User login
FDA: Urgent device correction, recall for Philips ventilator
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has announced a Class I recall for Philips Respironics V60 and V60 Plus ventilators, citing a power failure leading to potential oxygen deprivation. Class I recalls, the most severe, are reserved for devices that may cause serious injury or death, as noted in the FDA’s announcement. As of April 14, one death and four injuries have been associated with this device failure.
These ventilators are commonly used in hospitals or under medical supervision for patients who have difficulty regulating breathing on their own. Normally, if oxygen flow is interrupted, the device sounds alarms, alerting supervisors. The failure comes when a power fluctuation causes the device to randomly shut down, which forces the alarm system to reboot. This internal disruption is the reason for the recall.
When the device shuts down out of the blue, it may or may not sound the requisite alarm that would allow providers to intervene. If the device does not sound the alarm, patients may lose oxygen for an extended period, without a provider even knowing.
Philips was notified of these problems and began the recall process on March 10. Currently, it is estimated that 56,671 devices have been distributed throughout the United States. The FDA and Philips Respironics advise that if providers are already using these ventilators, they may continue to do so in accordance with extra set of instructions.
First, customers should connect the device to an external alarm or nurse call system. Second, they should use an external oxygen monitor and a pulse oximeter to keep track of air flow. Finally, if one is available, there should be a backup ventilator on the premises. That way, if there is an interruption in oxygen flow, someone will be alerted and can quickly intervene.
If there is a problem, the patient should be removed from the Philips ventilator and immediately placed on an alternate device. The FDA instructs customers who have experienced problems to report them to its MedWatch database.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has announced a Class I recall for Philips Respironics V60 and V60 Plus ventilators, citing a power failure leading to potential oxygen deprivation. Class I recalls, the most severe, are reserved for devices that may cause serious injury or death, as noted in the FDA’s announcement. As of April 14, one death and four injuries have been associated with this device failure.
These ventilators are commonly used in hospitals or under medical supervision for patients who have difficulty regulating breathing on their own. Normally, if oxygen flow is interrupted, the device sounds alarms, alerting supervisors. The failure comes when a power fluctuation causes the device to randomly shut down, which forces the alarm system to reboot. This internal disruption is the reason for the recall.
When the device shuts down out of the blue, it may or may not sound the requisite alarm that would allow providers to intervene. If the device does not sound the alarm, patients may lose oxygen for an extended period, without a provider even knowing.
Philips was notified of these problems and began the recall process on March 10. Currently, it is estimated that 56,671 devices have been distributed throughout the United States. The FDA and Philips Respironics advise that if providers are already using these ventilators, they may continue to do so in accordance with extra set of instructions.
First, customers should connect the device to an external alarm or nurse call system. Second, they should use an external oxygen monitor and a pulse oximeter to keep track of air flow. Finally, if one is available, there should be a backup ventilator on the premises. That way, if there is an interruption in oxygen flow, someone will be alerted and can quickly intervene.
If there is a problem, the patient should be removed from the Philips ventilator and immediately placed on an alternate device. The FDA instructs customers who have experienced problems to report them to its MedWatch database.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has announced a Class I recall for Philips Respironics V60 and V60 Plus ventilators, citing a power failure leading to potential oxygen deprivation. Class I recalls, the most severe, are reserved for devices that may cause serious injury or death, as noted in the FDA’s announcement. As of April 14, one death and four injuries have been associated with this device failure.
These ventilators are commonly used in hospitals or under medical supervision for patients who have difficulty regulating breathing on their own. Normally, if oxygen flow is interrupted, the device sounds alarms, alerting supervisors. The failure comes when a power fluctuation causes the device to randomly shut down, which forces the alarm system to reboot. This internal disruption is the reason for the recall.
When the device shuts down out of the blue, it may or may not sound the requisite alarm that would allow providers to intervene. If the device does not sound the alarm, patients may lose oxygen for an extended period, without a provider even knowing.
Philips was notified of these problems and began the recall process on March 10. Currently, it is estimated that 56,671 devices have been distributed throughout the United States. The FDA and Philips Respironics advise that if providers are already using these ventilators, they may continue to do so in accordance with extra set of instructions.
First, customers should connect the device to an external alarm or nurse call system. Second, they should use an external oxygen monitor and a pulse oximeter to keep track of air flow. Finally, if one is available, there should be a backup ventilator on the premises. That way, if there is an interruption in oxygen flow, someone will be alerted and can quickly intervene.
If there is a problem, the patient should be removed from the Philips ventilator and immediately placed on an alternate device. The FDA instructs customers who have experienced problems to report them to its MedWatch database.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Glofitamab prevails against r/r DLBCL
“We know that relapsed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma has a particularly poor prognosis,” especially for patients who have undergone at least two therapies, Dr. Michael Dickinson, MBBS, of the University of Melbourne said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Bispecific T cell–recruiting antibodies are emerging as a novel treatment option for B-cell cancers, said Dr. Dickinson.
Glofitamab is distinct among these therapies for its configuration that is bivalent for CD20 and monovalent for CD3, providing more potency than a 1:1 format, Dr. Dickinson explained in his presentation.
The study population included 154 adults aged 21-90 years with DLBCL who had received at least two prior treatments; all had received prior anti-CD20 Ab, and 149 had received anthracycline. The median age of the patients was 66 years, 65% were male, 75% had Ann Arbor stage III or IV disease, and 90% were refractory to any prior therapy.
The patients received intravenous glutamate-pyruvate transaminase, followed by an initial intravenous dose of glofitamab 7 days later. Glofitamab was given as step-up doses starting with 2.5 mg to a target of 30 mg.
The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) during initial treatment using Independent Review Committee (IRC) criteria, with overall response rate, duration of response, duration of complete response, progression-free survival, and overall survival as key secondary outcomes.
At a median of 12.6 months’ follow-up, the CR and overall response rates were 39.4% and 51.6%, respectively.
“Responses were achieved early; the median time to first complete response was 42 days,” Dr. Dickinson reported. Of the 38 patients with CR at the data cutoff point, 33 remained in complete remission (87%) based on IRC criteria. Complete response rates were consistent across prespecified subgroups, notably 42% of patients with no prior chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy and 70% and 34%, of those who were relapsed or refractory, respectively, to their last prior treatments.
The median duration of overall response was 18.4 months, and the median duration of complete response had not yet been estimated, Dr. Dickinson said. The median progression-free survival and overall survival rates were 4.9 months and 11.5 months, respectively, and the estimated 12-month overall survival was 49.8%.
“These are highly clinically significant results for this difficult to treat population,” Dr. Dickinson said in his presentation.
The most common adverse event was cytokine release syndrome (CRS), which occurred in 63% of patients. Of these, 3.9% were grade 3 or 4. Patients received corticosteroids (27.8%) or tocilizumab for management of CRS.
“As we have shown before, this is a first-course phenomenon, becoming far less frequent once step up dosing is complete,” Dr. Dickinson said in the presentation. “The median time to CRS is predictable, occurring around 10 hours after the IV infusion,” he said. Overall, 3.2% of the patients discontinued because of an adverse event.
A total of eight deaths occurred during the study; five of these were related to COVID-19 and the remaining three were in patients with manifest progression of disease.
Infections are to be expected in such a heavily treated population, and 14.9% of patients developed infections of grade 3 or higher, said Dr. Dickinson. Neutropenia of any grade occurred in 37.7%, febrile neutropenia in 2.6%. Neurological events occurred in 38.3% of patients; 3.2% were grade 3 or higher.
The study did not prospectively record immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome, Dr. Dickinson said, but an estimate suggests a rate of 2.6%, and none of the events were considered to be related to glofitamab, he noted.
The researchers also looked at a supporting cohort of 35 patients with a median follow up of more than 2 years. In this group, the complete remission rate was 35% and the median duration of remission was 34.2 months. “Our six longest patients have been in remission for longer than 3 years,” Dr. Dickinson said.
The latest glofitamab data “reflect routine practice and an area of need for this disease,” said Dr. Dickinson.
“I think these results will prove to be very meaningful for our patients with large cell lymphoma, and this drug will prove to be an important treatment option,” he said.
More follow-up needed, but findings show promise
A number of CD20/CD3-bispecific antibodies are in development for patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphomas, said study discussant Kerry J. Savage, MD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, who served as the discussant for the session.
Glofitamab differs from other treatments in that it is bivalent for CD20 and monovalent for CD3, “which imparts greater potency,” she noted. Glofitamab also has a silent Fc region that is designed to extend half-life and reduce toxicity.
Patients in the current study had at least two prior regimens, and importantly, “CR rates were similar, regardless of prior therapy,” said Dr. Savage. The longer follow-up cohort provides “a hint that the response may be durable.”
Looking ahead, “the important thing will be response durability” with longer follow-up, she added. “We don’t know the curative potential yet, but the results are encouraging so far.”
In the meantime, “the best use of bispecific antibodies is through clinical trials,” Dr. Savage said. “Keep an eye out for bispecific antibody combination trials as well.”
The study was funded by F. Hoffmann–La Roche. Dr. Dickinson disclosed honoraria from or serving as a consultant to companies including Amgen, Bristol Myers-Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, and Roche. Dr. Savage disclosed relationships, funding, and support from multiple companies including Bristol Myers-Squibb, Janssen Oncology, Kyowa, Merck, Novartis Canada Pharmaceuticals, Seattle Genetics and Roche.
“We know that relapsed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma has a particularly poor prognosis,” especially for patients who have undergone at least two therapies, Dr. Michael Dickinson, MBBS, of the University of Melbourne said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Bispecific T cell–recruiting antibodies are emerging as a novel treatment option for B-cell cancers, said Dr. Dickinson.
Glofitamab is distinct among these therapies for its configuration that is bivalent for CD20 and monovalent for CD3, providing more potency than a 1:1 format, Dr. Dickinson explained in his presentation.
The study population included 154 adults aged 21-90 years with DLBCL who had received at least two prior treatments; all had received prior anti-CD20 Ab, and 149 had received anthracycline. The median age of the patients was 66 years, 65% were male, 75% had Ann Arbor stage III or IV disease, and 90% were refractory to any prior therapy.
The patients received intravenous glutamate-pyruvate transaminase, followed by an initial intravenous dose of glofitamab 7 days later. Glofitamab was given as step-up doses starting with 2.5 mg to a target of 30 mg.
The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) during initial treatment using Independent Review Committee (IRC) criteria, with overall response rate, duration of response, duration of complete response, progression-free survival, and overall survival as key secondary outcomes.
At a median of 12.6 months’ follow-up, the CR and overall response rates were 39.4% and 51.6%, respectively.
“Responses were achieved early; the median time to first complete response was 42 days,” Dr. Dickinson reported. Of the 38 patients with CR at the data cutoff point, 33 remained in complete remission (87%) based on IRC criteria. Complete response rates were consistent across prespecified subgroups, notably 42% of patients with no prior chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy and 70% and 34%, of those who were relapsed or refractory, respectively, to their last prior treatments.
The median duration of overall response was 18.4 months, and the median duration of complete response had not yet been estimated, Dr. Dickinson said. The median progression-free survival and overall survival rates were 4.9 months and 11.5 months, respectively, and the estimated 12-month overall survival was 49.8%.
“These are highly clinically significant results for this difficult to treat population,” Dr. Dickinson said in his presentation.
The most common adverse event was cytokine release syndrome (CRS), which occurred in 63% of patients. Of these, 3.9% were grade 3 or 4. Patients received corticosteroids (27.8%) or tocilizumab for management of CRS.
“As we have shown before, this is a first-course phenomenon, becoming far less frequent once step up dosing is complete,” Dr. Dickinson said in the presentation. “The median time to CRS is predictable, occurring around 10 hours after the IV infusion,” he said. Overall, 3.2% of the patients discontinued because of an adverse event.
A total of eight deaths occurred during the study; five of these were related to COVID-19 and the remaining three were in patients with manifest progression of disease.
Infections are to be expected in such a heavily treated population, and 14.9% of patients developed infections of grade 3 or higher, said Dr. Dickinson. Neutropenia of any grade occurred in 37.7%, febrile neutropenia in 2.6%. Neurological events occurred in 38.3% of patients; 3.2% were grade 3 or higher.
