan, showed that cortical thickness diminishes in the prefrontal and pericalcarine cortices. The analysis we performed involving individuals with migraine without aura revealed that these patients experience reduced cortical thickness and volume when migraine attacks come on, suggesting that cortical thickness and volume may serve as a potential biomarker.
• A comparison of 20 individuals with chronic migraine and 20 healthy controls by way of 3-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging scans revealed that those with headache appeared to have substantially increased neural connectivity between the hypothalamus and certain brain areas – yet there appeared to be no connectivity irregularities between the hypothalamus and brainstem, which as the authors noted, is the “migraine generator.”

In other words, vasodilation might be  a secondary symptom of migraine but likely isn’t its source.

Other migraine makers

Neurochemicals and nucleotides play a role in migraine formation, too:

• Nitric oxide. Can open blood vessels in the head and brain and has been shown to set migraine in motion. It leads to peak headache intensity 5.5 hours after infusion and causes migraine without aura.

• GRP. Gastrin-releasing peptide receptors cause delayed headache, including what qualifies as an induced migraine attack. Researchers also note that similar pathways trigger migraine with and without aura. 

• Intracellular cGMP and intracellular cAMP. These 2 cyclic nucleotides are found extensively in the trigeminovascular system and have a role in the pathogenesis of migraine.  Studies demonstrate that cGMP levels increase after nitroglycerin administration and cAMP increases after CGRP and PACAP38 exposure.

• Levcromakalim. This potassium channel opener is sensitive to ATP. In a trial published in 2019, researchers showed that modulating potassium channels could cause some headache pain, even in those without migraine. They infused 20 healthy volunteers with levcromakalim; over the next 5-plus hours, the middle meningeal artery of all 20 became and remained dilated. Later research showed that this dilation is linked to substance P. 

Identifying migraine types

Diagnosing migraine is 1 step; determining its type is another.

Consider that a person with a posttraumatic headache can have migraine-like symptoms. To find objective separate characteristics, researchers at Mayo Clinic designed a headache classification model using questionnaires, which were then paired with the patient’s MRI data. The questionnaires delved into headache characteristics, sensory hypersensitivities, cognitive functioning, and mood. The system worked well with primary migraine, with 97% accuracy. But with posttraumatic headache, the system was 65% accurate. What proved to differentiate persistent posttraumatic headache were questions regarding decision making and anxiety. These patients had severe symptoms of anxiety, depression, physical issues, and mild brain injury attributed to blasts.

All of which explains why we and others are actively looking for biomarkers.

The biomarkers

A look at clinicaltrials.gov shows that 15 trials are recruiting patients (including us) in the search for biomarkers. One wants to identify a computational algorithm using AI, based on 9 types of markers in hopes of identifying those predictive elements that will respond to CGRP-targeting monoclonal antibodies (mABs). The factors range from the clinical to epigenetic to structural and functional brain imaging. Another registered study is using ocular coherence tomography, among other technologies, to identify photophobia.

Our interests are in identifying CGRP as a definitive biomarker; finding structural and functional cerebral changes, using MRI, in study subjects before and after they are given erenumab. We also want to create a registry for migraine based on the structural and functional MRI findings.

Another significant reason for finding biomarkers is to identify the alteration that accompany progression from episodic to chronic migraine. Pozo-Rosich et al write that these imaging, neurophysiological, and biochemical changes that occur with this progression could be used “for developing chronic migraine biomarkers that might assist with diagnosis, prognosticating individual patient outcomes, and predicting responses to migraine therapies.” And, ultimately, in practicing precision medicine to improve care of patients.

Significant barriers still exist in declaring a molecule is a biomarker. For example, a meta-analysis points to the replication challenge observed in neuroimaging research. Additionally, several genetic variants produce small effect sizes, which also might be impacted by environmental factors. This makes it difficult to map genetic biomarkers. Large prospective studies are needed to bring this area of research out of infancy to a place where treatment response can be clinically assessed. Additionally, while research evaluating provocation biomarkers has already contributed to the treatment landscape, large-scale registry studies may help uncover a predictive biomarker of treatment response. Blood biomarker research still needs a standardized protocol. Imaging-based biomarkers show much potential, but standardized imaging protocols and improved characterization and data integration are necessary going forward.

The patients

The discovery of the CGRPs couldn’t have been more timely.

Those of us who have been treating patients with migraine for years have seen the prevalence of this disease slowly rise. In 2018, the age-adjusted prevalence was 15.9% for all adults in the United States; in 2010, it was 13.2%. Worldwide, in 2019, it was 14%. In 2015, it was 11.6%.

In the past few years, journal articles have appeared regarding the connection between obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and migraine severity. Numerous other comorbidities affect our patients – not just the well-known psychiatric disorders – but also the respiratory, digestive, and central nervous system illnesses.

In other words, many of our patients come to us sicker than in years past.

Some cannot take one or more medications designed for acute migraine attacks due to comorbidities, including cardiovascular disease or related risk factors, and gastrointestinal bleeding.

A large survey of 15,133 people with migraine confirmed the findings on these numerous comorbidities; they reported that they have more insomnia, depression, and anxiety. As the authors point out, identifying these comorbidities can help with accurate diagnosis, treatment and its adherence, and prognosis. The authors also noted that as migraine days increase per month, so do the rates of comorbidities.

But the CGRPs are showing how beneficial they can be. One study assessing medication overuse showed how 60% of the enrolled patients no longer fit that description 6 months after receiving erenumab or galcanezumab. Some patients who contend with episodic migraine showed a complete response after receiving eptinezumab and galcanezumab. They also have helped patients with menstrual migraine and refractory migraine.

But they are not complete responses to these medications, which is an excellent reason to continue viewing, recording, and assessing the migraine brain, for all it can tell us.

Some people thrive on hours-long runs and sweaty Peloton classes, but a much larger group of people lack the time, motivation, or ability for long workouts. Take, for example, those with chronic health conditions, limited mobility, prior negative fitness experiences, or the hopelessly overscheduled.

That doesn’t mean they have to forgo the physical and psychological benefits of exercise. In recent years, headlines have touted research on the benefits of a few minutes of physical activity. Not to mention the cottage fitness industry that has risen in response by promising physical transformations in X minutes a day (or less!).

What’s true? What’s too good to be true? Can short bursts of activity – 10 minutes or less – really help improve your health and fitness? Even when U.S. Health & Human Services physical activity guidelines recommend 150-300 minutes (2.5-5 hours) of moderate intensity movement per week?

The research says yes. While you should never expect total-body transformation, short workouts, even 10 minutes or less, really can improve your health, mental wellbeing, and fitness – if you approach them right.
 

Why short bursts of movement can be beneficial

Since at least 2005, researchers have been attempting to pinpoint just how short you can go and still benefit, says Edward F. Coyle, PhD, professor and director of the Human Performance Laboratory at the University of Texas, Austin.

Part of the equation is intensity. His studies show 10-minute workouts in which people cycle as hard as they can for 4 seconds, then rest for 15-30 seconds, improve fitness in young and older adults (and in the latter, also build muscle mass). Other studies have shown shorter “exercise snacks” – climbing three flights of stairs three times, with 1-4 hours in between – improved fitness over six weeks.

By turning up the intensity, Dr. Coyle says, these interval sessions temporarily deprive your muscles of both fuel and the oxygen they need to produce more, just like longer workouts. In response, your blood volume increases, your heart pumps more with each beat, and your muscle cells develop more mitochondria (tiny energy-producing factories).

That doesn’t mean less-intense physical activity isn’t beneficial, too. It is. In fact, there are several ways you can approach shorter movement sessions and really do well.

1. “Accumulate” a healthier lifestyle by moving throughout the day.

To reap the myriad benefits of physical activity – from lower blood pressure to better sleep to a longer life – health experts recommend the aforementioned 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic activity weekly. Moderate means your heart’s beating faster, but you can still speak.

That averages out to 20 minutes daily. However, if you’ve been inactive or have physical or logistical limitations, a full 20 minutes can seem daunting.

Fortunately, the most recent update to the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans specifically states you don’t have to log those minutes at once. Any amount of movement “counts” toward the total.

Four minutes here, 8 minutes there, another 5 minutes again later … it all adds up.

In fact, depending on what you do with the rest of your hours, small, frequent bouts of movement may be better for your health than one solid workout.

“Being very sedentary all day and just doing 30 minutes of exercise once a day is not very healthy for you,” says Anthony Wall, MS, a certified personal trainer and spokesperson for the American Council on Exercise. Emphasis on very sedentary. Long periods of sitting have their own health risks, including more heart disease and diabetes. While a single concentrated workout session is better than nothing, it may not reverse the damage done by all that sitting.

Remember: Our bodies are designed for movement. It’s okay to work up to 150 minutes gradually. Begin where you are, perhaps with a 5-minute walk around the block or easy stretches or exercises on the nearest patch of carpet. Establish consistency, then add on – it’ll feel easier as body and mind adapt.

“Data show the more you exercise, the more motivated you›ll be to exercise,” says Julia Basso, PhD, assistant professor and director of the embodied brain laboratory at Virginia Tech University, Blacksburg. When you crave movement, it’s easier to sneak it in. Eventually, all those minutes will add up to 150 a week – or more.

2. Improve mood and thinking as well as your health.

Short sessions of physical activity also benefit brain function, says Dr. Basso, a neuroscientist and dancer. Moving your body increases blood flow to the brain and modulates levels of neurotransmitters such as serotonin and dopamine. It also stimulates the release of growth factors that, over time, help sprout new brain cells.

And movement has near-immediate perks. In a recent Japanese study, running for just 10 minutes improved participant’s moods and reaction times on a color-word matching test. Brain imaging showed increased activity in prefrontal cortex areas that control executive functions such as attention, planning, and working memory.

So if you’re feeling low, stressed, or stuck on a tough problem at work, try a 10-minute break for moderate movement. In this case, don’t go all-out – tougher workouts still benefit your brain over time, but the immediate stress response may temporarily cloud your thinking, Dr. Basso says.

Instead, level up by adding another brain-boosting element like social connection or rhythmic music. Walk with a friend, for instance, or fire up a playlist and dance.

3. Gain fitness through brief, hard bursts.

The government’s exercise guidelines acknowledge the harder you work, the faster you reap rewards. Choosing more vigorous activities – where you›re breathing so hard you can only gasp a few words – halves the minimum requirement to 75 minutes weekly.

Plus, intensity brings added fitness gains, Mr. Wall says. This includes getting better at sport-specific skills and building anaerobic endurance, or the ability to work harder for longer periods of time.

However, the short, hard approach has its challenges. It’s often tricky to replicate lab-based protocols in the real world (Dr. Coyle’s cycling experiments, for example, use specialized bikes). Warming up first can add time; stair-climbing study participants began with 10 jumping jacks, 10 air squats, and five lunges on each leg.

Finally, pushing hard is uncomfortable. Doing it daily puts you at risk of overtraining or injury, Mr. Wall says. Even Dr. Coyle himself alternates 3 days per week of 4-second training with 45-minute steady rides, where he can watch Netflix.

Longer sessions bring more pronounced improvements in health markers like blood pressure and resting heart rate, Mr. Wall says. And while any movement is better than none, mixing up everything from modality to length and intensity likely provides the biggest bounty of benefits.

Consider these physical activity ideas “ingredients,” Mr. Wall says. “We all eat vegetables, but some of us like bell peppers more than carrots and tomatoes. We all need to get our five fruits and vegetables a day – but how we mix it up, there’s a lot of variation there. Movement works the same way.”

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

Some people thrive on hours-long runs and sweaty Peloton classes, but a much larger group of people lack the time, motivation, or ability for long workouts. Take, for example, those with chronic health conditions, limited mobility, prior negative fitness experiences, or the hopelessly overscheduled.

That doesn’t mean they have to forgo the physical and psychological benefits of exercise. In recent years, headlines have touted research on the benefits of a few minutes of physical activity. Not to mention the cottage fitness industry that has risen in response by promising physical transformations in X minutes a day (or less!).

What’s true? What’s too good to be true? Can short bursts of activity – 10 minutes or less – really help improve your health and fitness? Even when U.S. Health & Human Services physical activity guidelines recommend 150-300 minutes (2.5-5 hours) of moderate intensity movement per week?

The research says yes. While you should never expect total-body transformation, short workouts, even 10 minutes or less, really can improve your health, mental wellbeing, and fitness – if you approach them right.
 

Why short bursts of movement can be beneficial

Since at least 2005, researchers have been attempting to pinpoint just how short you can go and still benefit, says Edward F. Coyle, PhD, professor and director of the Human Performance Laboratory at the University of Texas, Austin.

Part of the equation is intensity. His studies show 10-minute workouts in which people cycle as hard as they can for 4 seconds, then rest for 15-30 seconds, improve fitness in young and older adults (and in the latter, also build muscle mass). Other studies have shown shorter “exercise snacks” – climbing three flights of stairs three times, with 1-4 hours in between – improved fitness over six weeks.

By turning up the intensity, Dr. Coyle says, these interval sessions temporarily deprive your muscles of both fuel and the oxygen they need to produce more, just like longer workouts. In response, your blood volume increases, your heart pumps more with each beat, and your muscle cells develop more mitochondria (tiny energy-producing factories).

That doesn’t mean less-intense physical activity isn’t beneficial, too. It is. In fact, there are several ways you can approach shorter movement sessions and really do well.

1. “Accumulate” a healthier lifestyle by moving throughout the day.

To reap the myriad benefits of physical activity – from lower blood pressure to better sleep to a longer life – health experts recommend the aforementioned 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic activity weekly. Moderate means your heart’s beating faster, but you can still speak.

That averages out to 20 minutes daily. However, if you’ve been inactive or have physical or logistical limitations, a full 20 minutes can seem daunting.

Fortunately, the most recent update to the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans specifically states you don’t have to log those minutes at once. Any amount of movement “counts” toward the total.

Four minutes here, 8 minutes there, another 5 minutes again later … it all adds up.

In fact, depending on what you do with the rest of your hours, small, frequent bouts of movement may be better for your health than one solid workout.

“Being very sedentary all day and just doing 30 minutes of exercise once a day is not very healthy for you,” says Anthony Wall, MS, a certified personal trainer and spokesperson for the American Council on Exercise. Emphasis on very sedentary. Long periods of sitting have their own health risks, including more heart disease and diabetes. While a single concentrated workout session is better than nothing, it may not reverse the damage done by all that sitting.