The study did not prospectively record immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome, Dr. Dickinson said, but an estimate suggests a rate of 2.6%, and none of the events were considered to be related to glofitamab, he noted.
The researchers also looked at a supporting cohort of 35 patients with a median follow up of more than 2 years. In this group, the complete remission rate was 35% and the median duration of remission was 34.2 months. “Our six longest patients have been in remission for longer than 3 years,” Dr. Dickinson said.
The latest glofitamab data “reflect routine practice and an area of need for this disease,” said Dr. Dickinson.
“I think these results will prove to be very meaningful for our patients with large cell lymphoma, and this drug will prove to be an important treatment option,” he said.
More follow-up needed, but findings show promise
A number of CD20/CD3-bispecific antibodies are in development for patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphomas, said study discussant Kerry J. Savage, MD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, who served as the discussant for the session.
Glofitamab differs from other treatments in that it is bivalent for CD20 and monovalent for CD3, “which imparts greater potency,” she noted. Glofitamab also has a silent Fc region that is designed to extend half-life and reduce toxicity.
Patients in the current study had at least two prior regimens, and importantly, “CR rates were similar, regardless of prior therapy,” said Dr. Savage. The longer follow-up cohort provides “a hint that the response may be durable.”
Looking ahead, “the important thing will be response durability” with longer follow-up, she added. “We don’t know the curative potential yet, but the results are encouraging so far.”
In the meantime, “the best use of bispecific antibodies is through clinical trials,” Dr. Savage said. “Keep an eye out for bispecific antibody combination trials as well.”
The study was funded by F. Hoffmann–La Roche. Dr. Dickinson disclosed honoraria from or serving as a consultant to companies including Amgen, Bristol Myers-Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, and Roche. Dr. Savage disclosed relationships, funding, and support from multiple companies including Bristol Myers-Squibb, Janssen Oncology, Kyowa, Merck, Novartis Canada Pharmaceuticals, Seattle Genetics and Roche.
“We know that relapsed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma has a particularly poor prognosis,” especially for patients who have undergone at least two therapies, Dr. Michael Dickinson, MBBS, of the University of Melbourne said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Bispecific T cell–recruiting antibodies are emerging as a novel treatment option for B-cell cancers, said Dr. Dickinson.
Glofitamab is distinct among these therapies for its configuration that is bivalent for CD20 and monovalent for CD3, providing more potency than a 1:1 format, Dr. Dickinson explained in his presentation.
The study population included 154 adults aged 21-90 years with DLBCL who had received at least two prior treatments; all had received prior anti-CD20 Ab, and 149 had received anthracycline. The median age of the patients was 66 years, 65% were male, 75% had Ann Arbor stage III or IV disease, and 90% were refractory to any prior therapy.
The patients received intravenous glutamate-pyruvate transaminase, followed by an initial intravenous dose of glofitamab 7 days later. Glofitamab was given as step-up doses starting with 2.5 mg to a target of 30 mg.
The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) during initial treatment using Independent Review Committee (IRC) criteria, with overall response rate, duration of response, duration of complete response, progression-free survival, and overall survival as key secondary outcomes.
At a median of 12.6 months’ follow-up, the CR and overall response rates were 39.4% and 51.6%, respectively.
“Responses were achieved early; the median time to first complete response was 42 days,” Dr. Dickinson reported. Of the 38 patients with CR at the data cutoff point, 33 remained in complete remission (87%) based on IRC criteria. Complete response rates were consistent across prespecified subgroups, notably 42% of patients with no prior chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy and 70% and 34%, of those who were relapsed or refractory, respectively, to their last prior treatments.
The median duration of overall response was 18.4 months, and the median duration of complete response had not yet been estimated, Dr. Dickinson said. The median progression-free survival and overall survival rates were 4.9 months and 11.5 months, respectively, and the estimated 12-month overall survival was 49.8%.
“These are highly clinically significant results for this difficult to treat population,” Dr. Dickinson said in his presentation.
The most common adverse event was cytokine release syndrome (CRS), which occurred in 63% of patients. Of these, 3.9% were grade 3 or 4. Patients received corticosteroids (27.8%) or tocilizumab for management of CRS.
“As we have shown before, this is a first-course phenomenon, becoming far less frequent once step up dosing is complete,” Dr. Dickinson said in the presentation. “The median time to CRS is predictable, occurring around 10 hours after the IV infusion,” he said. Overall, 3.2% of the patients discontinued because of an adverse event.
A total of eight deaths occurred during the study; five of these were related to COVID-19 and the remaining three were in patients with manifest progression of disease.
Infections are to be expected in such a heavily treated population, and 14.9% of patients developed infections of grade 3 or higher, said Dr. Dickinson. Neutropenia of any grade occurred in 37.7%, febrile neutropenia in 2.6%. Neurological events occurred in 38.3% of patients; 3.2% were grade 3 or higher.
The study did not prospectively record immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome, Dr. Dickinson said, but an estimate suggests a rate of 2.6%, and none of the events were considered to be related to glofitamab, he noted.
The researchers also looked at a supporting cohort of 35 patients with a median follow up of more than 2 years. In this group, the complete remission rate was 35% and the median duration of remission was 34.2 months. “Our six longest patients have been in remission for longer than 3 years,” Dr. Dickinson said.
The latest glofitamab data “reflect routine practice and an area of need for this disease,” said Dr. Dickinson.
“I think these results will prove to be very meaningful for our patients with large cell lymphoma, and this drug will prove to be an important treatment option,” he said.
More follow-up needed, but findings show promise
A number of CD20/CD3-bispecific antibodies are in development for patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphomas, said study discussant Kerry J. Savage, MD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, who served as the discussant for the session.
Glofitamab differs from other treatments in that it is bivalent for CD20 and monovalent for CD3, “which imparts greater potency,” she noted. Glofitamab also has a silent Fc region that is designed to extend half-life and reduce toxicity.
Patients in the current study had at least two prior regimens, and importantly, “CR rates were similar, regardless of prior therapy,” said Dr. Savage. The longer follow-up cohort provides “a hint that the response may be durable.”
Looking ahead, “the important thing will be response durability” with longer follow-up, she added. “We don’t know the curative potential yet, but the results are encouraging so far.”
In the meantime, “the best use of bispecific antibodies is through clinical trials,” Dr. Savage said. “Keep an eye out for bispecific antibody combination trials as well.”
The study was funded by F. Hoffmann–La Roche. Dr. Dickinson disclosed honoraria from or serving as a consultant to companies including Amgen, Bristol Myers-Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, and Roche. Dr. Savage disclosed relationships, funding, and support from multiple companies including Bristol Myers-Squibb, Janssen Oncology, Kyowa, Merck, Novartis Canada Pharmaceuticals, Seattle Genetics and Roche.
FROM ASCO 2022
Parkinson’s disease could be hiding behind those nightmares
Living the dream, diagnosing the nightmare
Does a bad dream mean you should be consulting your doctor about an impending neurologic disease? Maybe.
New research published in eClinicalMedicine suggests that, for some people, bad dreams and nightmares have been associated with developing Parkinson’s disease later in life. Dr. Abidemi I. Otaiku of the University of Birmingham (England) analyzed data from a cohort study involving 3,818 older men, of whom 2.3% were diagnosed with Parkinson’s during the 12 years of follow-up.
Dr. Otaiku found those with frequent nightmares – at least once per week – were twice as likely to develop Parkinson’s than were those without, with most of the diagnoses coming in the first 5 years.
Although more research needs to be done, “identifying the significance of bad dreams and nightmares could indicate that individuals who experience changes to their dreams in older age – without any obvious trigger – should seek medical advice,” he said in a Eurekalert statement.
Dr. Otaiku pointed out that studying dreams can tell us a lot about how our brains work and are structured. By using electroencephalography, Dr. Otaiku plans to look into the biological reasons for why we dream the way we do.
So could it be that those killer clowns are actually giving you a heads up on your health?
Maybe next time try a paper route
There’s just no winning with teenagers sometimes. You tell them to go outside, they’ll sit in the dark playing video games all night. You tell them to get better grades, they’ll skip school. You tell them to get a hobby, they’ll scam the German government for millions of euros.
The COVID-19 pandemic has been tricky for governments to manage. Massive amounts of infrastructure needed to be set up, and that means corners got cut. Germany was no exception in this regard; the government entrusted the Kassenärztlichen Vereinigung, a doctor’s association, with overseeing COVID testing and payment at private test centers. To make things a bit easier, all they required private test centers to provide to receive reimbursement was an invoice.
This is where our 17-year-old from Freiburg comes in. In a spark of entrepreneurial genius, he decided to falsify documents and create an entirely fictional COVID test center. The KV approved it, and between March and July of 2021, he sent in thousands of fake invoices. Over that 4-month period, he submitted 500,000 invoices and received 5.7 million euros as compensation. That’s a few thousand tests per day, which was absolutely absurd, but he avoided scrutiny for months.
In the end, it wasn’t even the KV that noticed the fraud, but the bank. A bank employee noticed millions flowing into the account of a teenager and suspected money laundering, alerting the government. Fortunately for our young friend, since he was under 18 when he hatched his scheme, he was tried as a minor, avoiding jail time. His ill-gotten gains were confiscated, he has to pay a relatively minimal fine, and he will be on probation for 1 year. And presumably, he’ll be on the receiving end of the grounding of a lifetime.
You look like I need more sleep
Like most people, not getting our beauty sleep can make us look tired and feel less attractive, but a new study from Sweden shows that the sleep deprived also are more likely to find others less attractive. That’s probably not a good finding for singles who often go out trying to meet someone after a long day of work.
For the study, 45 young men and women were required to spend one night with no sleep and then another night with the possibility of 8 hours of sleep. The following mornings, eye-tracking technology was used as they looked at images of happy, angry, fearful, and neutral faces. The subjects then rated the faces for attractiveness, trustworthiness, and healthiness.
“The finding that sleep-deprived subjects in our experiment rated angry faces as less trustworthy and healthy-looking and neutral and fearful faces as less attractive indicates that sleep loss is associated with more negative social impressions of others,” senior author Christian Benedict of Uppsala University said in a statement.
When we are sleep deprived, the researchers added, we might not stop to really look at someone else, which has a negative impact on how we perceive people because we are not focusing on what their facial expressions are really telling us.
We already knew that not sleeping well has many negative effects on us, but now – thank you very much, science – we have something else to think about. Better hope your crush at work gets enough sleep so you’ll be accurately noticed.
The expanding-hole illusion of science
Time for a LOTME-style reality check: I think, therefore I am.
So far, so good. Next step: I think, therefore I am. I think.
Works for us. Now for the biggie: I think I am seeing the black hole in the middle of this image expanding.
Does that work for you? Do you perceive the black hole as expanding? If you do, then you fit in with the 86% of subjects in a recent study who perceived the same thing.
Lead author Bruno Laeng of the University of Oslo explained the effect in a statement from Frontiers Science News. “The circular smear or shadow gradient of the central black hole evokes a marked impression of optic flow, as if the observer were heading forward into a hole or tunnel. ... The pupil reacts to how we perceive light – even if this ‘light’ is imaginary like in the illusion – and not just to the amount of light energy that actually enters the eye.”
The illusion is so good at deceiving the brain “that it even prompts a dilation reflex of the pupils to let in more light, just as would happen if we were really moving into a dark area,” the investigators said.
Of the 50 men and women who had their eye movements measured while looking at the illusion, only 14% didn’t perceive the illusion when the hole was black. When the hole was a color, that figure went up to 20%. There also was a strong dilation reflex with black holes, but colored holes caused the subjects’ pupils to constrict, they noted.
Dr. Laeng and his associates can’t explain why some people don’t see the movement, but they did offer this: “Pupils’ dilation or contraction reflex is not a closed-loop mechanism, like a photocell opening a door, impervious to any other information than the actual amount of light stimulating the photoreceptor. Rather, the eye adjusts to perceived and even imagined light, not simply to physical energy.”
And now, back to our reality check: We think we perceive the light of a cheeseburger, therefore it’s time for lunch.
Living the dream, diagnosing the nightmare
Does a bad dream mean you should be consulting your doctor about an impending neurologic disease? Maybe.