Remember: Our bodies are designed for movement. It’s okay to work up to 150 minutes gradually. Begin where you are, perhaps with a 5-minute walk around the block or easy stretches or exercises on the nearest patch of carpet. Establish consistency, then add on – it’ll feel easier as body and mind adapt.

“Data show the more you exercise, the more motivated you›ll be to exercise,” says Julia Basso, PhD, assistant professor and director of the embodied brain laboratory at Virginia Tech University, Blacksburg. When you crave movement, it’s easier to sneak it in. Eventually, all those minutes will add up to 150 a week – or more.

2. Improve mood and thinking as well as your health.

Short sessions of physical activity also benefit brain function, says Dr. Basso, a neuroscientist and dancer. Moving your body increases blood flow to the brain and modulates levels of neurotransmitters such as serotonin and dopamine. It also stimulates the release of growth factors that, over time, help sprout new brain cells.

And movement has near-immediate perks. In a recent Japanese study, running for just 10 minutes improved participant’s moods and reaction times on a color-word matching test. Brain imaging showed increased activity in prefrontal cortex areas that control executive functions such as attention, planning, and working memory.

So if you’re feeling low, stressed, or stuck on a tough problem at work, try a 10-minute break for moderate movement. In this case, don’t go all-out – tougher workouts still benefit your brain over time, but the immediate stress response may temporarily cloud your thinking, Dr. Basso says.

Instead, level up by adding another brain-boosting element like social connection or rhythmic music. Walk with a friend, for instance, or fire up a playlist and dance.

3. Gain fitness through brief, hard bursts.

The government’s exercise guidelines acknowledge the harder you work, the faster you reap rewards. Choosing more vigorous activities – where you›re breathing so hard you can only gasp a few words – halves the minimum requirement to 75 minutes weekly.

Plus, intensity brings added fitness gains, Mr. Wall says. This includes getting better at sport-specific skills and building anaerobic endurance, or the ability to work harder for longer periods of time.

However, the short, hard approach has its challenges. It’s often tricky to replicate lab-based protocols in the real world (Dr. Coyle’s cycling experiments, for example, use specialized bikes). Warming up first can add time; stair-climbing study participants began with 10 jumping jacks, 10 air squats, and five lunges on each leg.

Finally, pushing hard is uncomfortable. Doing it daily puts you at risk of overtraining or injury, Mr. Wall says. Even Dr. Coyle himself alternates 3 days per week of 4-second training with 45-minute steady rides, where he can watch Netflix.

Longer sessions bring more pronounced improvements in health markers like blood pressure and resting heart rate, Mr. Wall says. And while any movement is better than none, mixing up everything from modality to length and intensity likely provides the biggest bounty of benefits.

Consider these physical activity ideas “ingredients,” Mr. Wall says. “We all eat vegetables, but some of us like bell peppers more than carrots and tomatoes. We all need to get our five fruits and vegetables a day – but how we mix it up, there’s a lot of variation there. Movement works the same way.”

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

Some people thrive on hours-long runs and sweaty Peloton classes, but a much larger group of people lack the time, motivation, or ability for long workouts. Take, for example, those with chronic health conditions, limited mobility, prior negative fitness experiences, or the hopelessly overscheduled.

That doesn’t mean they have to forgo the physical and psychological benefits of exercise. In recent years, headlines have touted research on the benefits of a few minutes of physical activity. Not to mention the cottage fitness industry that has risen in response by promising physical transformations in X minutes a day (or less!).

What’s true? What’s too good to be true? Can short bursts of activity – 10 minutes or less – really help improve your health and fitness? Even when U.S. Health & Human Services physical activity guidelines recommend 150-300 minutes (2.5-5 hours) of moderate intensity movement per week?

The research says yes. While you should never expect total-body transformation, short workouts, even 10 minutes or less, really can improve your health, mental wellbeing, and fitness – if you approach them right.
 

Why short bursts of movement can be beneficial

Since at least 2005, researchers have been attempting to pinpoint just how short you can go and still benefit, says Edward F. Coyle, PhD, professor and director of the Human Performance Laboratory at the University of Texas, Austin.

Part of the equation is intensity. His studies show 10-minute workouts in which people cycle as hard as they can for 4 seconds, then rest for 15-30 seconds, improve fitness in young and older adults (and in the latter, also build muscle mass). Other studies have shown shorter “exercise snacks” – climbing three flights of stairs three times, with 1-4 hours in between – improved fitness over six weeks.

By turning up the intensity, Dr. Coyle says, these interval sessions temporarily deprive your muscles of both fuel and the oxygen they need to produce more, just like longer workouts. In response, your blood volume increases, your heart pumps more with each beat, and your muscle cells develop more mitochondria (tiny energy-producing factories).

That doesn’t mean less-intense physical activity isn’t beneficial, too. It is. In fact, there are several ways you can approach shorter movement sessions and really do well.

1. “Accumulate” a healthier lifestyle by moving throughout the day.

To reap the myriad benefits of physical activity – from lower blood pressure to better sleep to a longer life – health experts recommend the aforementioned 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic activity weekly. Moderate means your heart’s beating faster, but you can still speak.

That averages out to 20 minutes daily. However, if you’ve been inactive or have physical or logistical limitations, a full 20 minutes can seem daunting.

Fortunately, the most recent update to the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans specifically states you don’t have to log those minutes at once. Any amount of movement “counts” toward the total.

Four minutes here, 8 minutes there, another 5 minutes again later … it all adds up.

In fact, depending on what you do with the rest of your hours, small, frequent bouts of movement may be better for your health than one solid workout.

“Being very sedentary all day and just doing 30 minutes of exercise once a day is not very healthy for you,” says Anthony Wall, MS, a certified personal trainer and spokesperson for the American Council on Exercise. Emphasis on very sedentary. Long periods of sitting have their own health risks, including more heart disease and diabetes. While a single concentrated workout session is better than nothing, it may not reverse the damage done by all that sitting.

Remember: Our bodies are designed for movement. It’s okay to work up to 150 minutes gradually. Begin where you are, perhaps with a 5-minute walk around the block or easy stretches or exercises on the nearest patch of carpet. Establish consistency, then add on – it’ll feel easier as body and mind adapt.

“Data show the more you exercise, the more motivated you›ll be to exercise,” says Julia Basso, PhD, assistant professor and director of the embodied brain laboratory at Virginia Tech University, Blacksburg. When you crave movement, it’s easier to sneak it in. Eventually, all those minutes will add up to 150 a week – or more.

2. Improve mood and thinking as well as your health.

Short sessions of physical activity also benefit brain function, says Dr. Basso, a neuroscientist and dancer. Moving your body increases blood flow to the brain and modulates levels of neurotransmitters such as serotonin and dopamine. It also stimulates the release of growth factors that, over time, help sprout new brain cells.

And movement has near-immediate perks. In a recent Japanese study, running for just 10 minutes improved participant’s moods and reaction times on a color-word matching test. Brain imaging showed increased activity in prefrontal cortex areas that control executive functions such as attention, planning, and working memory.

So if you’re feeling low, stressed, or stuck on a tough problem at work, try a 10-minute break for moderate movement. In this case, don’t go all-out – tougher workouts still benefit your brain over time, but the immediate stress response may temporarily cloud your thinking, Dr. Basso says.

Instead, level up by adding another brain-boosting element like social connection or rhythmic music. Walk with a friend, for instance, or fire up a playlist and dance.

3. Gain fitness through brief, hard bursts.

The government’s exercise guidelines acknowledge the harder you work, the faster you reap rewards. Choosing more vigorous activities – where you›re breathing so hard you can only gasp a few words – halves the minimum requirement to 75 minutes weekly.

Plus, intensity brings added fitness gains, Mr. Wall says. This includes getting better at sport-specific skills and building anaerobic endurance, or the ability to work harder for longer periods of time.

However, the short, hard approach has its challenges. It’s often tricky to replicate lab-based protocols in the real world (Dr. Coyle’s cycling experiments, for example, use specialized bikes). Warming up first can add time; stair-climbing study participants began with 10 jumping jacks, 10 air squats, and five lunges on each leg.

Finally, pushing hard is uncomfortable. Doing it daily puts you at risk of overtraining or injury, Mr. Wall says. Even Dr. Coyle himself alternates 3 days per week of 4-second training with 45-minute steady rides, where he can watch Netflix.

Longer sessions bring more pronounced improvements in health markers like blood pressure and resting heart rate, Mr. Wall says. And while any movement is better than none, mixing up everything from modality to length and intensity likely provides the biggest bounty of benefits.

Consider these physical activity ideas “ingredients,” Mr. Wall says. “We all eat vegetables, but some of us like bell peppers more than carrots and tomatoes. We all need to get our five fruits and vegetables a day – but how we mix it up, there’s a lot of variation there. Movement works the same way.”

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

New Yorker Lyss Stern came down with COVID-19 at the beginning of the pandemic, in March 2020. She ran a 103° F fever for 5 days straight and was bedridden for several weeks. Yet symptoms such as a persistent headache and tinnitus, or ringing in her ears, lingered.

“Four months later, I still couldn’t walk four blocks without becoming winded,” says Ms. Stern, 48. Five months after her diagnosis, her doctors finally gave a name to her condition: long COVID.

Long COVID is known by many different names: long-haul COVID, postacute COVID-19, or even chronic COVID. It’s a general term used to describe the range of ongoing health problems people can have after their infection.

The most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that one in 13 adults in the United States – 7.5% – have symptoms that last at least 3 months after they first came down with the virus. Another earlier report found that one in five COVID-19 survivors between the ages of 18 and 64, and one in four survivors aged at least 65, have a health condition that may be related to their previous bout with the virus.

Unfortunately, there’s no easy way to screen for long COVID.

“There’s no definite laboratory test to give us a diagnosis,” says Daniel Sterman, MD, director of the division of pulmonary, critical care and sleep medicine at NYU Langone Health in New York. “We’re also still working on a definition, since there’s a whole slew of symptoms associated with the condition.”

It’s a challenge that Ms. Stern is personally acquainted with after she bounced from doctor to doctor for several months before she found her way to the Center for Post-COVID Care at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York. “It was a relief to have an official diagnosis, even if it didn’t bring immediate answers,” she says.
 

What to look for

Many people who become infected with COVID-19 get symptoms that linger for 2-3 weeks after their infection has cleared, says Brittany Baloun, a certified nurse practitioner at the Cleveland Clinic. “It’s not unusual to feel some residual shortness of breath or heart palpitations, especially if you are exerting yourself,” she says. “The acute phase of COVID itself can last for up to 14 days. But if it’s been 30 days since you came down with the virus, and your symptoms are still there and not improving, it indicates some level of long COVID.”

More than 200 symptoms can be linked to long COVID. But perhaps the one that stands out the most is constant fatigue that interferes with daily life.

“We often hear that these patients can’t fold the laundry or take a short walk with their dog without feeling exhausted,” Ms. Baloun says.

This exhaustion may get worse after patients exercise or do something mentally taxing, a condition known as postexertional malaise.

“It can be crushing fatigue; I may clean my room for an hour and talk to a friend, and the next day feel like I can’t get out of bed,” says Allison Guy, 36, who was diagnosed with COVID in February 2021. She’s now a long-COVID advocate in Washington.

Other symptoms can be divided into different categories, which include cardiac/lung symptoms such as shortness of breath, coughing, chest pain, and heart palpitations, as well as neurologic symptoms.

One of the most common neurologic symptoms is brain fog, says Andrew Schamess, MD, a professor of internal medicine at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, who runs its post-COVID recovery program. “Patients describe feeling ‘fuzzy’ or ‘spacey,’ and often report that they are forgetful or have memory problems,” he says. Others include:

• Headache.
• Sleep problems. One 2022 study from the Cleveland Clinic found that more than 40% of patients with long COVID reported sleep disturbances.
• Dizziness when standing.
• Pins-and-needles feelings.
• Changes in smell or taste.
• Depression or anxiety.

You could also have digestive symptoms such as diarrhea or stomach pain. Other symptoms include joint or muscle pain, rashes, or changes in menstrual cycles.
 

Risk of having other health conditions

People who have had COVID-19, particularly a severe case, may be more at risk of getting other health conditions, such as:

• Type 2 diabetes.
• Kidney failure.
• Pulmonary embolism, or a blood clot in the lung.
• Myocarditis, an inflamed heart.

While it’s hard to say precisely whether these conditions were caused by COVID, they are most likely linked to it, says Dr. Schamess. A March 2022 study published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, for example, found that people who had recovered from COVID-19 had a 40% higher risk of being diagnosed with type 2 diabetes over the next year.

“We don’t know for sure that infection with COVID-19 triggered someone’s diabetes – it may have been that they already had risk factors and the virus pushed them over the edge,” he says.

COVID-19 itself may also worsen conditions you already have, such as asthma, sleep apnea, or fibromyalgia. “We see patients with previously mild asthma who come in constantly coughing and wheezing, for example,” says Dr. Schamess. “They usually respond well once we start aggressive treatment.” That might include a continuous positive airway pressure, or CPAP, setup to help treat sleep apnea, or gabapentin to treat fibromyalgia symptoms.
 

Is it long COVID or something else?

Long COVID can cause a long list of symptoms, and they can easily mean other ailments. That’s one reason why, if your symptoms last for more than a month, it’s important to see a doctor, Ms. Baloun says. They can run a wide variety of tests to check for other conditions, such as a thyroid disorder or vitamin deficiency, that could be confused with long COVID.

They should also run blood tests such as D-dimer. This helps rule out a pulmonary embolism, which can be a complication of COVID-19 and also causes symptoms that may mimic long COVID, such as breathlessness and anxiety. They will also run tests to look for inflammation, Ms. Baloun says.

“These tests can’t provide definitive answers, but they can help provide clues as to what’s causing symptoms and whether they are related to long COVID,” she says.

What’s just as important, says Dr. Schamess, is a careful medical history. This can help pinpoint exactly when symptoms started, when they worsened, and whether anything else could have triggered them.

“I saw a patient recently who presented with symptoms of brain fog, memory loss, fatigue, headache, and sleep disturbance 5 months after she had COVID-19,” says Dr. Schamess. “After we talked, we realized that her symptoms were due to a fainting spell a couple of months earlier where she whacked her head very hard. She didn’t have long COVID – she had a concussion. But I wouldn’t have picked that up if I had just run a whole battery of tests.”

Ms. Stern agrees. “If you have long COVID, you may come across doctors who dismiss your symptoms, especially if your workups don’t show an obvious problem,” she says. “But you know your body. If it still seems like something is wrong, then you need to continue to push until you find answers.”

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

New Yorker Lyss Stern came down with COVID-19 at the beginning of the pandemic, in March 2020. She ran a 103° F fever for 5 days straight and was bedridden for several weeks. Yet symptoms such as a persistent headache and tinnitus, or ringing in her ears, lingered.

“Four months later, I still couldn’t walk four blocks without becoming winded,” says Ms. Stern, 48. Five months after her diagnosis, her doctors finally gave a name to her condition: long COVID.

Long COVID is known by many different names: long-haul COVID, postacute COVID-19, or even chronic COVID. It’s a general term used to describe the range of ongoing health problems people can have after their infection.

The most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that one in 13 adults in the United States – 7.5% – have symptoms that last at least 3 months after they first came down with the virus. Another earlier report found that one in five COVID-19 survivors between the ages of 18 and 64, and one in four survivors aged at least 65, have a health condition that may be related to their previous bout with the virus.

Unfortunately, there’s no easy way to screen for long COVID.

“There’s no definite laboratory test to give us a diagnosis,” says Daniel Sterman, MD, director of the division of pulmonary, critical care and sleep medicine at NYU Langone Health in New York. “We’re also still working on a definition, since there’s a whole slew of symptoms associated with the condition.”

It’s a challenge that Ms. Stern is personally acquainted with after she bounced from doctor to doctor for several months before she found her way to the Center for Post-COVID Care at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York. “It was a relief to have an official diagnosis, even if it didn’t bring immediate answers,” she says.
 

What to look for

Many people who become infected with COVID-19 get symptoms that linger for 2-3 weeks after their infection has cleared, says Brittany Baloun, a certified nurse practitioner at the Cleveland Clinic. “It’s not unusual to feel some residual shortness of breath or heart palpitations, especially if you are exerting yourself,” she says. “The acute phase of COVID itself can last for up to 14 days. But if it’s been 30 days since you came down with the virus, and your symptoms are still there and not improving, it indicates some level of long COVID.”

More than 200 symptoms can be linked to long COVID. But perhaps the one that stands out the most is constant fatigue that interferes with daily life.

“We often hear that these patients can’t fold the laundry or take a short walk with their dog without feeling exhausted,” Ms. Baloun says.

This exhaustion may get worse after patients exercise or do something mentally taxing, a condition known as postexertional malaise.

“It can be crushing fatigue; I may clean my room for an hour and talk to a friend, and the next day feel like I can’t get out of bed,” says Allison Guy, 36, who was diagnosed with COVID in February 2021. She’s now a long-COVID advocate in Washington.

Other symptoms can be divided into different categories, which include cardiac/lung symptoms such as shortness of breath, coughing, chest pain, and heart palpitations, as well as neurologic symptoms.

One of the most common neurologic symptoms is brain fog, says Andrew Schamess, MD, a professor of internal medicine at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, who runs its post-COVID recovery program. “Patients describe feeling ‘fuzzy’ or ‘spacey,’ and often report that they are forgetful or have memory problems,” he says. Others include:

• Headache.
• Sleep problems. One 2022 study from the Cleveland Clinic found that more than 40% of patients with long COVID reported sleep disturbances.
• Dizziness when standing.
• Pins-and-needles feelings.
• Changes in smell or taste.
• Depression or anxiety.

You could also have digestive symptoms such as diarrhea or stomach pain. Other symptoms include joint or muscle pain, rashes, or changes in menstrual cycles.
 

Risk of having other health conditions

People who have had COVID-19, particularly a severe case, may be more at risk of getting other health conditions, such as:

• Type 2 diabetes.
• Kidney failure.
• Pulmonary embolism, or a blood clot in the lung.
• Myocarditis, an inflamed heart.

While it’s hard to say precisely whether these conditions were caused by COVID, they are most likely linked to it, says Dr. Schamess. A March 2022 study published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, for example, found that people who had recovered from COVID-19 had a 40% higher risk of being diagnosed with type 2 diabetes over the next year.

“We don’t know for sure that infection with COVID-19 triggered someone’s diabetes – it may have been that they already had risk factors and the virus pushed them over the edge,” he says.

COVID-19 itself may also worsen conditions you already have, such as asthma, sleep apnea, or fibromyalgia. “We see patients with previously mild asthma who come in constantly coughing and wheezing, for example,” says Dr. Schamess. “They usually respond well once we start aggressive treatment.” That might include a continuous positive airway pressure, or CPAP, setup to help treat sleep apnea, or gabapentin to treat fibromyalgia symptoms.
 

Is it long COVID or something else?

Long COVID can cause a long list of symptoms, and they can easily mean other ailments. That’s one reason why, if your symptoms last for more than a month, it’s important to see a doctor, Ms. Baloun says. They can run a wide variety of tests to check for other conditions, such as a thyroid disorder or vitamin deficiency, that could be confused with long COVID.

They should also run blood tests such as D-dimer. This helps rule out a pulmonary embolism, which can be a complication of COVID-19 and also causes symptoms that may mimic long COVID, such as breathlessness and anxiety. They will also run tests to look for inflammation, Ms. Baloun says.

“These tests can’t provide definitive answers, but they can help provide clues as to what’s causing symptoms and whether they are related to long COVID,” she says.

What’s just as important, says Dr. Schamess, is a careful medical history. This can help pinpoint exactly when symptoms started, when they worsened, and whether anything else could have triggered them.

“I saw a patient recently who presented with symptoms of brain fog, memory loss, fatigue, headache, and sleep disturbance 5 months after she had COVID-19,” says Dr. Schamess. “After we talked, we realized that her symptoms were due to a fainting spell a couple of months earlier where she whacked her head very hard. She didn’t have long COVID – she had a concussion. But I wouldn’t have picked that up if I had just run a whole battery of tests.”

Ms. Stern agrees. “If you have long COVID, you may come across doctors who dismiss your symptoms, especially if your workups don’t show an obvious problem,” she says. “But you know your body. If it still seems like something is wrong, then you need to continue to push until you find answers.”

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

New Yorker Lyss Stern came down with COVID-19 at the beginning of the pandemic, in March 2020. She ran a 103° F fever for 5 days straight and was bedridden for several weeks. Yet symptoms such as a persistent headache and tinnitus, or ringing in her ears, lingered.

“Four months later, I still couldn’t walk four blocks without becoming winded,” says Ms. Stern, 48. Five months after her diagnosis, her doctors finally gave a name to her condition: long COVID.

Long COVID is known by many different names: long-haul COVID, postacute COVID-19, or even chronic COVID. It’s a general term used to describe the range of ongoing health problems people can have after their infection.

The most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that one in 13 adults in the United States – 7.5% – have symptoms that last at least 3 months after they first came down with the virus. Another earlier report found that one in five COVID-19 survivors between the ages of 18 and 64, and one in four survivors aged at least 65, have a health condition that may be related to their previous bout with the virus.

Unfortunately, there’s no easy way to screen for long COVID.

“There’s no definite laboratory test to give us a diagnosis,” says Daniel Sterman, MD, director of the division of pulmonary, critical care and sleep medicine at NYU Langone Health in New York. “We’re also still working on a definition, since there’s a whole slew of symptoms associated with the condition.”

It’s a challenge that Ms. Stern is personally acquainted with after she bounced from doctor to doctor for several months before she found her way to the Center for Post-COVID Care at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York. “It was a relief to have an official diagnosis, even if it didn’t bring immediate answers,” she says.
 

What to look for

Many people who become infected with COVID-19 get symptoms that linger for 2-3 weeks after their infection has cleared, says Brittany Baloun, a certified nurse practitioner at the Cleveland Clinic. “It’s not unusual to feel some residual shortness of breath or heart palpitations, especially if you are exerting yourself,” she says. “The acute phase of COVID itself can last for up to 14 days. But if it’s been 30 days since you came down with the virus, and your symptoms are still there and not improving, it indicates some level of long COVID.”

More than 200 symptoms can be linked to long COVID. But perhaps the one that stands out the most is constant fatigue that interferes with daily life.

“We often hear that these patients can’t fold the laundry or take a short walk with their dog without feeling exhausted,” Ms. Baloun says.

This exhaustion may get worse after patients exercise or do something mentally taxing, a condition known as postexertional malaise.

“It can be crushing fatigue; I may clean my room for an hour and talk to a friend, and the next day feel like I can’t get out of bed,” says Allison Guy, 36, who was diagnosed with COVID in February 2021. She’s now a long-COVID advocate in Washington.

Other symptoms can be divided into different categories, which include cardiac/lung symptoms such as shortness of breath, coughing, chest pain, and heart palpitations, as well as neurologic symptoms.

One of the most common neurologic symptoms is brain fog, says Andrew Schamess, MD, a professor of internal medicine at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, who runs its post-COVID recovery program. “Patients describe feeling ‘fuzzy’ or ‘spacey,’ and often report that they are forgetful or have memory problems,” he says. Others include:

• Headache.
• Sleep problems. One 2022 study from the Cleveland Clinic found that more than 40% of patients with long COVID reported sleep disturbances.
• Dizziness when standing.
• Pins-and-needles feelings.
• Changes in smell or taste.
• Depression or anxiety.

You could also have digestive symptoms such as diarrhea or stomach pain. Other symptoms include joint or muscle pain, rashes, or changes in menstrual cycles.
 

Risk of having other health conditions

People who have had COVID-19, particularly a severe case, may be more at risk of getting other health conditions, such as:

• Type 2 diabetes.
• Kidney failure.
• Pulmonary embolism, or a blood clot in the lung.
• Myocarditis, an inflamed heart.

While it’s hard to say precisely whether these conditions were caused by COVID, they are most likely linked to it, says Dr. Schamess. A March 2022 study published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, for example, found that people who had recovered from COVID-19 had a 40% higher risk of being diagnosed with type 2 diabetes over the next year.

“We don’t know for sure that infection with COVID-19 triggered someone’s diabetes – it may have been that they already had risk factors and the virus pushed them over the edge,” he says.

COVID-19 itself may also worsen conditions you already have, such as asthma, sleep apnea, or fibromyalgia. “We see patients with previously mild asthma who come in constantly coughing and wheezing, for example,” says Dr. Schamess. “They usually respond well once we start aggressive treatment.” That might include a continuous positive airway pressure, or CPAP, setup to help treat sleep apnea, or gabapentin to treat fibromyalgia symptoms.
 

Is it long COVID or something else?

Long COVID can cause a long list of symptoms, and they can easily mean other ailments. That’s one reason why, if your symptoms last for more than a month, it’s important to see a doctor, Ms. Baloun says. They can run a wide variety of tests to check for other conditions, such as a thyroid disorder or vitamin deficiency, that could be confused with long COVID.

They should also run blood tests such as D-dimer. This helps rule out a pulmonary embolism, which can be a complication of COVID-19 and also causes symptoms that may mimic long COVID, such as breathlessness and anxiety. They will also run tests to look for inflammation, Ms. Baloun says.

“These tests can’t provide definitive answers, but they can help provide clues as to what’s causing symptoms and whether they are related to long COVID,” she says.

What’s just as important, says Dr. Schamess, is a careful medical history. This can help pinpoint exactly when symptoms started, when they worsened, and whether anything else could have triggered them.

“I saw a patient recently who presented with symptoms of brain fog, memory loss, fatigue, headache, and sleep disturbance 5 months after she had COVID-19,” says Dr. Schamess. “After we talked, we realized that her symptoms were due to a fainting spell a couple of months earlier where she whacked her head very hard. She didn’t have long COVID – she had a concussion. But I wouldn’t have picked that up if I had just run a whole battery of tests.”

Ms. Stern agrees. “If you have long COVID, you may come across doctors who dismiss your symptoms, especially if your workups don’t show an obvious problem,” she says. “But you know your body. If it still seems like something is wrong, then you need to continue to push until you find answers.”

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

Given the history of sudden hair loss, with the exam revealing a well-circumscribed patch of focal alopecia without cutaneous inflammation, hairs with a narrow base and broad distal shaft, the diagnosis is alopecia areata (AA).

Alopecia areata (AA) is a nonscarring alopecia, within a set of diseases characterized by the preservation of hair follicles and therefore the potential for future hair regrowth.¹ AA is believed to be caused by a breakdown of the immune-privileged nature of hair follicles, resulting in T-lymphocytes targeting the hair follicle directly, shifting follicles to early catagen or telogen phase, but sparing follicular stem cells, thereby allowing the follicle to regenerate in the future.^1-3 Risk factors include family history of AA, thyroid disorders, as well as iron and vitamin D deficiency.^4,5 It characteristically presents with focal, well-demarcated patches of hair loss in the scalp, typically with background skin normal to slightly pink.^3,6 Exam can show “exclamation point” hairs consisting of hairs that are narrow at their base and wide at the distal end.^3,7 Patients may also exhibit eyebrow and eyelash loss as well as nail changes including nail pitting and splitting.⁸ Diagnosis is typically made clinically but is supported by a positive hair pull test, where hairs are pulled from the periphery of an alopecic lesion; the presence of greater than 10% of hairs plucked from the scalp indicates a positive result.^9,10

What’s the differential diagnosis?

The differential diagnosis of AA includes other nonscarring alopecias such as trichotillomania and telogen effluvium. Other possible diagnoses include lichen planopilaris and tinea capitis.

Trichotillomania results in irregularly bordered hair loss and broken hairs of different lengths because of an internal urge to remove one’s hair, resulting in nonscarring alopecia. It can be associated with obsessive-compulsive disorder, anxiety, or other body-altering behaviors like skin picking and nail biting (characterized as body-focused repetitive behavior disorders). Treatments include reassurance and education, behavior modification, or systemic therapy including tricyclic antidepressants or SSRIs. Toddlers can engage in hair pulling behavior and trichotillomania can be difficult to differentiate from AA. However, the absence of broken hairs of varying lengths makes trichotillomania less likely in this patient.

Telogen effluvium is another form of nonscarring alopecia that presents as diffuse hair thinning across the entire scalp in response to acute psychological or physiological stress, hormonal changes, certain medications, systemic illness, or nutritional deficiency. The timing between the triggering event and hair loss can vary from weeks to months. Diagnosis requires detailed history-taking and may include evaluation for endocrinologic hair thinning (e.g. thyroid function tests) to identify reversible causes. Treatment involves directing therapy to the underlying etiology and most cases of telogen effluvium are self-limited. The presence of a well-circumscribed patch of hair loss in this patient makes AA more likely.

What’s the management plan?