New research published in eClinicalMedicine suggests that, for some people, bad dreams and nightmares have been associated with developing Parkinson’s disease later in life. Dr. Abidemi I. Otaiku of the University of Birmingham (England) analyzed data from a cohort study involving 3,818 older men, of whom 2.3% were diagnosed with Parkinson’s during the 12 years of follow-up.
Dr. Otaiku found those with frequent nightmares – at least once per week – were twice as likely to develop Parkinson’s than were those without, with most of the diagnoses coming in the first 5 years.
Although more research needs to be done, “identifying the significance of bad dreams and nightmares could indicate that individuals who experience changes to their dreams in older age – without any obvious trigger – should seek medical advice,” he said in a Eurekalert statement.
Dr. Otaiku pointed out that studying dreams can tell us a lot about how our brains work and are structured. By using electroencephalography, Dr. Otaiku plans to look into the biological reasons for why we dream the way we do.
So could it be that those killer clowns are actually giving you a heads up on your health?
Maybe next time try a paper route
There’s just no winning with teenagers sometimes. You tell them to go outside, they’ll sit in the dark playing video games all night. You tell them to get better grades, they’ll skip school. You tell them to get a hobby, they’ll scam the German government for millions of euros.
The COVID-19 pandemic has been tricky for governments to manage. Massive amounts of infrastructure needed to be set up, and that means corners got cut. Germany was no exception in this regard; the government entrusted the Kassenärztlichen Vereinigung, a doctor’s association, with overseeing COVID testing and payment at private test centers. To make things a bit easier, all they required private test centers to provide to receive reimbursement was an invoice.
This is where our 17-year-old from Freiburg comes in. In a spark of entrepreneurial genius, he decided to falsify documents and create an entirely fictional COVID test center. The KV approved it, and between March and July of 2021, he sent in thousands of fake invoices. Over that 4-month period, he submitted 500,000 invoices and received 5.7 million euros as compensation. That’s a few thousand tests per day, which was absolutely absurd, but he avoided scrutiny for months.
In the end, it wasn’t even the KV that noticed the fraud, but the bank. A bank employee noticed millions flowing into the account of a teenager and suspected money laundering, alerting the government. Fortunately for our young friend, since he was under 18 when he hatched his scheme, he was tried as a minor, avoiding jail time. His ill-gotten gains were confiscated, he has to pay a relatively minimal fine, and he will be on probation for 1 year. And presumably, he’ll be on the receiving end of the grounding of a lifetime.
You look like I need more sleep
Like most people, not getting our beauty sleep can make us look tired and feel less attractive, but a new study from Sweden shows that the sleep deprived also are more likely to find others less attractive. That’s probably not a good finding for singles who often go out trying to meet someone after a long day of work.
For the study, 45 young men and women were required to spend one night with no sleep and then another night with the possibility of 8 hours of sleep. The following mornings, eye-tracking technology was used as they looked at images of happy, angry, fearful, and neutral faces. The subjects then rated the faces for attractiveness, trustworthiness, and healthiness.
“The finding that sleep-deprived subjects in our experiment rated angry faces as less trustworthy and healthy-looking and neutral and fearful faces as less attractive indicates that sleep loss is associated with more negative social impressions of others,” senior author Christian Benedict of Uppsala University said in a statement.
When we are sleep deprived, the researchers added, we might not stop to really look at someone else, which has a negative impact on how we perceive people because we are not focusing on what their facial expressions are really telling us.
We already knew that not sleeping well has many negative effects on us, but now – thank you very much, science – we have something else to think about. Better hope your crush at work gets enough sleep so you’ll be accurately noticed.
The expanding-hole illusion of science
Time for a LOTME-style reality check: I think, therefore I am.
So far, so good. Next step: I think, therefore I am. I think.
Works for us. Now for the biggie: I think I am seeing the black hole in the middle of this image expanding.
Does that work for you? Do you perceive the black hole as expanding? If you do, then you fit in with the 86% of subjects in a recent study who perceived the same thing.
Lead author Bruno Laeng of the University of Oslo explained the effect in a statement from Frontiers Science News. “The circular smear or shadow gradient of the central black hole evokes a marked impression of optic flow, as if the observer were heading forward into a hole or tunnel. ... The pupil reacts to how we perceive light – even if this ‘light’ is imaginary like in the illusion – and not just to the amount of light energy that actually enters the eye.”
The illusion is so good at deceiving the brain “that it even prompts a dilation reflex of the pupils to let in more light, just as would happen if we were really moving into a dark area,” the investigators said.
Of the 50 men and women who had their eye movements measured while looking at the illusion, only 14% didn’t perceive the illusion when the hole was black. When the hole was a color, that figure went up to 20%. There also was a strong dilation reflex with black holes, but colored holes caused the subjects’ pupils to constrict, they noted.
Dr. Laeng and his associates can’t explain why some people don’t see the movement, but they did offer this: “Pupils’ dilation or contraction reflex is not a closed-loop mechanism, like a photocell opening a door, impervious to any other information than the actual amount of light stimulating the photoreceptor. Rather, the eye adjusts to perceived and even imagined light, not simply to physical energy.”
And now, back to our reality check: We think we perceive the light of a cheeseburger, therefore it’s time for lunch.
Living the dream, diagnosing the nightmare
Does a bad dream mean you should be consulting your doctor about an impending neurologic disease? Maybe.
New research published in eClinicalMedicine suggests that, for some people, bad dreams and nightmares have been associated with developing Parkinson’s disease later in life. Dr. Abidemi I. Otaiku of the University of Birmingham (England) analyzed data from a cohort study involving 3,818 older men, of whom 2.3% were diagnosed with Parkinson’s during the 12 years of follow-up.
Dr. Otaiku found those with frequent nightmares – at least once per week – were twice as likely to develop Parkinson’s than were those without, with most of the diagnoses coming in the first 5 years.
Although more research needs to be done, “identifying the significance of bad dreams and nightmares could indicate that individuals who experience changes to their dreams in older age – without any obvious trigger – should seek medical advice,” he said in a Eurekalert statement.
Dr. Otaiku pointed out that studying dreams can tell us a lot about how our brains work and are structured. By using electroencephalography, Dr. Otaiku plans to look into the biological reasons for why we dream the way we do.
So could it be that those killer clowns are actually giving you a heads up on your health?
Maybe next time try a paper route
There’s just no winning with teenagers sometimes. You tell them to go outside, they’ll sit in the dark playing video games all night. You tell them to get better grades, they’ll skip school. You tell them to get a hobby, they’ll scam the German government for millions of euros.
The COVID-19 pandemic has been tricky for governments to manage. Massive amounts of infrastructure needed to be set up, and that means corners got cut. Germany was no exception in this regard; the government entrusted the Kassenärztlichen Vereinigung, a doctor’s association, with overseeing COVID testing and payment at private test centers. To make things a bit easier, all they required private test centers to provide to receive reimbursement was an invoice.
This is where our 17-year-old from Freiburg comes in. In a spark of entrepreneurial genius, he decided to falsify documents and create an entirely fictional COVID test center. The KV approved it, and between March and July of 2021, he sent in thousands of fake invoices. Over that 4-month period, he submitted 500,000 invoices and received 5.7 million euros as compensation. That’s a few thousand tests per day, which was absolutely absurd, but he avoided scrutiny for months.
In the end, it wasn’t even the KV that noticed the fraud, but the bank. A bank employee noticed millions flowing into the account of a teenager and suspected money laundering, alerting the government. Fortunately for our young friend, since he was under 18 when he hatched his scheme, he was tried as a minor, avoiding jail time. His ill-gotten gains were confiscated, he has to pay a relatively minimal fine, and he will be on probation for 1 year. And presumably, he’ll be on the receiving end of the grounding of a lifetime.
You look like I need more sleep
Like most people, not getting our beauty sleep can make us look tired and feel less attractive, but a new study from Sweden shows that the sleep deprived also are more likely to find others less attractive. That’s probably not a good finding for singles who often go out trying to meet someone after a long day of work.
For the study, 45 young men and women were required to spend one night with no sleep and then another night with the possibility of 8 hours of sleep. The following mornings, eye-tracking technology was used as they looked at images of happy, angry, fearful, and neutral faces. The subjects then rated the faces for attractiveness, trustworthiness, and healthiness.
“The finding that sleep-deprived subjects in our experiment rated angry faces as less trustworthy and healthy-looking and neutral and fearful faces as less attractive indicates that sleep loss is associated with more negative social impressions of others,” senior author Christian Benedict of Uppsala University said in a statement.
When we are sleep deprived, the researchers added, we might not stop to really look at someone else, which has a negative impact on how we perceive people because we are not focusing on what their facial expressions are really telling us.
We already knew that not sleeping well has many negative effects on us, but now – thank you very much, science – we have something else to think about. Better hope your crush at work gets enough sleep so you’ll be accurately noticed.
The expanding-hole illusion of science
Time for a LOTME-style reality check: I think, therefore I am.
So far, so good. Next step: I think, therefore I am. I think.
Works for us. Now for the biggie: I think I am seeing the black hole in the middle of this image expanding.
Does that work for you? Do you perceive the black hole as expanding? If you do, then you fit in with the 86% of subjects in a recent study who perceived the same thing.
Lead author Bruno Laeng of the University of Oslo explained the effect in a statement from Frontiers Science News. “The circular smear or shadow gradient of the central black hole evokes a marked impression of optic flow, as if the observer were heading forward into a hole or tunnel. ... The pupil reacts to how we perceive light – even if this ‘light’ is imaginary like in the illusion – and not just to the amount of light energy that actually enters the eye.”
The illusion is so good at deceiving the brain “that it even prompts a dilation reflex of the pupils to let in more light, just as would happen if we were really moving into a dark area,” the investigators said.
Of the 50 men and women who had their eye movements measured while looking at the illusion, only 14% didn’t perceive the illusion when the hole was black. When the hole was a color, that figure went up to 20%. There also was a strong dilation reflex with black holes, but colored holes caused the subjects’ pupils to constrict, they noted.
Dr. Laeng and his associates can’t explain why some people don’t see the movement, but they did offer this: “Pupils’ dilation or contraction reflex is not a closed-loop mechanism, like a photocell opening a door, impervious to any other information than the actual amount of light stimulating the photoreceptor. Rather, the eye adjusts to perceived and even imagined light, not simply to physical energy.”
And now, back to our reality check: We think we perceive the light of a cheeseburger, therefore it’s time for lunch.
Stopping immunosuppressives in lupus nephritis isn’t noninferior to continuing
COPENHAGEN – Discontinuing maintenance immunosuppressive therapy (IST) in patients with proliferative lupus nephritis in remission proved less effective than continuing it in terms of the rates of renal relapse and severe systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) flare, results from the WIN-Lupus trial show.
Lead researcher Noemie Jourde-Chiche, MD, assistant professor at Aix-Marseille (France) University, presented the results at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
The randomized, controlled trial aimed to determine the optimal duration of maintenance IST for proliferative lupus nephritis, by asking whether discontinuation of such therapy after 2-3 years was noninferior to IST continuation for 2 more years.
“This is the first randomized IST trial in proliferative lupus nephritis,” Dr. Jourde-Chiche reported. “We found that noninferiority of IST discontinuation was not demonstrated, and those who discontinued had a higher risk of SLE flares, but the majority of patients who discontinued did not experience flare.”
Regarding the incidence of renal relapse, no statistically significant difference was found between patients who continued versus those who discontinued IST.
Rheumatologist Christophe Richez, MD, of the Groupe Hospitalier Pellegrin-CHU de Bordeaux (France) welcomed the trial. “The work does not find a significant difference but suggests that with more power, the difference would have been significant,” he said in an interview.
He added that a significant number of patients refused to enter the study for several reasons, including scheduling a pregnancy and fear of relapse after stopping the treatment. “This in itself shows that we need this type of study to know if we can stop the treatment to plan a pregnancy or if a relay treatment is necessary. These data also mean we can now better inform our patients about the benefit-risk [profile] of continuing treatment or not.”