The diagnosis of AA is usually a clinical one, though assessment of alternative diagnoses is appropriate dependent on signs and symptoms. Workup of AA can include thyroid studies because of the association with autoimmune thyroid disease, though studies suggest limited screening benefits in children.¹¹ Given its variable and unpredictable course, management can include “watchful waiting” because of its potential for spontaneous remission.⁶ For limited patchy loss, active treatment with mid to superpotent topical steroids or intralesional triamcinolone acetonide in older children and adolescents is reasonable.¹² Other treatment options include topical or low-dose oral minoxidil and immunotherapy with diphenylcyclopropenone or squaric acid (inducing an allergic contact dermatitis).¹² Management of therapies for more extensive AA is evolving, with ongoing studies of oral JAK-inhibitors and biologic agents.^12,13

Our patient was started on topical fluocinonide 0.05% solution and achieved good disease control and hair regrowth over the course of 3 months.

Dr. Eichenfield is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. Dr. Haft is an inflammatory skin disease fellow in the division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at the university and Rady Children’s Hospital. They had no disclosures.

References

1. Bernardez C et al. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2015;106(3):158-67.

2. Rajabi F et al. Br J Dermatol. 2018;179(5):1033-48.

3. Strazzulla LC et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;78(1):1-12.

4. Lee S et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80(2):466-77 e16.

5. MacLean KJ and Tidman MJ. Practitioner. 2013;257(1764):29-32, 3.

6. Pratt CH et al. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2017;3:17011.

7. Gilhar A et al. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(16):1515-25.

8. Wyrwich KW et al. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2020;21(5):725-32.

9. Spano F and Donovan JC. Can Fam Physician. 2015;61(9):751-5.

10. Mounsey AL and Reed SW. Am Fam Physician. 2009;80(4):356-62.

11. Hordinsky MK. J Investig Dermatol Symp Proc. 2015;17(2):44-6.

12. Strazzulla LC et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;78(1):15-24.

13. Zhou C et al. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 2021;61(3):403-23.

Given the history of sudden hair loss, with the exam revealing a well-circumscribed patch of focal alopecia without cutaneous inflammation, hairs with a narrow base and broad distal shaft, the diagnosis is alopecia areata (AA).

Alopecia areata (AA) is a nonscarring alopecia, within a set of diseases characterized by the preservation of hair follicles and therefore the potential for future hair regrowth.¹ AA is believed to be caused by a breakdown of the immune-privileged nature of hair follicles, resulting in T-lymphocytes targeting the hair follicle directly, shifting follicles to early catagen or telogen phase, but sparing follicular stem cells, thereby allowing the follicle to regenerate in the future.^1-3 Risk factors include family history of AA, thyroid disorders, as well as iron and vitamin D deficiency.^4,5 It characteristically presents with focal, well-demarcated patches of hair loss in the scalp, typically with background skin normal to slightly pink.^3,6 Exam can show “exclamation point” hairs consisting of hairs that are narrow at their base and wide at the distal end.^3,7 Patients may also exhibit eyebrow and eyelash loss as well as nail changes including nail pitting and splitting.⁸ Diagnosis is typically made clinically but is supported by a positive hair pull test, where hairs are pulled from the periphery of an alopecic lesion; the presence of greater than 10% of hairs plucked from the scalp indicates a positive result.^9,10

What’s the differential diagnosis?

The differential diagnosis of AA includes other nonscarring alopecias such as trichotillomania and telogen effluvium. Other possible diagnoses include lichen planopilaris and tinea capitis.

Trichotillomania results in irregularly bordered hair loss and broken hairs of different lengths because of an internal urge to remove one’s hair, resulting in nonscarring alopecia. It can be associated with obsessive-compulsive disorder, anxiety, or other body-altering behaviors like skin picking and nail biting (characterized as body-focused repetitive behavior disorders). Treatments include reassurance and education, behavior modification, or systemic therapy including tricyclic antidepressants or SSRIs. Toddlers can engage in hair pulling behavior and trichotillomania can be difficult to differentiate from AA. However, the absence of broken hairs of varying lengths makes trichotillomania less likely in this patient.

Telogen effluvium is another form of nonscarring alopecia that presents as diffuse hair thinning across the entire scalp in response to acute psychological or physiological stress, hormonal changes, certain medications, systemic illness, or nutritional deficiency. The timing between the triggering event and hair loss can vary from weeks to months. Diagnosis requires detailed history-taking and may include evaluation for endocrinologic hair thinning (e.g. thyroid function tests) to identify reversible causes. Treatment involves directing therapy to the underlying etiology and most cases of telogen effluvium are self-limited. The presence of a well-circumscribed patch of hair loss in this patient makes AA more likely.

What’s the management plan?

The diagnosis of AA is usually a clinical one, though assessment of alternative diagnoses is appropriate dependent on signs and symptoms. Workup of AA can include thyroid studies because of the association with autoimmune thyroid disease, though studies suggest limited screening benefits in children.¹¹ Given its variable and unpredictable course, management can include “watchful waiting” because of its potential for spontaneous remission.⁶ For limited patchy loss, active treatment with mid to superpotent topical steroids or intralesional triamcinolone acetonide in older children and adolescents is reasonable.¹² Other treatment options include topical or low-dose oral minoxidil and immunotherapy with diphenylcyclopropenone or squaric acid (inducing an allergic contact dermatitis).¹² Management of therapies for more extensive AA is evolving, with ongoing studies of oral JAK-inhibitors and biologic agents.^12,13

Our patient was started on topical fluocinonide 0.05% solution and achieved good disease control and hair regrowth over the course of 3 months.

Dr. Eichenfield is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. Dr. Haft is an inflammatory skin disease fellow in the division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at the university and Rady Children’s Hospital. They had no disclosures.

References

1. Bernardez C et al. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2015;106(3):158-67.

2. Rajabi F et al. Br J Dermatol. 2018;179(5):1033-48.

3. Strazzulla LC et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;78(1):1-12.

4. Lee S et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80(2):466-77 e16.

5. MacLean KJ and Tidman MJ. Practitioner. 2013;257(1764):29-32, 3.

6. Pratt CH et al. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2017;3:17011.

7. Gilhar A et al. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(16):1515-25.

8. Wyrwich KW et al. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2020;21(5):725-32.

9. Spano F and Donovan JC. Can Fam Physician. 2015;61(9):751-5.

10. Mounsey AL and Reed SW. Am Fam Physician. 2009;80(4):356-62.

11. Hordinsky MK. J Investig Dermatol Symp Proc. 2015;17(2):44-6.

12. Strazzulla LC et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;78(1):15-24.

13. Zhou C et al. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 2021;61(3):403-23.

Given the history of sudden hair loss, with the exam revealing a well-circumscribed patch of focal alopecia without cutaneous inflammation, hairs with a narrow base and broad distal shaft, the diagnosis is alopecia areata (AA).

Alopecia areata (AA) is a nonscarring alopecia, within a set of diseases characterized by the preservation of hair follicles and therefore the potential for future hair regrowth.¹ AA is believed to be caused by a breakdown of the immune-privileged nature of hair follicles, resulting in T-lymphocytes targeting the hair follicle directly, shifting follicles to early catagen or telogen phase, but sparing follicular stem cells, thereby allowing the follicle to regenerate in the future.^1-3 Risk factors include family history of AA, thyroid disorders, as well as iron and vitamin D deficiency.^4,5 It characteristically presents with focal, well-demarcated patches of hair loss in the scalp, typically with background skin normal to slightly pink.^3,6 Exam can show “exclamation point” hairs consisting of hairs that are narrow at their base and wide at the distal end.^3,7 Patients may also exhibit eyebrow and eyelash loss as well as nail changes including nail pitting and splitting.⁸ Diagnosis is typically made clinically but is supported by a positive hair pull test, where hairs are pulled from the periphery of an alopecic lesion; the presence of greater than 10% of hairs plucked from the scalp indicates a positive result.^9,10

What’s the differential diagnosis?

The differential diagnosis of AA includes other nonscarring alopecias such as trichotillomania and telogen effluvium. Other possible diagnoses include lichen planopilaris and tinea capitis.

Trichotillomania results in irregularly bordered hair loss and broken hairs of different lengths because of an internal urge to remove one’s hair, resulting in nonscarring alopecia. It can be associated with obsessive-compulsive disorder, anxiety, or other body-altering behaviors like skin picking and nail biting (characterized as body-focused repetitive behavior disorders). Treatments include reassurance and education, behavior modification, or systemic therapy including tricyclic antidepressants or SSRIs. Toddlers can engage in hair pulling behavior and trichotillomania can be difficult to differentiate from AA. However, the absence of broken hairs of varying lengths makes trichotillomania less likely in this patient.

Telogen effluvium is another form of nonscarring alopecia that presents as diffuse hair thinning across the entire scalp in response to acute psychological or physiological stress, hormonal changes, certain medications, systemic illness, or nutritional deficiency. The timing between the triggering event and hair loss can vary from weeks to months. Diagnosis requires detailed history-taking and may include evaluation for endocrinologic hair thinning (e.g. thyroid function tests) to identify reversible causes. Treatment involves directing therapy to the underlying etiology and most cases of telogen effluvium are self-limited. The presence of a well-circumscribed patch of hair loss in this patient makes AA more likely.

What’s the management plan?

The diagnosis of AA is usually a clinical one, though assessment of alternative diagnoses is appropriate dependent on signs and symptoms. Workup of AA can include thyroid studies because of the association with autoimmune thyroid disease, though studies suggest limited screening benefits in children.¹¹ Given its variable and unpredictable course, management can include “watchful waiting” because of its potential for spontaneous remission.⁶ For limited patchy loss, active treatment with mid to superpotent topical steroids or intralesional triamcinolone acetonide in older children and adolescents is reasonable.¹² Other treatment options include topical or low-dose oral minoxidil and immunotherapy with diphenylcyclopropenone or squaric acid (inducing an allergic contact dermatitis).¹² Management of therapies for more extensive AA is evolving, with ongoing studies of oral JAK-inhibitors and biologic agents.^12,13

Our patient was started on topical fluocinonide 0.05% solution and achieved good disease control and hair regrowth over the course of 3 months.

Dr. Eichenfield is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. Dr. Haft is an inflammatory skin disease fellow in the division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at the university and Rady Children’s Hospital. They had no disclosures.

References

1. Bernardez C et al. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2015;106(3):158-67.

2. Rajabi F et al. Br J Dermatol. 2018;179(5):1033-48.

3. Strazzulla LC et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;78(1):1-12.

4. Lee S et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80(2):466-77 e16.

5. MacLean KJ and Tidman MJ. Practitioner. 2013;257(1764):29-32, 3.

6. Pratt CH et al. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2017;3:17011.

7. Gilhar A et al. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(16):1515-25.

8. Wyrwich KW et al. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2020;21(5):725-32.

9. Spano F and Donovan JC. Can Fam Physician. 2015;61(9):751-5.

10. Mounsey AL and Reed SW. Am Fam Physician. 2009;80(4):356-62.

11. Hordinsky MK. J Investig Dermatol Symp Proc. 2015;17(2):44-6.

12. Strazzulla LC et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;78(1):15-24.

13. Zhou C et al. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 2021;61(3):403-23.

An overreliance on spirometry to identify emphysema led to missed cases in Black individuals, particularly men, based on a secondary data analysis of 2,674 people.

“Over the last few years, there has been growing debate around the use of race adjustment in diagnostic algorithms and equations commonly used in medicine,” lead author Gabrielle Yi-Hui Liu, MD, said in an interview. “Whereas, previously it was common to accept racial or ethnic differences in clinical measures and outcomes as inherent differences among populations, there is now more recognition of how racism, socioeconomic status, and environmental exposures can cause these racial differences. Our initial interest in this study was to examine how the use of race-specific spirometry reference equations, and the use of spirometry in general, may be contributing to racial disparities.”

“Previous studies have suggested that the use of race-specific equations in spirometry can exacerbate racial inequities in healthcare outcomes by under-recognition of early disease in Black adults, and this study adds to that evidence,” said Suman Pal, MBBS, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, in an interview.
“By examining the crucial ways in which systemic factors in medicine, such as race-specific equations, exacerbate racial inequities in healthcare, this study is a timely analysis in a moment of national reckoning of structural racism,” said Dr. Pal, who was not involved in the study.

jgaunion/Thinkstock

In a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine, Dr. Liu and colleagues at Northwestern University, Chicago, conducted a secondary analysis of data from the CARDIA Lung study (Coronary Artery Risk Development In Young Adults).

The primary outcome of the study was the prevalence of emphysema among participants with various measures of normal spirometry results, stratified by sex and race. The normal results included an forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁₎–forced vital capacity (FVC) ratio greater than or equal to 0.7 or greater than or equal to the lower limit of normal. The participants also were stratified by FEV₁ percent predicted, using race-specific reference equations, for FEV₁ between 80% and 99% of predicted, or an FEV₁ between 100% and 120% of predicted.

The study population included 485 Black men, 762 Black women, 659 White men, and 768 White women who received both a CT scan (in 2010-2011) and spirometry (obtained in 2015-2016) in the CARDIA study. The mean age of the participants at the spirometry exam was 55 years.

A total of 5.3% of the participants had emphysema after stratifying by FEV₁-FVC ratio. The prevalence was significantly higher for Black men, compared with White men (12.3% vs. 4.0%; relative risk, 3.0), and for Black women, compared with White women (5.0% vs. 2.6%; RR, 1.9).

The association between Black race and emphysema risk persisted but decreased when the researchers used a race-neutral estimate.

When the participants were stratified by race-specific FEV₁ percent predicted, 6.5% of individuals with a race-specific FEV₁ between 80% and 99% had emphysema. After controlling for factors including age and smoking, emphysema was significantly more prevalent in Black men versus White men (15.5% vs. 4.0%) and in Black women, compared with White women (6.6% vs. 3.4%).

The racial difference persisted in men with a race-specific FEV₁ between 100% and 120% of predicted. Of these, 4.0% had emphysema. The prevalence was significantly higher in Black men, compared with White men (13.9% vs. 2.2%), but similar between Black women and White women (2.6% vs. 2.0%).

The use of race-neutral equations reduced, but did not eliminate, these disparities, the researchers said.

The findings were limited by the lack of CT imaging data from the same visit as the final spirometry collection, the researchers noted. “Given that imaging was obtained 5 years before spirometry and emphysema is an irreversible finding, this may have led to an overall underestimation of the prevalence of emphysema.”
 

Spirometry alone misses cases

“We were surprised by the substantial rates of emphysema we saw among Black men in our cohort with normal spirometry,” Dr. Liu said in an interview. “We did not expect to find than more than one in eight Black men with an FEV₁ between 100% and 120% predicted would have emphysema – a rate more than six times higher than White men with the same range of FEV₁.”