Dr. Richez, who was not involved in the trial, noted that the data provide information that strongly suggest more research is needed to better determine which patients are at risk of relapse, and consequently, for which patients is discontinuation possible. “There’s also a need for further analysis of tolerance to the immunosuppressive drugs according to the strategy.”
Finally, he referred to the issue around therapeutic adherence that is often faced with management of lupus. “The data from this study will allow us to better explain to patients the need to continue or discontinue their treatments, including hydroxychloroquine, and also the possibility of decreasing the immunosuppressive drugs to half-dose.”
Maintenance therapy in lupus nephritis: To continue or not?
Conducted in 28 French centers, participants had class III or IV lupus nephritis with active lesions and had previously received induction IST of cyclophosphamide or mycophenolate mofetil with hydroxychloroquine and glucocorticoids. Maintenance IST was azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil, hydroxychloroquine, and possibly low-dose glucocorticoids (below 10 mg/day).
A total of 96 patients were randomized into two groups: continuation of maintenance therapy (azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil for 2-3 more years, hydroxychloroquine, and possibly low-dose glucocorticoids (below 10 mg/day), or discontinuation of maintenance therapy (azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil) over 3 months.
Both study arms were similar with a mean age of 36-37 years, and 82%-86% of patients were female, 59%-67% were White. They had a mean disease duration of 7-9 years, and 72%-80% had experienced their first flare of proliferative nephritis. A total of 54%-65% had received cyclophosphamide induction therapy, and 75%-81% were on mycophenolate mofetil maintenance therapy that had been ongoing for a mean of 2.8 years. Tests of patients’ kidney function revealed a mean serum creatinine of 67-72 micromol/L and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 94-101 mL/min per 1.73 m2. The mean SLE Disease Activity Index score was around 2.
Follow-up visits were conducted every 3 months for 2 years, and the trial had a primary end point of renal relapse rate at 24 months (confirmed by kidney biopsy), while secondary endpoints included rate of severe SLE flares, survival without renal relapse, or severe flare and adverse events, among others.
Patients were excluded if they were not taking hydroxychloroquine, had extrarenal SLE, an eGFR less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2 or stage VI disease. After some participants did not finish the trial because of pregnancy, wish for pregnancy, or adverse events, data from a total of 40 in the IST continuation group and 44 in the discontinuation group were analyzed.
Noninferiority of discontinuation versus continuation not shown
A total of 12.5% in the continuation arm experienced renal relapse over 24 months, compared with 27.3% in the discontinuation arm (P = .079).
“The endpoint of noninferiority of discontinuation of immunosuppressive therapy was not shown, but no statistically significant difference was found between groups for renal relapse,” Dr. Jourde-Chiche said.
Severe SLE flares (renal or extrarenal) occurred significantly less often over 24 months in the continuation arm at 12.5% versus 31.8% in the discontinuation arm (P = .034).
However, Dr. Jourde-Chiche pointed out that “the majority of patients who discontinued treatment did not experience a flare.”
No differences were seen between groups with respect to any secondary endpoints. “Fortunately, no patients died or reached end-stage renal disease, and overall, the adverse events did not differ between groups,” she reported.
The study identified several risk factors for renal relapse, among which were low complement component 3 and higher baseline urinary protein to creatinine ratio.
Longer immunosuppressive therapy prediscontinuation leads to better results
Gabriella Moroni, MD, of the nephrology unit at Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, authored a review of studies that attempted to interrupt glucocorticoids and other immunosuppressive agents in lupus nephritis and in SLE. Her review concluded that “the available data suggest that therapy withdrawal is feasible at least in patients enjoying a complete clinical remission after a prolonged therapy.”
Asked to comment on the French study, Dr. Moroni said the trial was very welcome. “In our long-term experience, we have stopped IST in 73 patients with lupus nephritis, followed for a mean of 23 years. Of these, 32 never reassumed therapy and 20 had at least one flare.”
Dr. Moroni noted that those participants who did not experience flares had significantly longer IST and longer remission before discontinuation and took hydroxychloroquine more frequently.
“We feel that, to prevent severe flares, firstly, lupus nephritis should be in complete remission for at least 3 years, and secondly, patients should have received IST for at least 5 years before discontinuation; immunosuppressive drugs should be tapered off very slowly and after strict clinical surveillance, and finally, hydroxychloroquine can prevent extrarenal flares.
Dr. Jourde-Chiche reported serving on a speakers bureau for Vifor Pharma and receiving grant/research support from Fresenius Medical Care. Some coauthors reported financial ties to many pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Richez said he has received fees for lectures or boards from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, and Novartis. Dr. Moroni had no relevant disclosures.
COPENHAGEN – Discontinuing maintenance immunosuppressive therapy (IST) in patients with proliferative lupus nephritis in remission proved less effective than continuing it in terms of the rates of renal relapse and severe systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) flare, results from the WIN-Lupus trial show.
Lead researcher Noemie Jourde-Chiche, MD, assistant professor at Aix-Marseille (France) University, presented the results at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
The randomized, controlled trial aimed to determine the optimal duration of maintenance IST for proliferative lupus nephritis, by asking whether discontinuation of such therapy after 2-3 years was noninferior to IST continuation for 2 more years.
“This is the first randomized IST trial in proliferative lupus nephritis,” Dr. Jourde-Chiche reported. “We found that noninferiority of IST discontinuation was not demonstrated, and those who discontinued had a higher risk of SLE flares, but the majority of patients who discontinued did not experience flare.”
Regarding the incidence of renal relapse, no statistically significant difference was found between patients who continued versus those who discontinued IST.
Rheumatologist Christophe Richez, MD, of the Groupe Hospitalier Pellegrin-CHU de Bordeaux (France) welcomed the trial. “The work does not find a significant difference but suggests that with more power, the difference would have been significant,” he said in an interview.
He added that a significant number of patients refused to enter the study for several reasons, including scheduling a pregnancy and fear of relapse after stopping the treatment. “This in itself shows that we need this type of study to know if we can stop the treatment to plan a pregnancy or if a relay treatment is necessary. These data also mean we can now better inform our patients about the benefit-risk [profile] of continuing treatment or not.”
Dr. Richez, who was not involved in the trial, noted that the data provide information that strongly suggest more research is needed to better determine which patients are at risk of relapse, and consequently, for which patients is discontinuation possible. “There’s also a need for further analysis of tolerance to the immunosuppressive drugs according to the strategy.”
Finally, he referred to the issue around therapeutic adherence that is often faced with management of lupus. “The data from this study will allow us to better explain to patients the need to continue or discontinue their treatments, including hydroxychloroquine, and also the possibility of decreasing the immunosuppressive drugs to half-dose.”
Maintenance therapy in lupus nephritis: To continue or not?
Conducted in 28 French centers, participants had class III or IV lupus nephritis with active lesions and had previously received induction IST of cyclophosphamide or mycophenolate mofetil with hydroxychloroquine and glucocorticoids. Maintenance IST was azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil, hydroxychloroquine, and possibly low-dose glucocorticoids (below 10 mg/day).
A total of 96 patients were randomized into two groups: continuation of maintenance therapy (azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil for 2-3 more years, hydroxychloroquine, and possibly low-dose glucocorticoids (below 10 mg/day), or discontinuation of maintenance therapy (azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil) over 3 months.
Both study arms were similar with a mean age of 36-37 years, and 82%-86% of patients were female, 59%-67% were White. They had a mean disease duration of 7-9 years, and 72%-80% had experienced their first flare of proliferative nephritis. A total of 54%-65% had received cyclophosphamide induction therapy, and 75%-81% were on mycophenolate mofetil maintenance therapy that had been ongoing for a mean of 2.8 years. Tests of patients’ kidney function revealed a mean serum creatinine of 67-72 micromol/L and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 94-101 mL/min per 1.73 m2. The mean SLE Disease Activity Index score was around 2.
Follow-up visits were conducted every 3 months for 2 years, and the trial had a primary end point of renal relapse rate at 24 months (confirmed by kidney biopsy), while secondary endpoints included rate of severe SLE flares, survival without renal relapse, or severe flare and adverse events, among others.
Patients were excluded if they were not taking hydroxychloroquine, had extrarenal SLE, an eGFR less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2 or stage VI disease. After some participants did not finish the trial because of pregnancy, wish for pregnancy, or adverse events, data from a total of 40 in the IST continuation group and 44 in the discontinuation group were analyzed.
Noninferiority of discontinuation versus continuation not shown
A total of 12.5% in the continuation arm experienced renal relapse over 24 months, compared with 27.3% in the discontinuation arm (P = .079).
“The endpoint of noninferiority of discontinuation of immunosuppressive therapy was not shown, but no statistically significant difference was found between groups for renal relapse,” Dr. Jourde-Chiche said.
Severe SLE flares (renal or extrarenal) occurred significantly less often over 24 months in the continuation arm at 12.5% versus 31.8% in the discontinuation arm (P = .034).
However, Dr. Jourde-Chiche pointed out that “the majority of patients who discontinued treatment did not experience a flare.”
No differences were seen between groups with respect to any secondary endpoints. “Fortunately, no patients died or reached end-stage renal disease, and overall, the adverse events did not differ between groups,” she reported.
The study identified several risk factors for renal relapse, among which were low complement component 3 and higher baseline urinary protein to creatinine ratio.
Longer immunosuppressive therapy prediscontinuation leads to better results
Gabriella Moroni, MD, of the nephrology unit at Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, authored a review of studies that attempted to interrupt glucocorticoids and other immunosuppressive agents in lupus nephritis and in SLE. Her review concluded that “the available data suggest that therapy withdrawal is feasible at least in patients enjoying a complete clinical remission after a prolonged therapy.”
Asked to comment on the French study, Dr. Moroni said the trial was very welcome. “In our long-term experience, we have stopped IST in 73 patients with lupus nephritis, followed for a mean of 23 years. Of these, 32 never reassumed therapy and 20 had at least one flare.”
Dr. Moroni noted that those participants who did not experience flares had significantly longer IST and longer remission before discontinuation and took hydroxychloroquine more frequently.
“We feel that, to prevent severe flares, firstly, lupus nephritis should be in complete remission for at least 3 years, and secondly, patients should have received IST for at least 5 years before discontinuation; immunosuppressive drugs should be tapered off very slowly and after strict clinical surveillance, and finally, hydroxychloroquine can prevent extrarenal flares.
Dr. Jourde-Chiche reported serving on a speakers bureau for Vifor Pharma and receiving grant/research support from Fresenius Medical Care. Some coauthors reported financial ties to many pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Richez said he has received fees for lectures or boards from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, and Novartis. Dr. Moroni had no relevant disclosures.
COPENHAGEN – Discontinuing maintenance immunosuppressive therapy (IST) in patients with proliferative lupus nephritis in remission proved less effective than continuing it in terms of the rates of renal relapse and severe systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) flare, results from the WIN-Lupus trial show.
Lead researcher Noemie Jourde-Chiche, MD, assistant professor at Aix-Marseille (France) University, presented the results at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
The randomized, controlled trial aimed to determine the optimal duration of maintenance IST for proliferative lupus nephritis, by asking whether discontinuation of such therapy after 2-3 years was noninferior to IST continuation for 2 more years.
“This is the first randomized IST trial in proliferative lupus nephritis,” Dr. Jourde-Chiche reported. “We found that noninferiority of IST discontinuation was not demonstrated, and those who discontinued had a higher risk of SLE flares, but the majority of patients who discontinued did not experience flare.”
Regarding the incidence of renal relapse, no statistically significant difference was found between patients who continued versus those who discontinued IST.
Rheumatologist Christophe Richez, MD, of the Groupe Hospitalier Pellegrin-CHU de Bordeaux (France) welcomed the trial. “The work does not find a significant difference but suggests that with more power, the difference would have been significant,” he said in an interview.
He added that a significant number of patients refused to enter the study for several reasons, including scheduling a pregnancy and fear of relapse after stopping the treatment. “This in itself shows that we need this type of study to know if we can stop the treatment to plan a pregnancy or if a relay treatment is necessary. These data also mean we can now better inform our patients about the benefit-risk [profile] of continuing treatment or not.”
Dr. Richez, who was not involved in the trial, noted that the data provide information that strongly suggest more research is needed to better determine which patients are at risk of relapse, and consequently, for which patients is discontinuation possible. “There’s also a need for further analysis of tolerance to the immunosuppressive drugs according to the strategy.”
Finally, he referred to the issue around therapeutic adherence that is often faced with management of lupus. “The data from this study will allow us to better explain to patients the need to continue or discontinue their treatments, including hydroxychloroquine, and also the possibility of decreasing the immunosuppressive drugs to half-dose.”
Maintenance therapy in lupus nephritis: To continue or not?
Conducted in 28 French centers, participants had class III or IV lupus nephritis with active lesions and had previously received induction IST of cyclophosphamide or mycophenolate mofetil with hydroxychloroquine and glucocorticoids. Maintenance IST was azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil, hydroxychloroquine, and possibly low-dose glucocorticoids (below 10 mg/day).
A total of 96 patients were randomized into two groups: continuation of maintenance therapy (azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil for 2-3 more years, hydroxychloroquine, and possibly low-dose glucocorticoids (below 10 mg/day), or discontinuation of maintenance therapy (azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil) over 3 months.
Both study arms were similar with a mean age of 36-37 years, and 82%-86% of patients were female, 59%-67% were White. They had a mean disease duration of 7-9 years, and 72%-80% had experienced their first flare of proliferative nephritis. A total of 54%-65% had received cyclophosphamide induction therapy, and 75%-81% were on mycophenolate mofetil maintenance therapy that had been ongoing for a mean of 2.8 years. Tests of patients’ kidney function revealed a mean serum creatinine of 67-72 micromol/L and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 94-101 mL/min per 1.73 m2. The mean SLE Disease Activity Index score was around 2.
Follow-up visits were conducted every 3 months for 2 years, and the trial had a primary end point of renal relapse rate at 24 months (confirmed by kidney biopsy), while secondary endpoints included rate of severe SLE flares, survival without renal relapse, or severe flare and adverse events, among others.
Patients were excluded if they were not taking hydroxychloroquine, had extrarenal SLE, an eGFR less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2 or stage VI disease. After some participants did not finish the trial because of pregnancy, wish for pregnancy, or adverse events, data from a total of 40 in the IST continuation group and 44 in the discontinuation group were analyzed.
Noninferiority of discontinuation versus continuation not shown
A total of 12.5% in the continuation arm experienced renal relapse over 24 months, compared with 27.3% in the discontinuation arm (P = .079).
“The endpoint of noninferiority of discontinuation of immunosuppressive therapy was not shown, but no statistically significant difference was found between groups for renal relapse,” Dr. Jourde-Chiche said.
Severe SLE flares (renal or extrarenal) occurred significantly less often over 24 months in the continuation arm at 12.5% versus 31.8% in the discontinuation arm (P = .034).
However, Dr. Jourde-Chiche pointed out that “the majority of patients who discontinued treatment did not experience a flare.”
No differences were seen between groups with respect to any secondary endpoints. “Fortunately, no patients died or reached end-stage renal disease, and overall, the adverse events did not differ between groups,” she reported.
The study identified several risk factors for renal relapse, among which were low complement component 3 and higher baseline urinary protein to creatinine ratio.
Longer immunosuppressive therapy prediscontinuation leads to better results
Gabriella Moroni, MD, of the nephrology unit at Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, authored a review of studies that attempted to interrupt glucocorticoids and other immunosuppressive agents in lupus nephritis and in SLE. Her review concluded that “the available data suggest that therapy withdrawal is feasible at least in patients enjoying a complete clinical remission after a prolonged therapy.”
Asked to comment on the French study, Dr. Moroni said the trial was very welcome. “In our long-term experience, we have stopped IST in 73 patients with lupus nephritis, followed for a mean of 23 years. Of these, 32 never reassumed therapy and 20 had at least one flare.”
Dr. Moroni noted that those participants who did not experience flares had significantly longer IST and longer remission before discontinuation and took hydroxychloroquine more frequently.
“We feel that, to prevent severe flares, firstly, lupus nephritis should be in complete remission for at least 3 years, and secondly, patients should have received IST for at least 5 years before discontinuation; immunosuppressive drugs should be tapered off very slowly and after strict clinical surveillance, and finally, hydroxychloroquine can prevent extrarenal flares.
Dr. Jourde-Chiche reported serving on a speakers bureau for Vifor Pharma and receiving grant/research support from Fresenius Medical Care. Some coauthors reported financial ties to many pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Richez said he has received fees for lectures or boards from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, and Novartis. Dr. Moroni had no relevant disclosures.
AT THE EULAR 2022 CONGRESS
Effect modification: An important, but often underappreciated, statistical concept
In previous articles, we explored the meaning of two statistical concepts: that of the P value1 and that of confounding.2 In today’s article, we will focus on another important, though often underrecognized, statistical concept: that of effect modification (sometimes also called “interaction,” although many authors draw a distinction between these terms).3-5 In brief, effect modification is the recognition that the relationship between two variables can be different based on the values of a third variable. Let me illustrate with an example. Suppose that you give a weight-loss drug to a group of people. After a predetermined time, say 3 months, you weigh them to measure the effects of the drug, and you record that on average each individual lost about 10 pounds. Suppose, however, that you are curious to see the effect of the drug in men and women separately. You perform an analysis stratified by sex, and you notice that men lost on average only about 1 pound each, whereas women lost on average about 30 pounds each. What do these results mean? It seems that the effect of the drug on weight loss is different depending on the value of a third variable, namely sex. That is, in this case, sex acts as an effect modifier. Based on this analysis, we may conclude that the drug has real effects on women but not on men.
Before reaching this conclusion, however, it is appropriate to ask whether we have made a mistake. The first obvious thing is to make sure that we have not made a mistake in our collection of data. Once we have excluded the presence of structural bias in our dataset, how can we ascertain that these results, which at eyeballing seem so different, have not been so as a result of chance? Fortunately, we do not have to guess. There is a way to formally test for this hypothesis. If sex is truly an effect modifier, then we can perform what is called in statistical terms an “interaction term” between the exposure (in this case the drug) and the potential effect modifier (in this case sex) in a multivariable model that includes both as exposures. If the P value for that interaction term is less than .05, then the interaction term is statistically significant, and therefore the variable (in this case sex) is confirmed to be an effect modifier. Hence, the results are not due to chance, and the different effects in men and women are plausibly attributable to different biological responses to the medication.
Difference between confounding and effect modification
At this point someone might ask, “What then is the difference between confounding and effect modification? In both cases, we do stratified analysis of the relationship between an exposure (in this case the weight-loss drug) and an outcome (in this case weight loss) based on strata of a third variable (in this case sex).” The difference is fundamental. Confounding, as we explored in a previous article,2 is something that we would like to get rid of. It is the effect of an outside variable on both the exposure and outcome that does not allow us to properly evaluate the real relationship between the two. As such, we try to adjust for this variable, so that its effect is eliminated and we can only observe the relationship between the exposure and the outcome. Effect modification, on the other side, is not something we would like to get rid of. On the contrary, effect modification is part of what we would like to explore and describe because it is part of the biological mechanism that explains the real relationship between the exposure and the outcome. In the example above, if effect modification by sex is confirmed, it implies that there is something in female biology that is not found in male biology (or vice-versa) that makes their response to the medication different and therefore something of interest to study further. Thus, differently from confounding, effect modification is part of the objective reality of the world which we would like to explore and evaluate.
Several questions then arise. How can we know whether a variable is a confounder, an effect modifier, or both? As a general rule of thumb, a confounder would be a variable which, when a stratified analysis is done (or when added to a multivariable model), will change the relationship between the exposure and outcome by 10% or more. However, the relationship between the exposure and the outcome in both strata will be similar. In the example above, it would mean that if sex was only a confounder, then stratifying by sex would show roughly a similar change in the effect (say 9 kg for men and 11 kg for women). An effect modifier on the other hand is one which, when a stratified analysis is done, the association between the exposure and the outcome is very different in the two strata, as illustrated in the example above (for simplicity I am only considering two-level effect modifiers in this article).
Can a variable be both a confounder and an effect modifier? Yes, that is possible. What can be done in this case? The most common approach is to behave the same as when only effect modification is present, namely to show with the interaction term that effect modification exists and present the results between the exposure and outcome separately by the level of the effect modifier (in this example, it means that we need to describe the effects of the weight-loss drug separately for men and women). The stratified analysis/presentation will, by definition, take care of confounding as well.2
Should we always look for effect modification? Not necessarily. As a general rule, we need to test for effect modification only if there is some biological rationale that would compel us to do so, and testing should be hypothesis-driven. A common mistake that some authors make is to perform too many interaction tests and then describe as “positive findings” any test for which P value happens to be less than .05. However, as we pointed out in the article on P value,1 if we perform multiple tests, this increases the probability of false positives, and therefore the probability of spurious findings. Thus, effect modification analysis (with interaction terms) should, generally speaking, be performed with a biological rationale and/or be hypothesis driven.
Conclusion
Effect modification is an essential statistical concept that describes an underlying biological reality in which the association between an exposure and an outcome is different based on the values of a third variable. Differently from confounding, which clouds the association between exposure and outcome, and therefore is something that we try to get rid of, effect modification serves to bring to light a more proper understanding of the biological reality underlying the true association between an exposure and an outcome and as such is something that needs to be explored and described.
Dr. Jovani is assistant professor of medicine, therapeutic endoscopy, digestive diseases, and nutrition at the University of Kentucky Albert B. Chandler Hospital, Lexington. He has no conflicts of interest.
References
1. “The P value: What to make of it? A simple guide for the uninitiated.” GI & Hepatology News. 2019 Sep 23. www.mdedge.com/gihepnews/article/208601/mixed-topics/p-value-what-make-it-simple-guide-uninitiated
2. “Evaluating a paper: Take care not to be confounded.” GI & Hepatology News. 2020 Sep 18. www.mdedge.com/gihepnews/article/228765/mixed-topics/evaluating-paper-take-care-not-be-confounded
3. Corraini P et al. Clin Epidemiol. 2017;9:331-8. doi: 10.2147/CLEP.S162236.
4. VanderWeele TJ. Epidemiology. 2009 Nov;20(6):863-71. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181ba333c.
5. Shahar E and Shahar DJ. Epidemiology. 2010 Jul;21(4):587. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181e0995c. Author reply 587-8.
In previous articles, we explored the meaning of two statistical concepts: that of the P value1 and that of confounding.2 In today’s article, we will focus on another important, though often underrecognized, statistical concept: that of effect modification (sometimes also called “interaction,” although many authors draw a distinction between these terms).3-5 In brief, effect modification is the recognition that the relationship between two variables can be different based on the values of a third variable. Let me illustrate with an example. Suppose that you give a weight-loss drug to a group of people. After a predetermined time, say 3 months, you weigh them to measure the effects of the drug, and you record that on average each individual lost about 10 pounds. Suppose, however, that you are curious to see the effect of the drug in men and women separately. You perform an analysis stratified by sex, and you notice that men lost on average only about 1 pound each, whereas women lost on average about 30 pounds each. What do these results mean? It seems that the effect of the drug on weight loss is different depending on the value of a third variable, namely sex. That is, in this case, sex acts as an effect modifier. Based on this analysis, we may conclude that the drug has real effects on women but not on men.
Before reaching this conclusion, however, it is appropriate to ask whether we have made a mistake. The first obvious thing is to make sure that we have not made a mistake in our collection of data. Once we have excluded the presence of structural bias in our dataset, how can we ascertain that these results, which at eyeballing seem so different, have not been so as a result of chance? Fortunately, we do not have to guess. There is a way to formally test for this hypothesis. If sex is truly an effect modifier, then we can perform what is called in statistical terms an “interaction term” between the exposure (in this case the drug) and the potential effect modifier (in this case sex) in a multivariable model that includes both as exposures. If the P value for that interaction term is less than .05, then the interaction term is statistically significant, and therefore the variable (in this case sex) is confirmed to be an effect modifier. Hence, the results are not due to chance, and the different effects in men and women are plausibly attributable to different biological responses to the medication.