“One takeaway is that we are likely missing a lot of people with impaired respiratory health or true lung disease by only using spirometry to diagnose COPD,” said Dr. Liu. In clinical practice, “physicians should consider ordering CT scans on patients with normal spirometry who have respiratory symptoms such as cough or shortness of breath. If emphysema is found, physicians should discuss mitigating any potential risk factors and consider the use of COPD medications such as inhalers.

“Our findings also support using race-neutral reference equations to interpret spirometry instead of race-specific equations. Racial disparities in rates of emphysema among those with ‘normal’ FEV₁ [between 80% and 120% predicted], were attenuated or eliminated when race-neutral equations were used to calculate FEV₁. This suggests that race-specific equations are normalizing worse lung health in Black adults,” Dr. Liu explained.

“We need to continue research into additional tools that can be used to assess respiratory health and diagnose COPD, while keeping in mind how these tools may affect racial disparities,” said Dr. Liu. “Our study suggests that our reliance on spirometry measures such as FEV₁/FVC ratio and FEV₁ is missing a number of people with respiratory symptoms and CT evidence of lung disease, and that this is disproportionately affecting Black adults in the United States.” Looking ahead, “it is important to find better tools to identify people with impaired respiratory health or early manifestations of disease so we can intercept chronic lung disease before it becomes clinically apparent and patients have sustained significant lung damage.”

The CARDIA study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in collaboration with the University of Alabama at Birmingham, Northwestern University, the University of Minnesota, and the Kaiser Foundation Research Institute. Dr. Liu was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

*This article was updated 7/22/2022.

An overreliance on spirometry to identify emphysema led to missed cases in Black individuals, particularly men, based on a secondary data analysis of 2,674 people.

“Over the last few years, there has been growing debate around the use of race adjustment in diagnostic algorithms and equations commonly used in medicine,” lead author Gabrielle Yi-Hui Liu, MD, said in an interview. “Whereas, previously it was common to accept racial or ethnic differences in clinical measures and outcomes as inherent differences among populations, there is now more recognition of how racism, socioeconomic status, and environmental exposures can cause these racial differences. Our initial interest in this study was to examine how the use of race-specific spirometry reference equations, and the use of spirometry in general, may be contributing to racial disparities.”

“Previous studies have suggested that the use of race-specific equations in spirometry can exacerbate racial inequities in healthcare outcomes by under-recognition of early disease in Black adults, and this study adds to that evidence,” said Suman Pal, MBBS, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, in an interview.
“By examining the crucial ways in which systemic factors in medicine, such as race-specific equations, exacerbate racial inequities in healthcare, this study is a timely analysis in a moment of national reckoning of structural racism,” said Dr. Pal, who was not involved in the study.

jgaunion/Thinkstock

In a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine, Dr. Liu and colleagues at Northwestern University, Chicago, conducted a secondary analysis of data from the CARDIA Lung study (Coronary Artery Risk Development In Young Adults).

The primary outcome of the study was the prevalence of emphysema among participants with various measures of normal spirometry results, stratified by sex and race. The normal results included an forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁₎–forced vital capacity (FVC) ratio greater than or equal to 0.7 or greater than or equal to the lower limit of normal. The participants also were stratified by FEV₁ percent predicted, using race-specific reference equations, for FEV₁ between 80% and 99% of predicted, or an FEV₁ between 100% and 120% of predicted.

The study population included 485 Black men, 762 Black women, 659 White men, and 768 White women who received both a CT scan (in 2010-2011) and spirometry (obtained in 2015-2016) in the CARDIA study. The mean age of the participants at the spirometry exam was 55 years.

A total of 5.3% of the participants had emphysema after stratifying by FEV₁-FVC ratio. The prevalence was significantly higher for Black men, compared with White men (12.3% vs. 4.0%; relative risk, 3.0), and for Black women, compared with White women (5.0% vs. 2.6%; RR, 1.9).

The association between Black race and emphysema risk persisted but decreased when the researchers used a race-neutral estimate.

When the participants were stratified by race-specific FEV₁ percent predicted, 6.5% of individuals with a race-specific FEV₁ between 80% and 99% had emphysema. After controlling for factors including age and smoking, emphysema was significantly more prevalent in Black men versus White men (15.5% vs. 4.0%) and in Black women, compared with White women (6.6% vs. 3.4%).

The racial difference persisted in men with a race-specific FEV₁ between 100% and 120% of predicted. Of these, 4.0% had emphysema. The prevalence was significantly higher in Black men, compared with White men (13.9% vs. 2.2%), but similar between Black women and White women (2.6% vs. 2.0%).

The use of race-neutral equations reduced, but did not eliminate, these disparities, the researchers said.

The findings were limited by the lack of CT imaging data from the same visit as the final spirometry collection, the researchers noted. “Given that imaging was obtained 5 years before spirometry and emphysema is an irreversible finding, this may have led to an overall underestimation of the prevalence of emphysema.”
 

Spirometry alone misses cases

“We were surprised by the substantial rates of emphysema we saw among Black men in our cohort with normal spirometry,” Dr. Liu said in an interview. “We did not expect to find than more than one in eight Black men with an FEV₁ between 100% and 120% predicted would have emphysema – a rate more than six times higher than White men with the same range of FEV₁.”

“One takeaway is that we are likely missing a lot of people with impaired respiratory health or true lung disease by only using spirometry to diagnose COPD,” said Dr. Liu. In clinical practice, “physicians should consider ordering CT scans on patients with normal spirometry who have respiratory symptoms such as cough or shortness of breath. If emphysema is found, physicians should discuss mitigating any potential risk factors and consider the use of COPD medications such as inhalers.

“Our findings also support using race-neutral reference equations to interpret spirometry instead of race-specific equations. Racial disparities in rates of emphysema among those with ‘normal’ FEV₁ [between 80% and 120% predicted], were attenuated or eliminated when race-neutral equations were used to calculate FEV₁. This suggests that race-specific equations are normalizing worse lung health in Black adults,” Dr. Liu explained.

“We need to continue research into additional tools that can be used to assess respiratory health and diagnose COPD, while keeping in mind how these tools may affect racial disparities,” said Dr. Liu. “Our study suggests that our reliance on spirometry measures such as FEV₁/FVC ratio and FEV₁ is missing a number of people with respiratory symptoms and CT evidence of lung disease, and that this is disproportionately affecting Black adults in the United States.” Looking ahead, “it is important to find better tools to identify people with impaired respiratory health or early manifestations of disease so we can intercept chronic lung disease before it becomes clinically apparent and patients have sustained significant lung damage.”

The CARDIA study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in collaboration with the University of Alabama at Birmingham, Northwestern University, the University of Minnesota, and the Kaiser Foundation Research Institute. Dr. Liu was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

*This article was updated 7/22/2022.

An overreliance on spirometry to identify emphysema led to missed cases in Black individuals, particularly men, based on a secondary data analysis of 2,674 people.

“Over the last few years, there has been growing debate around the use of race adjustment in diagnostic algorithms and equations commonly used in medicine,” lead author Gabrielle Yi-Hui Liu, MD, said in an interview. “Whereas, previously it was common to accept racial or ethnic differences in clinical measures and outcomes as inherent differences among populations, there is now more recognition of how racism, socioeconomic status, and environmental exposures can cause these racial differences. Our initial interest in this study was to examine how the use of race-specific spirometry reference equations, and the use of spirometry in general, may be contributing to racial disparities.”

“Previous studies have suggested that the use of race-specific equations in spirometry can exacerbate racial inequities in healthcare outcomes by under-recognition of early disease in Black adults, and this study adds to that evidence,” said Suman Pal, MBBS, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, in an interview.
“By examining the crucial ways in which systemic factors in medicine, such as race-specific equations, exacerbate racial inequities in healthcare, this study is a timely analysis in a moment of national reckoning of structural racism,” said Dr. Pal, who was not involved in the study.

jgaunion/Thinkstock

In a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine, Dr. Liu and colleagues at Northwestern University, Chicago, conducted a secondary analysis of data from the CARDIA Lung study (Coronary Artery Risk Development In Young Adults).

The primary outcome of the study was the prevalence of emphysema among participants with various measures of normal spirometry results, stratified by sex and race. The normal results included an forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁₎–forced vital capacity (FVC) ratio greater than or equal to 0.7 or greater than or equal to the lower limit of normal. The participants also were stratified by FEV₁ percent predicted, using race-specific reference equations, for FEV₁ between 80% and 99% of predicted, or an FEV₁ between 100% and 120% of predicted.

The study population included 485 Black men, 762 Black women, 659 White men, and 768 White women who received both a CT scan (in 2010-2011) and spirometry (obtained in 2015-2016) in the CARDIA study. The mean age of the participants at the spirometry exam was 55 years.

A total of 5.3% of the participants had emphysema after stratifying by FEV₁-FVC ratio. The prevalence was significantly higher for Black men, compared with White men (12.3% vs. 4.0%; relative risk, 3.0), and for Black women, compared with White women (5.0% vs. 2.6%; RR, 1.9).

The association between Black race and emphysema risk persisted but decreased when the researchers used a race-neutral estimate.

When the participants were stratified by race-specific FEV₁ percent predicted, 6.5% of individuals with a race-specific FEV₁ between 80% and 99% had emphysema. After controlling for factors including age and smoking, emphysema was significantly more prevalent in Black men versus White men (15.5% vs. 4.0%) and in Black women, compared with White women (6.6% vs. 3.4%).

The racial difference persisted in men with a race-specific FEV₁ between 100% and 120% of predicted. Of these, 4.0% had emphysema. The prevalence was significantly higher in Black men, compared with White men (13.9% vs. 2.2%), but similar between Black women and White women (2.6% vs. 2.0%).

The use of race-neutral equations reduced, but did not eliminate, these disparities, the researchers said.

The findings were limited by the lack of CT imaging data from the same visit as the final spirometry collection, the researchers noted. “Given that imaging was obtained 5 years before spirometry and emphysema is an irreversible finding, this may have led to an overall underestimation of the prevalence of emphysema.”
 

Spirometry alone misses cases

“We were surprised by the substantial rates of emphysema we saw among Black men in our cohort with normal spirometry,” Dr. Liu said in an interview. “We did not expect to find than more than one in eight Black men with an FEV₁ between 100% and 120% predicted would have emphysema – a rate more than six times higher than White men with the same range of FEV₁.”

“One takeaway is that we are likely missing a lot of people with impaired respiratory health or true lung disease by only using spirometry to diagnose COPD,” said Dr. Liu. In clinical practice, “physicians should consider ordering CT scans on patients with normal spirometry who have respiratory symptoms such as cough or shortness of breath. If emphysema is found, physicians should discuss mitigating any potential risk factors and consider the use of COPD medications such as inhalers.

“Our findings also support using race-neutral reference equations to interpret spirometry instead of race-specific equations. Racial disparities in rates of emphysema among those with ‘normal’ FEV₁ [between 80% and 120% predicted], were attenuated or eliminated when race-neutral equations were used to calculate FEV₁. This suggests that race-specific equations are normalizing worse lung health in Black adults,” Dr. Liu explained.

“We need to continue research into additional tools that can be used to assess respiratory health and diagnose COPD, while keeping in mind how these tools may affect racial disparities,” said Dr. Liu. “Our study suggests that our reliance on spirometry measures such as FEV₁/FVC ratio and FEV₁ is missing a number of people with respiratory symptoms and CT evidence of lung disease, and that this is disproportionately affecting Black adults in the United States.” Looking ahead, “it is important to find better tools to identify people with impaired respiratory health or early manifestations of disease so we can intercept chronic lung disease before it becomes clinically apparent and patients have sustained significant lung damage.”

The CARDIA study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in collaboration with the University of Alabama at Birmingham, Northwestern University, the University of Minnesota, and the Kaiser Foundation Research Institute. Dr. Liu was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

*This article was updated 7/22/2022.

I was a resident, young and naive, when I bumped into my neighbor in the hospital hallway as he walked out of a psychiatrist’s office.

“Why are you here?” I asked, thinking that my neighbor, a theology professor, had some professional reason to be meeting with a psychiatrist, perhaps some type of community project. As the question escaped from my lips, however, I had an instant sense of regret and made a “note to self” in bold, all capital letters with a few exclamation points: Don’t ever ask friends or neighbors why they are visiting a psychiatrist. 

Fast-forward a number of decades, and I received an email from that neighbor. Charles Marsh, is now a professor of religious studies at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, director of the Lived Theology Project, and author of several books. He sent me a link to an article he’d written about his treatment for an anxiety disorder and let me know he was working on a book on the topic. I later received the galleys for his manuscript, Evangelical Anxiety: A Memoir, which was released last month by HarperOne.

Professor Marsh opens his story as he’s sitting with his family in church, listening to his pastor’s sermon. It is a quiet April day, and as they are throughout this memoir, his descriptions are so vivid that the reader is sitting next to him in his familiar pew, there in that church on that Sunday, seeing what he sees, smelling what he smells, and feeling what he feels. The pastor confers a wish on his congregants: He’d like them all to have a nervous breakdown in their youth. He goes on to say that if Martin Luther had lived in the days of Prozac, his inner torment would have been quelled, and there would have been no Protestant reformation. Professor Marsh then treats us to the first of many humorous moments – he rushes home and swallows a tablet of Ativan.

Professor Marsh focuses on a single dividing point for his life, a day in the fall of 1981. He was resting on his bed in his dorm room at Harvard Divinity School at the ripe age of 23 years, 6 months, and 3 days (but who’s counting), when all of who he was changed. He described what he went through that night:

It was then that a high pandemonium ripped away everything protecting me from the world outside. I was no longer a person alone in his room. In an instant, I could hear all things inside my body in their deepest repercussions. My heart and its soft aortic murmur, my breath’s every exhalation and inhalation, the downward silences, the laborious intake – would this one be the last? How much noise the body makes when amped up on fear! I could hear the hiss of molecules colliding. And outside in the yellow night, the compressors harrumphing atop the nearby physics building, the sound of car engines and slamming doors. All these things I heard as tormenting assault, a soundscape I could not mute. I’d become a thought thinking about thinking itself and nothing else, metaphysics’ ancient curse. A cogitation cycling through every autonomous body function, placing on each a question mark like flowers for the dead.