Difference between confounding and effect modification
At this point someone might ask, “What then is the difference between confounding and effect modification? In both cases, we do stratified analysis of the relationship between an exposure (in this case the weight-loss drug) and an outcome (in this case weight loss) based on strata of a third variable (in this case sex).” The difference is fundamental. Confounding, as we explored in a previous article,2 is something that we would like to get rid of. It is the effect of an outside variable on both the exposure and outcome that does not allow us to properly evaluate the real relationship between the two. As such, we try to adjust for this variable, so that its effect is eliminated and we can only observe the relationship between the exposure and the outcome. Effect modification, on the other side, is not something we would like to get rid of. On the contrary, effect modification is part of what we would like to explore and describe because it is part of the biological mechanism that explains the real relationship between the exposure and the outcome. In the example above, if effect modification by sex is confirmed, it implies that there is something in female biology that is not found in male biology (or vice-versa) that makes their response to the medication different and therefore something of interest to study further. Thus, differently from confounding, effect modification is part of the objective reality of the world which we would like to explore and evaluate.
Several questions then arise. How can we know whether a variable is a confounder, an effect modifier, or both? As a general rule of thumb, a confounder would be a variable which, when a stratified analysis is done (or when added to a multivariable model), will change the relationship between the exposure and outcome by 10% or more. However, the relationship between the exposure and the outcome in both strata will be similar. In the example above, it would mean that if sex was only a confounder, then stratifying by sex would show roughly a similar change in the effect (say 9 kg for men and 11 kg for women). An effect modifier on the other hand is one which, when a stratified analysis is done, the association between the exposure and the outcome is very different in the two strata, as illustrated in the example above (for simplicity I am only considering two-level effect modifiers in this article).
Can a variable be both a confounder and an effect modifier? Yes, that is possible. What can be done in this case? The most common approach is to behave the same as when only effect modification is present, namely to show with the interaction term that effect modification exists and present the results between the exposure and outcome separately by the level of the effect modifier (in this example, it means that we need to describe the effects of the weight-loss drug separately for men and women). The stratified analysis/presentation will, by definition, take care of confounding as well.2
Should we always look for effect modification? Not necessarily. As a general rule, we need to test for effect modification only if there is some biological rationale that would compel us to do so, and testing should be hypothesis-driven. A common mistake that some authors make is to perform too many interaction tests and then describe as “positive findings” any test for which P value happens to be less than .05. However, as we pointed out in the article on P value,1 if we perform multiple tests, this increases the probability of false positives, and therefore the probability of spurious findings. Thus, effect modification analysis (with interaction terms) should, generally speaking, be performed with a biological rationale and/or be hypothesis driven.
Conclusion
Effect modification is an essential statistical concept that describes an underlying biological reality in which the association between an exposure and an outcome is different based on the values of a third variable. Differently from confounding, which clouds the association between exposure and outcome, and therefore is something that we try to get rid of, effect modification serves to bring to light a more proper understanding of the biological reality underlying the true association between an exposure and an outcome and as such is something that needs to be explored and described.
Dr. Jovani is assistant professor of medicine, therapeutic endoscopy, digestive diseases, and nutrition at the University of Kentucky Albert B. Chandler Hospital, Lexington. He has no conflicts of interest.
References
1. “The P value: What to make of it? A simple guide for the uninitiated.” GI & Hepatology News. 2019 Sep 23. www.mdedge.com/gihepnews/article/208601/mixed-topics/p-value-what-make-it-simple-guide-uninitiated
2. “Evaluating a paper: Take care not to be confounded.” GI & Hepatology News. 2020 Sep 18. www.mdedge.com/gihepnews/article/228765/mixed-topics/evaluating-paper-take-care-not-be-confounded
3. Corraini P et al. Clin Epidemiol. 2017;9:331-8. doi: 10.2147/CLEP.S162236.
4. VanderWeele TJ. Epidemiology. 2009 Nov;20(6):863-71. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181ba333c.
5. Shahar E and Shahar DJ. Epidemiology. 2010 Jul;21(4):587. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181e0995c. Author reply 587-8.
In previous articles, we explored the meaning of two statistical concepts: that of the P value1 and that of confounding.2 In today’s article, we will focus on another important, though often underrecognized, statistical concept: that of effect modification (sometimes also called “interaction,” although many authors draw a distinction between these terms).3-5 In brief, effect modification is the recognition that the relationship between two variables can be different based on the values of a third variable. Let me illustrate with an example. Suppose that you give a weight-loss drug to a group of people. After a predetermined time, say 3 months, you weigh them to measure the effects of the drug, and you record that on average each individual lost about 10 pounds. Suppose, however, that you are curious to see the effect of the drug in men and women separately. You perform an analysis stratified by sex, and you notice that men lost on average only about 1 pound each, whereas women lost on average about 30 pounds each. What do these results mean? It seems that the effect of the drug on weight loss is different depending on the value of a third variable, namely sex. That is, in this case, sex acts as an effect modifier. Based on this analysis, we may conclude that the drug has real effects on women but not on men.
Before reaching this conclusion, however, it is appropriate to ask whether we have made a mistake. The first obvious thing is to make sure that we have not made a mistake in our collection of data. Once we have excluded the presence of structural bias in our dataset, how can we ascertain that these results, which at eyeballing seem so different, have not been so as a result of chance? Fortunately, we do not have to guess. There is a way to formally test for this hypothesis. If sex is truly an effect modifier, then we can perform what is called in statistical terms an “interaction term” between the exposure (in this case the drug) and the potential effect modifier (in this case sex) in a multivariable model that includes both as exposures. If the P value for that interaction term is less than .05, then the interaction term is statistically significant, and therefore the variable (in this case sex) is confirmed to be an effect modifier. Hence, the results are not due to chance, and the different effects in men and women are plausibly attributable to different biological responses to the medication.
Difference between confounding and effect modification
At this point someone might ask, “What then is the difference between confounding and effect modification? In both cases, we do stratified analysis of the relationship between an exposure (in this case the weight-loss drug) and an outcome (in this case weight loss) based on strata of a third variable (in this case sex).” The difference is fundamental. Confounding, as we explored in a previous article,2 is something that we would like to get rid of. It is the effect of an outside variable on both the exposure and outcome that does not allow us to properly evaluate the real relationship between the two. As such, we try to adjust for this variable, so that its effect is eliminated and we can only observe the relationship between the exposure and the outcome. Effect modification, on the other side, is not something we would like to get rid of. On the contrary, effect modification is part of what we would like to explore and describe because it is part of the biological mechanism that explains the real relationship between the exposure and the outcome. In the example above, if effect modification by sex is confirmed, it implies that there is something in female biology that is not found in male biology (or vice-versa) that makes their response to the medication different and therefore something of interest to study further. Thus, differently from confounding, effect modification is part of the objective reality of the world which we would like to explore and evaluate.
Several questions then arise. How can we know whether a variable is a confounder, an effect modifier, or both? As a general rule of thumb, a confounder would be a variable which, when a stratified analysis is done (or when added to a multivariable model), will change the relationship between the exposure and outcome by 10% or more. However, the relationship between the exposure and the outcome in both strata will be similar. In the example above, it would mean that if sex was only a confounder, then stratifying by sex would show roughly a similar change in the effect (say 9 kg for men and 11 kg for women). An effect modifier on the other hand is one which, when a stratified analysis is done, the association between the exposure and the outcome is very different in the two strata, as illustrated in the example above (for simplicity I am only considering two-level effect modifiers in this article).
Can a variable be both a confounder and an effect modifier? Yes, that is possible. What can be done in this case? The most common approach is to behave the same as when only effect modification is present, namely to show with the interaction term that effect modification exists and present the results between the exposure and outcome separately by the level of the effect modifier (in this example, it means that we need to describe the effects of the weight-loss drug separately for men and women). The stratified analysis/presentation will, by definition, take care of confounding as well.2
Should we always look for effect modification? Not necessarily. As a general rule, we need to test for effect modification only if there is some biological rationale that would compel us to do so, and testing should be hypothesis-driven. A common mistake that some authors make is to perform too many interaction tests and then describe as “positive findings” any test for which P value happens to be less than .05. However, as we pointed out in the article on P value,1 if we perform multiple tests, this increases the probability of false positives, and therefore the probability of spurious findings. Thus, effect modification analysis (with interaction terms) should, generally speaking, be performed with a biological rationale and/or be hypothesis driven.
Conclusion
Effect modification is an essential statistical concept that describes an underlying biological reality in which the association between an exposure and an outcome is different based on the values of a third variable. Differently from confounding, which clouds the association between exposure and outcome, and therefore is something that we try to get rid of, effect modification serves to bring to light a more proper understanding of the biological reality underlying the true association between an exposure and an outcome and as such is something that needs to be explored and described.
Dr. Jovani is assistant professor of medicine, therapeutic endoscopy, digestive diseases, and nutrition at the University of Kentucky Albert B. Chandler Hospital, Lexington. He has no conflicts of interest.
References
1. “The P value: What to make of it? A simple guide for the uninitiated.” GI & Hepatology News. 2019 Sep 23. www.mdedge.com/gihepnews/article/208601/mixed-topics/p-value-what-make-it-simple-guide-uninitiated
2. “Evaluating a paper: Take care not to be confounded.” GI & Hepatology News. 2020 Sep 18. www.mdedge.com/gihepnews/article/228765/mixed-topics/evaluating-paper-take-care-not-be-confounded
3. Corraini P et al. Clin Epidemiol. 2017;9:331-8. doi: 10.2147/CLEP.S162236.
4. VanderWeele TJ. Epidemiology. 2009 Nov;20(6):863-71. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181ba333c.
5. Shahar E and Shahar DJ. Epidemiology. 2010 Jul;21(4):587. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181e0995c. Author reply 587-8.
Infant with mottled skin
The net-like, violaceous pattern on the infant’s skin was characteristic of livedo reticularis.
Livedo reticularis is thought to arise from a change in underlying cutaneous blood flow.1 The appearance of this condition reflects the configuration of underlying cutaneous vasculature. Arterioles oriented perpendicularly to the skin can surface from a network where blood flows from arteriole to capillary to venule. The reticular appearance is a result of increased visibility of the venous plexus.1
Common culprits of this manifestation are impaired arteriolar perfusion and venous congestion, which may be caused by vasospasm, arterial thrombosis, or hyperviscosity.1 If diagnostic biopsies are needed, they should be taken from the pale central areas.
Livedo reticularis can be categorized into groups to help delineate the patient-specific pathogenesis: idiopathic, primary, secondary (due to underlying disease; see below), and physiologic.1 Physiologic livedo reticularis, which this patient had, is known as cutis marmorata (CM); it occurs in response to cold temperatures. It may be more common, or visible, in individuals with lighter skin types and in preterm infants. The condition typically affects the lower extremities but may also occur on the trunk and upper extremities.1
Physiologic livedo reticularis usually resolves with warming of the extremities. Secondary livedo reticularis usually manifests in older patients and is due to serious conditions such as malignancies, antiphospholipid syndrome, and Sneddon syndrome. For these patients, coagulopathy and malignancy evaluation targeting the underlying cause of the livedo reticularis is warranted. Interestingly, livedo reticularis may also be associated with COVID-19, but this association has not been reported frequently in children.2
The infant in this case experienced rapid resolution with warming. The family was educated about the CM form of livedo reticularis and instructed to keep her warm. No other treatment or evaluation was indicated.
Photo courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP. Text courtesy of Christy Nwankwo, BA, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine and Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque.
1. Gibbs MB, English JC 3rd, Zirwas MJ. Livedo reticularis: an update. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005;52:1009-1019. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2004.11.051
2. Lavery MJ, Bouvier CA, Thompson B. Cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 in children (and adults): a virus that does not discriminate. Clin Dermatol. 2021;39:323-328. doi: 10.1016/j.clindermatol.2020.10.020
The net-like, violaceous pattern on the infant’s skin was characteristic of livedo reticularis.
Livedo reticularis is thought to arise from a change in underlying cutaneous blood flow.1 The appearance of this condition reflects the configuration of underlying cutaneous vasculature. Arterioles oriented perpendicularly to the skin can surface from a network where blood flows from arteriole to capillary to venule. The reticular appearance is a result of increased visibility of the venous plexus.1
Common culprits of this manifestation are impaired arteriolar perfusion and venous congestion, which may be caused by vasospasm, arterial thrombosis, or hyperviscosity.1 If diagnostic biopsies are needed, they should be taken from the pale central areas.