This moment in time – this “breakdown,” as Professor Marsh repeatedly refers to it – bifurcated his life. He went from being a person who lived “disguised to myself as unaghast and free” to someone who could no longer find escape in his reading, who struggled in his own skin and his own mind, and who, for lack of a better description, was tortured. The “breakdown” passed, and Professor Marsh diagnosed himself with generalized anxiety disorder.

That night, he did not go to an emergency department nor did he seek help from services that were available to Harvard students. There was no psychiatrist, no therapy, no medication. It was, for him, with his fundamentalist Christian background, a religious event of sorts.

I counted it all joy if I should suffer. My sorrow, my soul’s sin-sickness, was not unintelligible – it was a kind of blessing, something that might draw me, like a medieval saint, to the suffering of my Lord, something that would testify wordlessly to my heroic exertion to attain purity. And, at least during those late days of autumn 1981, the heavens above and the earth below, spirit and flesh, felt miraculously aligned. Though suffering, this was the life I had craved.

Charles Marsh grew up as a Baptist pastor’s son in the Deep South during a time when the civil rights movement came to a head, and life was marked by fear and change. The memoir is not simply about one man’s struggle with an anxiety disorder, but a beautifully written account of life as an evangelical Christian during a tumultuous time of racial tensions and horrible violence. He details his life as a lonely only child in a God-fearing world cast in dark shadows, one where he struggled to belong and called out to his mother in the nights. Inside this world, Professor Marsh searched for his own religious identity, with the pride of being a high school “Jesus freak,” running alongside his repressed and frustrated sexual longings.

It was a world of good and bad, of heaven and hell, only the two became so confused as he talked about his existence full of fears: The windows were barred; violence and fear were central in his Alabama hometown, “the epicenter of white terrorism,” and then later when his family moved to Mississippi. He feared the barking dogs that guarded the houses, the bullies who tormented him, and the bullying in which, he too, joined in. He feared the switch-wielding adults – his mother, his principals, his coaches, and his youth pastor, all set on “breaking the will of the child,” a term he explains to be a Christian concept in which the child’s own will is broken so that he will be submissive to his parents and to God. 

Professor Marsh wanted so much to be good. And we’re not sure he even knew what that was as he battled his desire to conform and belong, and his ever-present sexual impulses. Even as an adult, he was certain his mother would know if he had premarital sex and he would have to kill himself. Sex outside of marriage was the one unpardonable sin.

He suffered in silence and shame. It was not until a few years later that he entered psychotherapy as a doctoral student. When he moved to Baltimore, he again looked for a therapist and eventually found himself with a psychiatrist who was training to be a psychoanalyst in the hospital where I was a resident. This psychoanalysis proved to be transformative and healing, but first, Professor Marsh needed to reconcile his treatment with his religious beliefs, as therapy and fundamental religion travel different roads.

Analysis and faith traverse similar terrain – they understand how language and narrative heal. They may see each other as strangers or competitors, but they need not. Like prayer, the analytic dialogue slows down to ponder, to meander, to piece together, to redeem; both inspire the mind toward hope under the influence of an empathetic listener. Neither needs the other to effectuate its truths, but they follow parallel tracks into the mysteries of being human, where all truth is God’s truth. It’s more than fine that they neither merge nor collide.

He goes on to describe how powerful the process was for him and his healing. 

Analysis is the space where one feels – where I felt in an embodied way, in the unhurried hours over months and years – a trust in the beautiful interplay between the center and the extremes. My body and mind would not be raised in resurrected splendor in the course of the treatment. I wish to emphasize the point. It was tempting to think that it would, that I would undergo a miraculous transformation. If not resurrected splendor, then surely I would take on the “new man.” Instead, I received the gift of mortal life: the freedom to be imperfect, to have fears and face them, to accept brokenness, to let go of the will to control all outcomes.

Evangelical Anxiety is a beautifully written book, and a look into two worlds that can feel so secretive to the outsider. Professor Marsh’s use of language is extraordinary; he has a gift for metaphors and descriptions, and he carries the reader alongside him on a splendid journey. It has to be said, however, that he assumes a lot: He is a sophisticated scholar who mentions religious leaders, philosophers, historical characters, and the occasional rock song, with no patience for those who don’t follow his quick transitions and impressive vocabulary; I could have read this book with a dictionary beside me (but I didn’t).

It’s an illuminating journey, often sad and disturbing, sometimes funny and endearing, and ultimately uplifting. In our skeptical world where psychiatrists are so are often undone, it is refreshing to read a memoir where the psychiatrist is the good guy and the patient emerges healed and whole.
 

Dr. Miller, is a coauthor of Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

I was a resident, young and naive, when I bumped into my neighbor in the hospital hallway as he walked out of a psychiatrist’s office.

“Why are you here?” I asked, thinking that my neighbor, a theology professor, had some professional reason to be meeting with a psychiatrist, perhaps some type of community project. As the question escaped from my lips, however, I had an instant sense of regret and made a “note to self” in bold, all capital letters with a few exclamation points: Don’t ever ask friends or neighbors why they are visiting a psychiatrist. 

Fast-forward a number of decades, and I received an email from that neighbor. Charles Marsh, is now a professor of religious studies at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, director of the Lived Theology Project, and author of several books. He sent me a link to an article he’d written about his treatment for an anxiety disorder and let me know he was working on a book on the topic. I later received the galleys for his manuscript, Evangelical Anxiety: A Memoir, which was released last month by HarperOne.

Professor Marsh opens his story as he’s sitting with his family in church, listening to his pastor’s sermon. It is a quiet April day, and as they are throughout this memoir, his descriptions are so vivid that the reader is sitting next to him in his familiar pew, there in that church on that Sunday, seeing what he sees, smelling what he smells, and feeling what he feels. The pastor confers a wish on his congregants: He’d like them all to have a nervous breakdown in their youth. He goes on to say that if Martin Luther had lived in the days of Prozac, his inner torment would have been quelled, and there would have been no Protestant reformation. Professor Marsh then treats us to the first of many humorous moments – he rushes home and swallows a tablet of Ativan.

Professor Marsh focuses on a single dividing point for his life, a day in the fall of 1981. He was resting on his bed in his dorm room at Harvard Divinity School at the ripe age of 23 years, 6 months, and 3 days (but who’s counting), when all of who he was changed. He described what he went through that night:

It was then that a high pandemonium ripped away everything protecting me from the world outside. I was no longer a person alone in his room. In an instant, I could hear all things inside my body in their deepest repercussions. My heart and its soft aortic murmur, my breath’s every exhalation and inhalation, the downward silences, the laborious intake – would this one be the last? How much noise the body makes when amped up on fear! I could hear the hiss of molecules colliding. And outside in the yellow night, the compressors harrumphing atop the nearby physics building, the sound of car engines and slamming doors. All these things I heard as tormenting assault, a soundscape I could not mute. I’d become a thought thinking about thinking itself and nothing else, metaphysics’ ancient curse. A cogitation cycling through every autonomous body function, placing on each a question mark like flowers for the dead.

This moment in time – this “breakdown,” as Professor Marsh repeatedly refers to it – bifurcated his life. He went from being a person who lived “disguised to myself as unaghast and free” to someone who could no longer find escape in his reading, who struggled in his own skin and his own mind, and who, for lack of a better description, was tortured. The “breakdown” passed, and Professor Marsh diagnosed himself with generalized anxiety disorder.

That night, he did not go to an emergency department nor did he seek help from services that were available to Harvard students. There was no psychiatrist, no therapy, no medication. It was, for him, with his fundamentalist Christian background, a religious event of sorts.

I counted it all joy if I should suffer. My sorrow, my soul’s sin-sickness, was not unintelligible – it was a kind of blessing, something that might draw me, like a medieval saint, to the suffering of my Lord, something that would testify wordlessly to my heroic exertion to attain purity. And, at least during those late days of autumn 1981, the heavens above and the earth below, spirit and flesh, felt miraculously aligned. Though suffering, this was the life I had craved.

Charles Marsh grew up as a Baptist pastor’s son in the Deep South during a time when the civil rights movement came to a head, and life was marked by fear and change. The memoir is not simply about one man’s struggle with an anxiety disorder, but a beautifully written account of life as an evangelical Christian during a tumultuous time of racial tensions and horrible violence. He details his life as a lonely only child in a God-fearing world cast in dark shadows, one where he struggled to belong and called out to his mother in the nights. Inside this world, Professor Marsh searched for his own religious identity, with the pride of being a high school “Jesus freak,” running alongside his repressed and frustrated sexual longings.

It was a world of good and bad, of heaven and hell, only the two became so confused as he talked about his existence full of fears: The windows were barred; violence and fear were central in his Alabama hometown, “the epicenter of white terrorism,” and then later when his family moved to Mississippi. He feared the barking dogs that guarded the houses, the bullies who tormented him, and the bullying in which, he too, joined in. He feared the switch-wielding adults – his mother, his principals, his coaches, and his youth pastor, all set on “breaking the will of the child,” a term he explains to be a Christian concept in which the child’s own will is broken so that he will be submissive to his parents and to God. 

Professor Marsh wanted so much to be good. And we’re not sure he even knew what that was as he battled his desire to conform and belong, and his ever-present sexual impulses. Even as an adult, he was certain his mother would know if he had premarital sex and he would have to kill himself. Sex outside of marriage was the one unpardonable sin.

He suffered in silence and shame. It was not until a few years later that he entered psychotherapy as a doctoral student. When he moved to Baltimore, he again looked for a therapist and eventually found himself with a psychiatrist who was training to be a psychoanalyst in the hospital where I was a resident. This psychoanalysis proved to be transformative and healing, but first, Professor Marsh needed to reconcile his treatment with his religious beliefs, as therapy and fundamental religion travel different roads.

Analysis and faith traverse similar terrain – they understand how language and narrative heal. They may see each other as strangers or competitors, but they need not. Like prayer, the analytic dialogue slows down to ponder, to meander, to piece together, to redeem; both inspire the mind toward hope under the influence of an empathetic listener. Neither needs the other to effectuate its truths, but they follow parallel tracks into the mysteries of being human, where all truth is God’s truth. It’s more than fine that they neither merge nor collide.

He goes on to describe how powerful the process was for him and his healing. 

Analysis is the space where one feels – where I felt in an embodied way, in the unhurried hours over months and years – a trust in the beautiful interplay between the center and the extremes. My body and mind would not be raised in resurrected splendor in the course of the treatment. I wish to emphasize the point. It was tempting to think that it would, that I would undergo a miraculous transformation. If not resurrected splendor, then surely I would take on the “new man.” Instead, I received the gift of mortal life: the freedom to be imperfect, to have fears and face them, to accept brokenness, to let go of the will to control all outcomes.

Evangelical Anxiety is a beautifully written book, and a look into two worlds that can feel so secretive to the outsider. Professor Marsh’s use of language is extraordinary; he has a gift for metaphors and descriptions, and he carries the reader alongside him on a splendid journey. It has to be said, however, that he assumes a lot: He is a sophisticated scholar who mentions religious leaders, philosophers, historical characters, and the occasional rock song, with no patience for those who don’t follow his quick transitions and impressive vocabulary; I could have read this book with a dictionary beside me (but I didn’t).

It’s an illuminating journey, often sad and disturbing, sometimes funny and endearing, and ultimately uplifting. In our skeptical world where psychiatrists are so are often undone, it is refreshing to read a memoir where the psychiatrist is the good guy and the patient emerges healed and whole.
 

Dr. Miller, is a coauthor of Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

I was a resident, young and naive, when I bumped into my neighbor in the hospital hallway as he walked out of a psychiatrist’s office.

“Why are you here?” I asked, thinking that my neighbor, a theology professor, had some professional reason to be meeting with a psychiatrist, perhaps some type of community project. As the question escaped from my lips, however, I had an instant sense of regret and made a “note to self” in bold, all capital letters with a few exclamation points: Don’t ever ask friends or neighbors why they are visiting a psychiatrist. 

Fast-forward a number of decades, and I received an email from that neighbor. Charles Marsh, is now a professor of religious studies at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, director of the Lived Theology Project, and author of several books. He sent me a link to an article he’d written about his treatment for an anxiety disorder and let me know he was working on a book on the topic. I later received the galleys for his manuscript, Evangelical Anxiety: A Memoir, which was released last month by HarperOne.

Professor Marsh opens his story as he’s sitting with his family in church, listening to his pastor’s sermon. It is a quiet April day, and as they are throughout this memoir, his descriptions are so vivid that the reader is sitting next to him in his familiar pew, there in that church on that Sunday, seeing what he sees, smelling what he smells, and feeling what he feels. The pastor confers a wish on his congregants: He’d like them all to have a nervous breakdown in their youth. He goes on to say that if Martin Luther had lived in the days of Prozac, his inner torment would have been quelled, and there would have been no Protestant reformation. Professor Marsh then treats us to the first of many humorous moments – he rushes home and swallows a tablet of Ativan.

Professor Marsh focuses on a single dividing point for his life, a day in the fall of 1981. He was resting on his bed in his dorm room at Harvard Divinity School at the ripe age of 23 years, 6 months, and 3 days (but who’s counting), when all of who he was changed. He described what he went through that night:

It was then that a high pandemonium ripped away everything protecting me from the world outside. I was no longer a person alone in his room. In an instant, I could hear all things inside my body in their deepest repercussions. My heart and its soft aortic murmur, my breath’s every exhalation and inhalation, the downward silences, the laborious intake – would this one be the last? How much noise the body makes when amped up on fear! I could hear the hiss of molecules colliding. And outside in the yellow night, the compressors harrumphing atop the nearby physics building, the sound of car engines and slamming doors. All these things I heard as tormenting assault, a soundscape I could not mute. I’d become a thought thinking about thinking itself and nothing else, metaphysics’ ancient curse. A cogitation cycling through every autonomous body function, placing on each a question mark like flowers for the dead.

This moment in time – this “breakdown,” as Professor Marsh repeatedly refers to it – bifurcated his life. He went from being a person who lived “disguised to myself as unaghast and free” to someone who could no longer find escape in his reading, who struggled in his own skin and his own mind, and who, for lack of a better description, was tortured. The “breakdown” passed, and Professor Marsh diagnosed himself with generalized anxiety disorder.

That night, he did not go to an emergency department nor did he seek help from services that were available to Harvard students. There was no psychiatrist, no therapy, no medication. It was, for him, with his fundamentalist Christian background, a religious event of sorts.

I counted it all joy if I should suffer. My sorrow, my soul’s sin-sickness, was not unintelligible – it was a kind of blessing, something that might draw me, like a medieval saint, to the suffering of my Lord, something that would testify wordlessly to my heroic exertion to attain purity. And, at least during those late days of autumn 1981, the heavens above and the earth below, spirit and flesh, felt miraculously aligned. Though suffering, this was the life I had craved.

Charles Marsh grew up as a Baptist pastor’s son in the Deep South during a time when the civil rights movement came to a head, and life was marked by fear and change. The memoir is not simply about one man’s struggle with an anxiety disorder, but a beautifully written account of life as an evangelical Christian during a tumultuous time of racial tensions and horrible violence. He details his life as a lonely only child in a God-fearing world cast in dark shadows, one where he struggled to belong and called out to his mother in the nights. Inside this world, Professor Marsh searched for his own religious identity, with the pride of being a high school “Jesus freak,” running alongside his repressed and frustrated sexual longings.

It was a world of good and bad, of heaven and hell, only the two became so confused as he talked about his existence full of fears: The windows were barred; violence and fear were central in his Alabama hometown, “the epicenter of white terrorism,” and then later when his family moved to Mississippi. He feared the barking dogs that guarded the houses, the bullies who tormented him, and the bullying in which, he too, joined in. He feared the switch-wielding adults – his mother, his principals, his coaches, and his youth pastor, all set on “breaking the will of the child,” a term he explains to be a Christian concept in which the child’s own will is broken so that he will be submissive to his parents and to God. 

Professor Marsh wanted so much to be good. And we’re not sure he even knew what that was as he battled his desire to conform and belong, and his ever-present sexual impulses. Even as an adult, he was certain his mother would know if he had premarital sex and he would have to kill himself. Sex outside of marriage was the one unpardonable sin.

He suffered in silence and shame. It was not until a few years later that he entered psychotherapy as a doctoral student. When he moved to Baltimore, he again looked for a therapist and eventually found himself with a psychiatrist who was training to be a psychoanalyst in the hospital where I was a resident. This psychoanalysis proved to be transformative and healing, but first, Professor Marsh needed to reconcile his treatment with his religious beliefs, as therapy and fundamental religion travel different roads.

Analysis and faith traverse similar terrain – they understand how language and narrative heal. They may see each other as strangers or competitors, but they need not. Like prayer, the analytic dialogue slows down to ponder, to meander, to piece together, to redeem; both inspire the mind toward hope under the influence of an empathetic listener. Neither needs the other to effectuate its truths, but they follow parallel tracks into the mysteries of being human, where all truth is God’s truth. It’s more than fine that they neither merge nor collide.

He goes on to describe how powerful the process was for him and his healing. 

Analysis is the space where one feels – where I felt in an embodied way, in the unhurried hours over months and years – a trust in the beautiful interplay between the center and the extremes. My body and mind would not be raised in resurrected splendor in the course of the treatment. I wish to emphasize the point. It was tempting to think that it would, that I would undergo a miraculous transformation. If not resurrected splendor, then surely I would take on the “new man.” Instead, I received the gift of mortal life: the freedom to be imperfect, to have fears and face them, to accept brokenness, to let go of the will to control all outcomes.

Evangelical Anxiety is a beautifully written book, and a look into two worlds that can feel so secretive to the outsider. Professor Marsh’s use of language is extraordinary; he has a gift for metaphors and descriptions, and he carries the reader alongside him on a splendid journey. It has to be said, however, that he assumes a lot: He is a sophisticated scholar who mentions religious leaders, philosophers, historical characters, and the occasional rock song, with no patience for those who don’t follow his quick transitions and impressive vocabulary; I could have read this book with a dictionary beside me (but I didn’t).

It’s an illuminating journey, often sad and disturbing, sometimes funny and endearing, and ultimately uplifting. In our skeptical world where psychiatrists are so are often undone, it is refreshing to read a memoir where the psychiatrist is the good guy and the patient emerges healed and whole.
 

Dr. Miller, is a coauthor of Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Women who’ve had endometriosis carry an elevated risk of stroke with them for the rest of their lives, with the greatest risk found in women who’ve had a hysterectomy with an oophorectomy, according to a cohort study of the Nurses’ Health Study.

“This is yet additional evidence that those girls and women with endometriosis are having effects across their lives and in multiple aspects of their health and well-being,” senior study author Stacey A. Missmer, ScD, of the Michigan State University, East Lansing, said in an interview. “This is not, in quotes ‘just a gynecologic condition,’ ” Dr. Missmer added. “It is not strictly about the pelvic pain or infertility, but it really is about the whole health across the life course.”

The study included 112,056 women in the NHSII cohort study who were followed from 1989 to June 2017, documenting 893 incident cases of stroke among them – an incidence of less than 1%. Endometriosis was reported in 5,244 women, and 93% of the cohort were White.

Multivariate adjusted models showed that women who had laparoscopically confirmed endometriosis had a 34% greater risk of stroke than women without a history of endometriosis. Leslie V. Farland, ScD, of the University of Arizona, Tucson, was lead author of the study.

While previous studies have demonstrated an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, heart attack, angina, and atherosclerosis in women who’ve had endometriosis, this is the first study that has confirmed an additional increased risk of stroke, Dr. Missmer said.

Another novel finding, Dr. Missmer said, is that while the CVD risks for these women “seem to peak at an earlier age,” the study found no age differences for stroke risk. “That also reinforces that these stroke events are often happening in an age range typical for stroke, which is further removed from when women are thinking about their gynecologic health specifically.”

These findings don’t translate into a significantly greater risk for stroke overall in women who’ve had endometriosis, Dr. Missmer said. She characterized the risk as “not negligible, but it’s not a huge increased risk.” The absolute risk is still fairly low, she said.

“We don’t want to give the impression that all women with endometriosis need to be panicked or fearful about stroke, she said. “Rather, the messaging is that this yet another bit of evidence that whole health care for those with endometriosis is important.”

Women who’ve had endometriosis and their primary care providers need to be attuned to stroke risk, she said. “This is a critical condition that primary care physicians need to engage around, and perhaps if symptoms related to cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease emerge in their patients, they need to be engaging cardiology and similar types of support. This is not just about the gynecologists.”

The study also explored other factors that may contribute to stroke risk, with the most significant being hysterectomy with bilateral oophorectomy, Dr. Missmer said.

This study was unique because it used laparoscopically confirmed rather than self-reported endometriosis, said Louise D. McCullough, MD, neurology chair at the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston. Another strength of the study she noted was its longitudinal design, although the cohort study design yielded a low number of stroke patients.

“Regardless, I do think it was a very important study because we have a growing recognition about how women’s health and factors such as pregnancy, infertility, parity, complications, and gonadal hormones such as estrogen can influence a woman’s stroke risk much later in life,” Dr. McCullough said in an interview.

Future studies into the relationship between endometriosis and CVD and stroke risk should focus on the mechanism behind the inflammation that occurs in endometriosis, Dr. McCullough said. “Part of it is probably the loss of hormones if a patient has to have an oophorectomy, but part of it is just what do these diseases do for a woman’s later risk – and for primary care physicians, ob.gyns., and stroke neurologists to recognize that these are questions we should ask: Have you ever  had eclampsia or preeclampsia? Did you have endometriosis? Have you had miscarriages?”

The study received funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Missmer disclosed relationships with Shanghai Huilun Biotechnology, Roche, and AbbVie. Dr. McCullough has no relevant disclosures.


 

Women who’ve had endometriosis carry an elevated risk of stroke with them for the rest of their lives, with the greatest risk found in women who’ve had a hysterectomy with an oophorectomy, according to a cohort study of the Nurses’ Health Study.

“This is yet additional evidence that those girls and women with endometriosis are having effects across their lives and in multiple aspects of their health and well-being,” senior study author Stacey A. Missmer, ScD, of the Michigan State University, East Lansing, said in an interview. “This is not, in quotes ‘just a gynecologic condition,’ ” Dr. Missmer added. “It is not strictly about the pelvic pain or infertility, but it really is about the whole health across the life course.”

The study included 112,056 women in the NHSII cohort study who were followed from 1989 to June 2017, documenting 893 incident cases of stroke among them – an incidence of less than 1%. Endometriosis was reported in 5,244 women, and 93% of the cohort were White.

Multivariate adjusted models showed that women who had laparoscopically confirmed endometriosis had a 34% greater risk of stroke than women without a history of endometriosis. Leslie V. Farland, ScD, of the University of Arizona, Tucson, was lead author of the study.

While previous studies have demonstrated an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, heart attack, angina, and atherosclerosis in women who’ve had endometriosis, this is the first study that has confirmed an additional increased risk of stroke, Dr. Missmer said.

Another novel finding, Dr. Missmer said, is that while the CVD risks for these women “seem to peak at an earlier age,” the study found no age differences for stroke risk. “That also reinforces that these stroke events are often happening in an age range typical for stroke, which is further removed from when women are thinking about their gynecologic health specifically.”

These findings don’t translate into a significantly greater risk for stroke overall in women who’ve had endometriosis, Dr. Missmer said. She characterized the risk as “not negligible, but it’s not a huge increased risk.” The absolute risk is still fairly low, she said.

“We don’t want to give the impression that all women with endometriosis need to be panicked or fearful about stroke, she said. “Rather, the messaging is that this yet another bit of evidence that whole health care for those with endometriosis is important.”

Women who’ve had endometriosis and their primary care providers need to be attuned to stroke risk, she said. “This is a critical condition that primary care physicians need to engage around, and perhaps if symptoms related to cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease emerge in their patients, they need to be engaging cardiology and similar types of support. This is not just about the gynecologists.”

The study also explored other factors that may contribute to stroke risk, with the most significant being hysterectomy with bilateral oophorectomy, Dr. Missmer said.

This study was unique because it used laparoscopically confirmed rather than self-reported endometriosis, said Louise D. McCullough, MD, neurology chair at the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston. Another strength of the study she noted was its longitudinal design, although the cohort study design yielded a low number of stroke patients.

“Regardless, I do think it was a very important study because we have a growing recognition about how women’s health and factors such as pregnancy, infertility, parity, complications, and gonadal hormones such as estrogen can influence a woman’s stroke risk much later in life,” Dr. McCullough said in an interview.

Future studies into the relationship between endometriosis and CVD and stroke risk should focus on the mechanism behind the inflammation that occurs in endometriosis, Dr. McCullough said. “Part of it is probably the loss of hormones if a patient has to have an oophorectomy, but part of it is just what do these diseases do for a woman’s later risk – and for primary care physicians, ob.gyns., and stroke neurologists to recognize that these are questions we should ask: Have you ever  had eclampsia or preeclampsia? Did you have endometriosis? Have you had miscarriages?”

The study received funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Missmer disclosed relationships with Shanghai Huilun Biotechnology, Roche, and AbbVie. Dr. McCullough has no relevant disclosures.


 

Women who’ve had endometriosis carry an elevated risk of stroke with them for the rest of their lives, with the greatest risk found in women who’ve had a hysterectomy with an oophorectomy, according to a cohort study of the Nurses’ Health Study.

“This is yet additional evidence that those girls and women with endometriosis are having effects across their lives and in multiple aspects of their health and well-being,” senior study author Stacey A. Missmer, ScD, of the Michigan State University, East Lansing, said in an interview. “This is not, in quotes ‘just a gynecologic condition,’ ” Dr. Missmer added. “It is not strictly about the pelvic pain or infertility, but it really is about the whole health across the life course.”

The study included 112,056 women in the NHSII cohort study who were followed from 1989 to June 2017, documenting 893 incident cases of stroke among them – an incidence of less than 1%. Endometriosis was reported in 5,244 women, and 93% of the cohort were White.

Multivariate adjusted models showed that women who had laparoscopically confirmed endometriosis had a 34% greater risk of stroke than women without a history of endometriosis. Leslie V. Farland, ScD, of the University of Arizona, Tucson, was lead author of the study.

While previous studies have demonstrated an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, heart attack, angina, and atherosclerosis in women who’ve had endometriosis, this is the first study that has confirmed an additional increased risk of stroke, Dr. Missmer said.

Another novel finding, Dr. Missmer said, is that while the CVD risks for these women “seem to peak at an earlier age,” the study found no age differences for stroke risk. “That also reinforces that these stroke events are often happening in an age range typical for stroke, which is further removed from when women are thinking about their gynecologic health specifically.”

These findings don’t translate into a significantly greater risk for stroke overall in women who’ve had endometriosis, Dr. Missmer said. She characterized the risk as “not negligible, but it’s not a huge increased risk.” The absolute risk is still fairly low, she said.

“We don’t want to give the impression that all women with endometriosis need to be panicked or fearful about stroke, she said. “Rather, the messaging is that this yet another bit of evidence that whole health care for those with endometriosis is important.”

Women who’ve had endometriosis and their primary care providers need to be attuned to stroke risk, she said. “This is a critical condition that primary care physicians need to engage around, and perhaps if symptoms related to cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease emerge in their patients, they need to be engaging cardiology and similar types of support. This is not just about the gynecologists.”

The study also explored other factors that may contribute to stroke risk, with the most significant being hysterectomy with bilateral oophorectomy, Dr. Missmer said.

This study was unique because it used laparoscopically confirmed rather than self-reported endometriosis, said Louise D. McCullough, MD, neurology chair at the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston. Another strength of the study she noted was its longitudinal design, although the cohort study design yielded a low number of stroke patients.

“Regardless, I do think it was a very important study because we have a growing recognition about how women’s health and factors such as pregnancy, infertility, parity, complications, and gonadal hormones such as estrogen can influence a woman’s stroke risk much later in life,” Dr. McCullough said in an interview.

Future studies into the relationship between endometriosis and CVD and stroke risk should focus on the mechanism behind the inflammation that occurs in endometriosis, Dr. McCullough said. “Part of it is probably the loss of hormones if a patient has to have an oophorectomy, but part of it is just what do these diseases do for a woman’s later risk – and for primary care physicians, ob.gyns., and stroke neurologists to recognize that these are questions we should ask: Have you ever  had eclampsia or preeclampsia? Did you have endometriosis? Have you had miscarriages?”

The study received funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Missmer disclosed relationships with Shanghai Huilun Biotechnology, Roche, and AbbVie. Dr. McCullough has no relevant disclosures.


 

Cutting out almost all salt when preparing meals was associated with a worse prognosis in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), according to the results of a new study.

Results from a post hoc analysis of the TOPCAT trial show that those with a cooking salt score of zero were at significantly higher risk of the primary outcome of cardiovascular (CV) death, HF hospitalization, and aborted cardiac arrest than those whose score was above zero. Survival was similar in both groups.