Livedo reticularis can be categorized into groups to help delineate the patient-specific pathogenesis: idiopathic, primary, secondary (due to underlying disease; see below), and physiologic.1 Physiologic livedo reticularis, which this patient had, is known as cutis marmorata (CM); it occurs in response to cold temperatures. It may be more common, or visible, in individuals with lighter skin types and in preterm infants. The condition typically affects the lower extremities but may also occur on the trunk and upper extremities.1
Physiologic livedo reticularis usually resolves with warming of the extremities. Secondary livedo reticularis usually manifests in older patients and is due to serious conditions such as malignancies, antiphospholipid syndrome, and Sneddon syndrome. For these patients, coagulopathy and malignancy evaluation targeting the underlying cause of the livedo reticularis is warranted. Interestingly, livedo reticularis may also be associated with COVID-19, but this association has not been reported frequently in children.2
The infant in this case experienced rapid resolution with warming. The family was educated about the CM form of livedo reticularis and instructed to keep her warm. No other treatment or evaluation was indicated.
Photo courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP. Text courtesy of Christy Nwankwo, BA, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine and Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque.
The net-like, violaceous pattern on the infant’s skin was characteristic of livedo reticularis.
Livedo reticularis is thought to arise from a change in underlying cutaneous blood flow.1 The appearance of this condition reflects the configuration of underlying cutaneous vasculature. Arterioles oriented perpendicularly to the skin can surface from a network where blood flows from arteriole to capillary to venule. The reticular appearance is a result of increased visibility of the venous plexus.1
Common culprits of this manifestation are impaired arteriolar perfusion and venous congestion, which may be caused by vasospasm, arterial thrombosis, or hyperviscosity.1 If diagnostic biopsies are needed, they should be taken from the pale central areas.
Livedo reticularis can be categorized into groups to help delineate the patient-specific pathogenesis: idiopathic, primary, secondary (due to underlying disease; see below), and physiologic.1 Physiologic livedo reticularis, which this patient had, is known as cutis marmorata (CM); it occurs in response to cold temperatures. It may be more common, or visible, in individuals with lighter skin types and in preterm infants. The condition typically affects the lower extremities but may also occur on the trunk and upper extremities.1
Physiologic livedo reticularis usually resolves with warming of the extremities. Secondary livedo reticularis usually manifests in older patients and is due to serious conditions such as malignancies, antiphospholipid syndrome, and Sneddon syndrome. For these patients, coagulopathy and malignancy evaluation targeting the underlying cause of the livedo reticularis is warranted. Interestingly, livedo reticularis may also be associated with COVID-19, but this association has not been reported frequently in children.2
The infant in this case experienced rapid resolution with warming. The family was educated about the CM form of livedo reticularis and instructed to keep her warm. No other treatment or evaluation was indicated.
Photo courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP. Text courtesy of Christy Nwankwo, BA, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine and Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque.
1. Gibbs MB, English JC 3rd, Zirwas MJ. Livedo reticularis: an update. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005;52:1009-1019. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2004.11.051
2. Lavery MJ, Bouvier CA, Thompson B. Cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 in children (and adults): a virus that does not discriminate. Clin Dermatol. 2021;39:323-328. doi: 10.1016/j.clindermatol.2020.10.020
1. Gibbs MB, English JC 3rd, Zirwas MJ. Livedo reticularis: an update. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005;52:1009-1019. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2004.11.051
2. Lavery MJ, Bouvier CA, Thompson B. Cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 in children (and adults): a virus that does not discriminate. Clin Dermatol. 2021;39:323-328. doi: 10.1016/j.clindermatol.2020.10.020
Data concerns mount despite ISCHEMIA substudy correction
A long-standing request to clarify data irregularities in a 2021 ISCHEMIA substudy resulted in the publication of one correction, with a second correction in the works.
Further, the lone cardiac surgeon on the ISCHEMIA trial steering committee, T. Bruce Ferguson, MD, has resigned from the committee, citing a series of factors, including an inability to reconcile data in the substudy and two additional ISCHEMIA papers currently under review.
As previously reported, cardiac surgeons Faisal Bakaeen, MD, and Joseph Sabik III, MD, notified the journal Circulation in March that the Dr. Reynolds et al. substudy had inconsistencies between data in the main paper and supplemental tables detailing patients’ coronary artery disease (CAD) and ischemia severity.
The substudy found that CAD severity, classified using the modified Duke Prognostic Index score, predicted 4-year mortality and myocardial infarction in the landmark trial.
Circulation published a correction for the substudy on May 20, explaining that a “formatting error” resulted in data being incorrectly presented in two supplemental tables. It does not mention the surgeons’ letter to the editor, which can be found by clicking the “Q” icon below the paper.
Dr. Bakaeen, from the Cleveland Clinic, and Dr. Sabik, from University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, told this news organization that they submitted a second letter to editor on May 23 stating that “significant discrepancies” persist.
For example, 7.2% of participants (179/2,475) had moderate stenosis in one coronary vessel in the corrected Reynolds paper (Supplemental Tables I and II) versus 23.3% (697/2,986) in the primary ISCHEMIA manuscript published in the New England Journal of Medicine (Table S5).
The number of patients with left main ≥ 50% stenosis is, surprisingly, identical in both manuscripts, at 40, they said, despite the denominator dropping from 3,845 participants in the primary study to 2,475 participants with an evaluable modified Duke Prognostic Index score in the substudy.
The number of participants with previous coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) is also hard to reconcile between manuscripts and, importantly, the substudy doesn’t distinguish between lesions bypassed with patent grafts and unbypassed grafts or those with occluded grafts.
“The fact that the authors are working on a second correction is appreciated, but with such numerous inconsistencies, at some point you reach the conclusion that an independent review of the data is the right thing to do for such a high-profile study that received over $100 million of National Institutes of Health support,” Dr. Bakaeen said. “No one should be satisfied or happy if there is any shadow of doubt here regarding the accuracy of the data.”
Speaking to this news organization prior to the first correction, lead substudy author Harmony Reynolds, MD, NYU Langone Health, detailed in depth how the formatting glitch inadvertently upgraded the number of diseased vessels and lesion severity in two supplemental tables.
She noted, as does the correction, that the data were correctly reported in the main manuscript tables and figures and in the remainder of the supplement.
Dr. Reynolds also said they’re in the process of preparing the data for “public sharing soon,” including the Duke Prognostic score at all levels. Dr. Reynolds had not responded by the time of this publication to a request for further details or a timeline.
The surgeons’ first letter to the editor was rejected because it was submitted outside the journal’s 6-week window for letters and was posted as a public comment April 18 via the research platform, Remarq.
Dr. Bakaeen said they were told their second letter was rejected because of Circulation’s “long standing policy” not to publish letters to the editor regarding manuscript corrections but that a correction is being issued.
Circulation editor-in-chief Joseph A. Hill, MD, PhD, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said via email that the journal will update its online policies to more clearly state its requirements for publication and that it has been fully transparent with Dr. Bakaeen and Dr. Sabik regarding where it is in the current process.
He confirmed the surgeons were told June 1 that “after additional review, the authors have determined that whereas there are no errors, an additional minor correction is warranted to clarify the description of the study population and sample size. This correction will be published soon.”
Dr. Hill thanked Dr. Bakaeen and Dr. Sabik for bringing the matter to their attention and said, “It is also important to note that both updates to the Dr. Reynolds et al. paper are published as corrections. However, the results and conclusions of the paper remain unchanged.”
The bigger issue
Importantly, the recent AHA/ACC/SCAI coronary revascularization guidelines used ISCHEMIA data to support downgrading the CABG recommendation from class 1 to class 2B in 3-vessel CAD with normal left ventricular function and from class 1 to 2a in 3-vessel CAD with mild to moderate left ventricular dysfunction.
The trial reported no significant benefit with an initial invasive strategy over medical therapy in stable patients with moderate or severe CAD. European guidelines, however, give CABG a class I recommendation for severe three- or two-vessel disease with proximal left anterior descending (LAD) involvement.
Dr. Sabik and Dr. Bakaeen say patients with severe three- or two-vessel disease with proximal LAD involvement were underrepresented in the randomized trials cited by the guidelines but are the typical CABG patients in modern-day practice.
“That is why it is important to determine the severity of CAD accurately and definitively in ISCHEMIA,” Dr. Bakaeen said. “But the more we look at the data, the more errors we encounter.”
Two U.S. surgical groups that were part of the writing process withdrew support for the revascularization guidelines, as did several international surgical societies, citing the data used to support the changes as well as the makeup of the writing committee.
Dr. Ferguson, now with the medical device manufacturer Perfusio, said he resigned from the ISCHEMIA steering committee on May 8 after being unable to accurately reconcile the ISCHEMIA surgical subset data with the Reynolds substudy and two other ISCHEMIA papers on the CABG subset. At least one of those papers, he noted, was being hurriedly pushed through the review process to counter concerns raised by surgeons regarding interpretation of ISCHEMIA.
“This is the first time in my lengthy career in medicine where a level of political agendaism was actually driving the truck,” he said. “It was appalling to me, and I would have said that if I was an interventional cardiologist looking at the results.”
ISCHEMIA results have also been touted as representing state-of-the-art care around the world, but that didn’t appear to be the case for the surgical subset where, for example, China and India performed most CABGs off pump, and globally there was considerable variation in how surgeons approached surgical revascularization strategies, Dr. Ferguson said. “Whether this variability might impact the guideline discussion and these papers coming out remains to be determined.”
He noted that the study protocol allowed for the ISCHEMIA investigators to evaluate whether the variability in the surgical subset influenced the results by comparing the data to that in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons registry, but this option was never acted upon despite being brought to their attention.
“Something political between 2020 and 2022 has crept into the ISCHEMIA trial mindset gestalt, and I don’t like it,” Dr. Ferguson said. “And this can have enormous consequences.”
Asked whether their letters to Circulation are being used to undermine confidence in the ISCHEMIA findings, Dr. Sabik replied, “It is not about undermining ISCHEMIA, but understanding how applicable ISCHEMIA is to patients having CABG today. Understanding the severity of the CAD in patients enrolled in ISCHEMIA is, therefore, necessary.”
“The authors and Circulation have admitted to errors,” he said. “We want to be sure we understand how severe the errors are.”
“This is just about accuracy in a manuscript that may affect patient treatment and therefore patient lives. We want to make sure it is correct,” Dr. Sabik added.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A long-standing request to clarify data irregularities in a 2021 ISCHEMIA substudy resulted in the publication of one correction, with a second correction in the works.
Further, the lone cardiac surgeon on the ISCHEMIA trial steering committee, T. Bruce Ferguson, MD, has resigned from the committee, citing a series of factors, including an inability to reconcile data in the substudy and two additional ISCHEMIA papers currently under review.
As previously reported, cardiac surgeons Faisal Bakaeen, MD, and Joseph Sabik III, MD, notified the journal Circulation in March that the Dr. Reynolds et al. substudy had inconsistencies between data in the main paper and supplemental tables detailing patients’ coronary artery disease (CAD) and ischemia severity.
The substudy found that CAD severity, classified using the modified Duke Prognostic Index score, predicted 4-year mortality and myocardial infarction in the landmark trial.
Circulation published a correction for the substudy on May 20, explaining that a “formatting error” resulted in data being incorrectly presented in two supplemental tables. It does not mention the surgeons’ letter to the editor, which can be found by clicking the “Q” icon below the paper.
Dr. Bakaeen, from the Cleveland Clinic, and Dr. Sabik, from University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, told this news organization that they submitted a second letter to editor on May 23 stating that “significant discrepancies” persist.
For example, 7.2% of participants (179/2,475) had moderate stenosis in one coronary vessel in the corrected Reynolds paper (Supplemental Tables I and II) versus 23.3% (697/2,986) in the primary ISCHEMIA manuscript published in the New England Journal of Medicine (Table S5).
The number of patients with left main ≥ 50% stenosis is, surprisingly, identical in both manuscripts, at 40, they said, despite the denominator dropping from 3,845 participants in the primary study to 2,475 participants with an evaluable modified Duke Prognostic Index score in the substudy.