“Some patients restrict dietary salt intake as least as possible according to their physicians’ words or their own understanding. However, the present study found that, in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, overstrict salt restriction could lead to poor prognosis – mainly heart failure hospitalization,” explained professor Chen Liu, MD, and Weihao Liang, MD, Sun Yat-sen University First Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.

Krisana Antharith / EyeEm / Getty Images

“Thus, when giving salt restriction advice to patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, physicians should be careful instead of just saying “as least as possible,” they said in an email to this news organization.

The study was published in the journal Heart.

The authors note that HF guidelines recommend reduced salt intake, but there’s a lack of high-quality evidence to support those recommendations and no consensus on how low to go.

Previous studies have shown that reduced dietary sodium intake was associated with worse survival and higher readmission rate in patients with HF, whereas the SODIUM HF trial reported earlier this year that dietary sodium intake of less than 100 mmol (1,500 mg) per day did not improve 1-year clinical outcomes but moderately improved quality of life and New York Heart Association functional class.

“In daily clinical practice, we noticed that some physicians advised patients with heart failure to take salt as least as possible, but it could lead to hyponatremia and loss of appetite, which has been frequently reported to be associated with poor prognosis. Thus, we wanted to investigate the potential effect of overstrict salt restriction,” Dr. Liu and Dr. Liang explained.

The investigators examined data from 1,713 participants aged 50 and older with HFpEF (left ventricular ejection fraction 45% or greater) in the phase 3 TOPCAT trial, excluding those from Russia and Georgia. Patients self-reported how much salt they added to cooking staples, such as rice, pasta, potatoes, soup, meat, and vegetables, and were scored as 0 (none), 1 (⅛ teaspoon), 2 (¼ teaspoon), and 3 (½ teaspoon or more) points. Median follow-up was 2.9 years.

TOPCAT failed to show that spironolactone improved CV outcomes over placebo, but regional differences in data from Russia/Georgia and the Americas have raised concerns about its validity.

In the present analysis, almost half the participants (816) had a cooking salt score of 0, 56.4% were male, and 80.8% were White. They were more likely than participants with a salt score greater than zero to have a previous HF hospitalization, diabetes, poor renal function, and a lower ejection fraction (57% vs. 60%). Half were randomly assigned to spironolactone.

Compared with patients with a cooking salt score of 0, patients with a cooking salt score greater than 0 had significantly lower risks of the primary outcome (hazard ratio, 0.760; P = .002) and HF hospitalization (HR, 0.737; P = .003) but not all-cause (HR, 0.838) or CV (HR, 0.782) death.

The findings were consistent after full adjustment, with hazard ratios of 0.834 (P = .046), 0.791 (P = .024), 0.944, and 0.872, respectively.

Results of subgroup analyses suggested that patients aged 70 years or younger (HR, 0.644) and those of Black and other ethnicities (HR, 0.574) were at greater risk of the primary outcome from aggressive restriction of cooking salt.

“It was an interesting but unproved finding,” Dr. Liu and Dr. Liang observed. “One possible explanation is the difference in RAAS [renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system] physiology and its response to salt restriction among races, and the other is the difference in accustomed food, because the cooking salt score only accounted for sodium added during cooking but not sodium from ingredients.”

Spearman correlation analyses showed that the cooking salt score correlated significantly with systolic and diastolic blood pressure, serum sodium, and chloronium levels but not with plasma volume status, suggesting that low sodium intake did not have an intravascular volume contraction effect on patients with HFpEF.

The authors pointed out that the salt score was self-reported, hemodynamic parameters were seldom acquired in TOPCAT, and that reverse causation between low dietary sodium intake and worse HF might still exist, despite a propensity score-matching sensitivity analysis.

Reached for comment, Mary Norine Walsh, MD, the medical director of heart failure and cardiac transplantation, Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center, Indianapolis, said in an email that the authors appropriately excluded patients enrolled from Russia and Georgia because of concerns about the representativeness of patients with HFpEF in these two countries, which has been previously demonstrated.

“What limits the importance of the authors’ findings, which they acknowledge, is that the sodium intake for each patient was self-reported,” she said. “No confirmatory testing was done and recall bias could clearly have played a role.”

“Last, many patients with HFpEF have significant volume overload and dyspnea and appropriate sodium restriction is needed to help address symptoms and achieve a euvolemic state,” added Dr. Walsh, a past president of the American College of Cardiology.

Future trials are needed to determine an optimal salt restriction range for patients with heart failure, Dr. Liu and Dr. Liang suggested. “A randomized controlled trial may be hard to achieve because it is difficult to set a perfect control group. Therefore, an analysis using real-world data with a dose-response curve could be ideal.”

The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Guangdong Natural Science Foundation, and China Postdoctoral Science Foundation. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cutting out almost all salt when preparing meals was associated with a worse prognosis in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), according to the results of a new study.

Results from a post hoc analysis of the TOPCAT trial show that those with a cooking salt score of zero were at significantly higher risk of the primary outcome of cardiovascular (CV) death, HF hospitalization, and aborted cardiac arrest than those whose score was above zero. Survival was similar in both groups.

“Some patients restrict dietary salt intake as least as possible according to their physicians’ words or their own understanding. However, the present study found that, in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, overstrict salt restriction could lead to poor prognosis – mainly heart failure hospitalization,” explained professor Chen Liu, MD, and Weihao Liang, MD, Sun Yat-sen University First Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.

Krisana Antharith / EyeEm / Getty Images

“Thus, when giving salt restriction advice to patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, physicians should be careful instead of just saying “as least as possible,” they said in an email to this news organization.

The study was published in the journal Heart.

The authors note that HF guidelines recommend reduced salt intake, but there’s a lack of high-quality evidence to support those recommendations and no consensus on how low to go.

Previous studies have shown that reduced dietary sodium intake was associated with worse survival and higher readmission rate in patients with HF, whereas the SODIUM HF trial reported earlier this year that dietary sodium intake of less than 100 mmol (1,500 mg) per day did not improve 1-year clinical outcomes but moderately improved quality of life and New York Heart Association functional class.

“In daily clinical practice, we noticed that some physicians advised patients with heart failure to take salt as least as possible, but it could lead to hyponatremia and loss of appetite, which has been frequently reported to be associated with poor prognosis. Thus, we wanted to investigate the potential effect of overstrict salt restriction,” Dr. Liu and Dr. Liang explained.

The investigators examined data from 1,713 participants aged 50 and older with HFpEF (left ventricular ejection fraction 45% or greater) in the phase 3 TOPCAT trial, excluding those from Russia and Georgia. Patients self-reported how much salt they added to cooking staples, such as rice, pasta, potatoes, soup, meat, and vegetables, and were scored as 0 (none), 1 (⅛ teaspoon), 2 (¼ teaspoon), and 3 (½ teaspoon or more) points. Median follow-up was 2.9 years.

TOPCAT failed to show that spironolactone improved CV outcomes over placebo, but regional differences in data from Russia/Georgia and the Americas have raised concerns about its validity.

In the present analysis, almost half the participants (816) had a cooking salt score of 0, 56.4% were male, and 80.8% were White. They were more likely than participants with a salt score greater than zero to have a previous HF hospitalization, diabetes, poor renal function, and a lower ejection fraction (57% vs. 60%). Half were randomly assigned to spironolactone.

Compared with patients with a cooking salt score of 0, patients with a cooking salt score greater than 0 had significantly lower risks of the primary outcome (hazard ratio, 0.760; P = .002) and HF hospitalization (HR, 0.737; P = .003) but not all-cause (HR, 0.838) or CV (HR, 0.782) death.

The findings were consistent after full adjustment, with hazard ratios of 0.834 (P = .046), 0.791 (P = .024), 0.944, and 0.872, respectively.

Results of subgroup analyses suggested that patients aged 70 years or younger (HR, 0.644) and those of Black and other ethnicities (HR, 0.574) were at greater risk of the primary outcome from aggressive restriction of cooking salt.

“It was an interesting but unproved finding,” Dr. Liu and Dr. Liang observed. “One possible explanation is the difference in RAAS [renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system] physiology and its response to salt restriction among races, and the other is the difference in accustomed food, because the cooking salt score only accounted for sodium added during cooking but not sodium from ingredients.”

Spearman correlation analyses showed that the cooking salt score correlated significantly with systolic and diastolic blood pressure, serum sodium, and chloronium levels but not with plasma volume status, suggesting that low sodium intake did not have an intravascular volume contraction effect on patients with HFpEF.

The authors pointed out that the salt score was self-reported, hemodynamic parameters were seldom acquired in TOPCAT, and that reverse causation between low dietary sodium intake and worse HF might still exist, despite a propensity score-matching sensitivity analysis.

Reached for comment, Mary Norine Walsh, MD, the medical director of heart failure and cardiac transplantation, Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center, Indianapolis, said in an email that the authors appropriately excluded patients enrolled from Russia and Georgia because of concerns about the representativeness of patients with HFpEF in these two countries, which has been previously demonstrated.

“What limits the importance of the authors’ findings, which they acknowledge, is that the sodium intake for each patient was self-reported,” she said. “No confirmatory testing was done and recall bias could clearly have played a role.”

“Last, many patients with HFpEF have significant volume overload and dyspnea and appropriate sodium restriction is needed to help address symptoms and achieve a euvolemic state,” added Dr. Walsh, a past president of the American College of Cardiology.

Future trials are needed to determine an optimal salt restriction range for patients with heart failure, Dr. Liu and Dr. Liang suggested. “A randomized controlled trial may be hard to achieve because it is difficult to set a perfect control group. Therefore, an analysis using real-world data with a dose-response curve could be ideal.”

The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Guangdong Natural Science Foundation, and China Postdoctoral Science Foundation. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cutting out almost all salt when preparing meals was associated with a worse prognosis in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), according to the results of a new study.

Results from a post hoc analysis of the TOPCAT trial show that those with a cooking salt score of zero were at significantly higher risk of the primary outcome of cardiovascular (CV) death, HF hospitalization, and aborted cardiac arrest than those whose score was above zero. Survival was similar in both groups.

“Some patients restrict dietary salt intake as least as possible according to their physicians’ words or their own understanding. However, the present study found that, in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, overstrict salt restriction could lead to poor prognosis – mainly heart failure hospitalization,” explained professor Chen Liu, MD, and Weihao Liang, MD, Sun Yat-sen University First Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.

Krisana Antharith / EyeEm / Getty Images

“Thus, when giving salt restriction advice to patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, physicians should be careful instead of just saying “as least as possible,” they said in an email to this news organization.

The study was published in the journal Heart.

The authors note that HF guidelines recommend reduced salt intake, but there’s a lack of high-quality evidence to support those recommendations and no consensus on how low to go.

Previous studies have shown that reduced dietary sodium intake was associated with worse survival and higher readmission rate in patients with HF, whereas the SODIUM HF trial reported earlier this year that dietary sodium intake of less than 100 mmol (1,500 mg) per day did not improve 1-year clinical outcomes but moderately improved quality of life and New York Heart Association functional class.

“In daily clinical practice, we noticed that some physicians advised patients with heart failure to take salt as least as possible, but it could lead to hyponatremia and loss of appetite, which has been frequently reported to be associated with poor prognosis. Thus, we wanted to investigate the potential effect of overstrict salt restriction,” Dr. Liu and Dr. Liang explained.

The investigators examined data from 1,713 participants aged 50 and older with HFpEF (left ventricular ejection fraction 45% or greater) in the phase 3 TOPCAT trial, excluding those from Russia and Georgia. Patients self-reported how much salt they added to cooking staples, such as rice, pasta, potatoes, soup, meat, and vegetables, and were scored as 0 (none), 1 (⅛ teaspoon), 2 (¼ teaspoon), and 3 (½ teaspoon or more) points. Median follow-up was 2.9 years.

TOPCAT failed to show that spironolactone improved CV outcomes over placebo, but regional differences in data from Russia/Georgia and the Americas have raised concerns about its validity.

In the present analysis, almost half the participants (816) had a cooking salt score of 0, 56.4% were male, and 80.8% were White. They were more likely than participants with a salt score greater than zero to have a previous HF hospitalization, diabetes, poor renal function, and a lower ejection fraction (57% vs. 60%). Half were randomly assigned to spironolactone.

Compared with patients with a cooking salt score of 0, patients with a cooking salt score greater than 0 had significantly lower risks of the primary outcome (hazard ratio, 0.760; P = .002) and HF hospitalization (HR, 0.737; P = .003) but not all-cause (HR, 0.838) or CV (HR, 0.782) death.

The findings were consistent after full adjustment, with hazard ratios of 0.834 (P = .046), 0.791 (P = .024), 0.944, and 0.872, respectively.

Results of subgroup analyses suggested that patients aged 70 years or younger (HR, 0.644) and those of Black and other ethnicities (HR, 0.574) were at greater risk of the primary outcome from aggressive restriction of cooking salt.

“It was an interesting but unproved finding,” Dr. Liu and Dr. Liang observed. “One possible explanation is the difference in RAAS [renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system] physiology and its response to salt restriction among races, and the other is the difference in accustomed food, because the cooking salt score only accounted for sodium added during cooking but not sodium from ingredients.”

Spearman correlation analyses showed that the cooking salt score correlated significantly with systolic and diastolic blood pressure, serum sodium, and chloronium levels but not with plasma volume status, suggesting that low sodium intake did not have an intravascular volume contraction effect on patients with HFpEF.

The authors pointed out that the salt score was self-reported, hemodynamic parameters were seldom acquired in TOPCAT, and that reverse causation between low dietary sodium intake and worse HF might still exist, despite a propensity score-matching sensitivity analysis.

Reached for comment, Mary Norine Walsh, MD, the medical director of heart failure and cardiac transplantation, Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center, Indianapolis, said in an email that the authors appropriately excluded patients enrolled from Russia and Georgia because of concerns about the representativeness of patients with HFpEF in these two countries, which has been previously demonstrated.

“What limits the importance of the authors’ findings, which they acknowledge, is that the sodium intake for each patient was self-reported,” she said. “No confirmatory testing was done and recall bias could clearly have played a role.”

“Last, many patients with HFpEF have significant volume overload and dyspnea and appropriate sodium restriction is needed to help address symptoms and achieve a euvolemic state,” added Dr. Walsh, a past president of the American College of Cardiology.

Future trials are needed to determine an optimal salt restriction range for patients with heart failure, Dr. Liu and Dr. Liang suggested. “A randomized controlled trial may be hard to achieve because it is difficult to set a perfect control group. Therefore, an analysis using real-world data with a dose-response curve could be ideal.”

The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Guangdong Natural Science Foundation, and China Postdoctoral Science Foundation. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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