The number of participants with previous coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) is also hard to reconcile between manuscripts and, importantly, the substudy doesn’t distinguish between lesions bypassed with patent grafts and unbypassed grafts or those with occluded grafts.
“The fact that the authors are working on a second correction is appreciated, but with such numerous inconsistencies, at some point you reach the conclusion that an independent review of the data is the right thing to do for such a high-profile study that received over $100 million of National Institutes of Health support,” Dr. Bakaeen said. “No one should be satisfied or happy if there is any shadow of doubt here regarding the accuracy of the data.”
Speaking to this news organization prior to the first correction, lead substudy author Harmony Reynolds, MD, NYU Langone Health, detailed in depth how the formatting glitch inadvertently upgraded the number of diseased vessels and lesion severity in two supplemental tables.
She noted, as does the correction, that the data were correctly reported in the main manuscript tables and figures and in the remainder of the supplement.
Dr. Reynolds also said they’re in the process of preparing the data for “public sharing soon,” including the Duke Prognostic score at all levels. Dr. Reynolds had not responded by the time of this publication to a request for further details or a timeline.
The surgeons’ first letter to the editor was rejected because it was submitted outside the journal’s 6-week window for letters and was posted as a public comment April 18 via the research platform, Remarq.
Dr. Bakaeen said they were told their second letter was rejected because of Circulation’s “long standing policy” not to publish letters to the editor regarding manuscript corrections but that a correction is being issued.
Circulation editor-in-chief Joseph A. Hill, MD, PhD, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said via email that the journal will update its online policies to more clearly state its requirements for publication and that it has been fully transparent with Dr. Bakaeen and Dr. Sabik regarding where it is in the current process.
He confirmed the surgeons were told June 1 that “after additional review, the authors have determined that whereas there are no errors, an additional minor correction is warranted to clarify the description of the study population and sample size. This correction will be published soon.”
Dr. Hill thanked Dr. Bakaeen and Dr. Sabik for bringing the matter to their attention and said, “It is also important to note that both updates to the Dr. Reynolds et al. paper are published as corrections. However, the results and conclusions of the paper remain unchanged.”
The bigger issue
Importantly, the recent AHA/ACC/SCAI coronary revascularization guidelines used ISCHEMIA data to support downgrading the CABG recommendation from class 1 to class 2B in 3-vessel CAD with normal left ventricular function and from class 1 to 2a in 3-vessel CAD with mild to moderate left ventricular dysfunction.
The trial reported no significant benefit with an initial invasive strategy over medical therapy in stable patients with moderate or severe CAD. European guidelines, however, give CABG a class I recommendation for severe three- or two-vessel disease with proximal left anterior descending (LAD) involvement.
Dr. Sabik and Dr. Bakaeen say patients with severe three- or two-vessel disease with proximal LAD involvement were underrepresented in the randomized trials cited by the guidelines but are the typical CABG patients in modern-day practice.
“That is why it is important to determine the severity of CAD accurately and definitively in ISCHEMIA,” Dr. Bakaeen said. “But the more we look at the data, the more errors we encounter.”
Two U.S. surgical groups that were part of the writing process withdrew support for the revascularization guidelines, as did several international surgical societies, citing the data used to support the changes as well as the makeup of the writing committee.
Dr. Ferguson, now with the medical device manufacturer Perfusio, said he resigned from the ISCHEMIA steering committee on May 8 after being unable to accurately reconcile the ISCHEMIA surgical subset data with the Reynolds substudy and two other ISCHEMIA papers on the CABG subset. At least one of those papers, he noted, was being hurriedly pushed through the review process to counter concerns raised by surgeons regarding interpretation of ISCHEMIA.
“This is the first time in my lengthy career in medicine where a level of political agendaism was actually driving the truck,” he said. “It was appalling to me, and I would have said that if I was an interventional cardiologist looking at the results.”
ISCHEMIA results have also been touted as representing state-of-the-art care around the world, but that didn’t appear to be the case for the surgical subset where, for example, China and India performed most CABGs off pump, and globally there was considerable variation in how surgeons approached surgical revascularization strategies, Dr. Ferguson said. “Whether this variability might impact the guideline discussion and these papers coming out remains to be determined.”
He noted that the study protocol allowed for the ISCHEMIA investigators to evaluate whether the variability in the surgical subset influenced the results by comparing the data to that in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons registry, but this option was never acted upon despite being brought to their attention.
“Something political between 2020 and 2022 has crept into the ISCHEMIA trial mindset gestalt, and I don’t like it,” Dr. Ferguson said. “And this can have enormous consequences.”
Asked whether their letters to Circulation are being used to undermine confidence in the ISCHEMIA findings, Dr. Sabik replied, “It is not about undermining ISCHEMIA, but understanding how applicable ISCHEMIA is to patients having CABG today. Understanding the severity of the CAD in patients enrolled in ISCHEMIA is, therefore, necessary.”
“The authors and Circulation have admitted to errors,” he said. “We want to be sure we understand how severe the errors are.”
“This is just about accuracy in a manuscript that may affect patient treatment and therefore patient lives. We want to make sure it is correct,” Dr. Sabik added.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A long-standing request to clarify data irregularities in a 2021 ISCHEMIA substudy resulted in the publication of one correction, with a second correction in the works.
Further, the lone cardiac surgeon on the ISCHEMIA trial steering committee, T. Bruce Ferguson, MD, has resigned from the committee, citing a series of factors, including an inability to reconcile data in the substudy and two additional ISCHEMIA papers currently under review.
As previously reported, cardiac surgeons Faisal Bakaeen, MD, and Joseph Sabik III, MD, notified the journal Circulation in March that the Dr. Reynolds et al. substudy had inconsistencies between data in the main paper and supplemental tables detailing patients’ coronary artery disease (CAD) and ischemia severity.
The substudy found that CAD severity, classified using the modified Duke Prognostic Index score, predicted 4-year mortality and myocardial infarction in the landmark trial.
Circulation published a correction for the substudy on May 20, explaining that a “formatting error” resulted in data being incorrectly presented in two supplemental tables. It does not mention the surgeons’ letter to the editor, which can be found by clicking the “Q” icon below the paper.
Dr. Bakaeen, from the Cleveland Clinic, and Dr. Sabik, from University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, told this news organization that they submitted a second letter to editor on May 23 stating that “significant discrepancies” persist.
For example, 7.2% of participants (179/2,475) had moderate stenosis in one coronary vessel in the corrected Reynolds paper (Supplemental Tables I and II) versus 23.3% (697/2,986) in the primary ISCHEMIA manuscript published in the New England Journal of Medicine (Table S5).
The number of patients with left main ≥ 50% stenosis is, surprisingly, identical in both manuscripts, at 40, they said, despite the denominator dropping from 3,845 participants in the primary study to 2,475 participants with an evaluable modified Duke Prognostic Index score in the substudy.
The number of participants with previous coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) is also hard to reconcile between manuscripts and, importantly, the substudy doesn’t distinguish between lesions bypassed with patent grafts and unbypassed grafts or those with occluded grafts.
“The fact that the authors are working on a second correction is appreciated, but with such numerous inconsistencies, at some point you reach the conclusion that an independent review of the data is the right thing to do for such a high-profile study that received over $100 million of National Institutes of Health support,” Dr. Bakaeen said. “No one should be satisfied or happy if there is any shadow of doubt here regarding the accuracy of the data.”
Speaking to this news organization prior to the first correction, lead substudy author Harmony Reynolds, MD, NYU Langone Health, detailed in depth how the formatting glitch inadvertently upgraded the number of diseased vessels and lesion severity in two supplemental tables.
She noted, as does the correction, that the data were correctly reported in the main manuscript tables and figures and in the remainder of the supplement.
Dr. Reynolds also said they’re in the process of preparing the data for “public sharing soon,” including the Duke Prognostic score at all levels. Dr. Reynolds had not responded by the time of this publication to a request for further details or a timeline.
The surgeons’ first letter to the editor was rejected because it was submitted outside the journal’s 6-week window for letters and was posted as a public comment April 18 via the research platform, Remarq.
Dr. Bakaeen said they were told their second letter was rejected because of Circulation’s “long standing policy” not to publish letters to the editor regarding manuscript corrections but that a correction is being issued.
Circulation editor-in-chief Joseph A. Hill, MD, PhD, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said via email that the journal will update its online policies to more clearly state its requirements for publication and that it has been fully transparent with Dr. Bakaeen and Dr. Sabik regarding where it is in the current process.
He confirmed the surgeons were told June 1 that “after additional review, the authors have determined that whereas there are no errors, an additional minor correction is warranted to clarify the description of the study population and sample size. This correction will be published soon.”
Dr. Hill thanked Dr. Bakaeen and Dr. Sabik for bringing the matter to their attention and said, “It is also important to note that both updates to the Dr. Reynolds et al. paper are published as corrections. However, the results and conclusions of the paper remain unchanged.”
The bigger issue
Importantly, the recent AHA/ACC/SCAI coronary revascularization guidelines used ISCHEMIA data to support downgrading the CABG recommendation from class 1 to class 2B in 3-vessel CAD with normal left ventricular function and from class 1 to 2a in 3-vessel CAD with mild to moderate left ventricular dysfunction.
The trial reported no significant benefit with an initial invasive strategy over medical therapy in stable patients with moderate or severe CAD. European guidelines, however, give CABG a class I recommendation for severe three- or two-vessel disease with proximal left anterior descending (LAD) involvement.
Dr. Sabik and Dr. Bakaeen say patients with severe three- or two-vessel disease with proximal LAD involvement were underrepresented in the randomized trials cited by the guidelines but are the typical CABG patients in modern-day practice.
“That is why it is important to determine the severity of CAD accurately and definitively in ISCHEMIA,” Dr. Bakaeen said. “But the more we look at the data, the more errors we encounter.”
Two U.S. surgical groups that were part of the writing process withdrew support for the revascularization guidelines, as did several international surgical societies, citing the data used to support the changes as well as the makeup of the writing committee.
Dr. Ferguson, now with the medical device manufacturer Perfusio, said he resigned from the ISCHEMIA steering committee on May 8 after being unable to accurately reconcile the ISCHEMIA surgical subset data with the Reynolds substudy and two other ISCHEMIA papers on the CABG subset. At least one of those papers, he noted, was being hurriedly pushed through the review process to counter concerns raised by surgeons regarding interpretation of ISCHEMIA.
“This is the first time in my lengthy career in medicine where a level of political agendaism was actually driving the truck,” he said. “It was appalling to me, and I would have said that if I was an interventional cardiologist looking at the results.”
ISCHEMIA results have also been touted as representing state-of-the-art care around the world, but that didn’t appear to be the case for the surgical subset where, for example, China and India performed most CABGs off pump, and globally there was considerable variation in how surgeons approached surgical revascularization strategies, Dr. Ferguson said. “Whether this variability might impact the guideline discussion and these papers coming out remains to be determined.”
He noted that the study protocol allowed for the ISCHEMIA investigators to evaluate whether the variability in the surgical subset influenced the results by comparing the data to that in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons registry, but this option was never acted upon despite being brought to their attention.
“Something political between 2020 and 2022 has crept into the ISCHEMIA trial mindset gestalt, and I don’t like it,” Dr. Ferguson said. “And this can have enormous consequences.”
Asked whether their letters to Circulation are being used to undermine confidence in the ISCHEMIA findings, Dr. Sabik replied, “It is not about undermining ISCHEMIA, but understanding how applicable ISCHEMIA is to patients having CABG today. Understanding the severity of the CAD in patients enrolled in ISCHEMIA is, therefore, necessary.”
“The authors and Circulation have admitted to errors,” he said. “We want to be sure we understand how severe the errors are.”
“This is just about accuracy in a manuscript that may affect patient treatment and therefore patient lives. We want to make sure it is correct,” Dr. Sabik added.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Schizophrenia patients in long-term facilities benefit from lower-dose antipsychotics
NEW ORLEANS –
“There is an argument by some experts in the field that state hospital populations represent a different set of patients who require higher antipsychotic dosages, with no alternative, but I don’t agree with that,” study lead author Mujeeb U. Shad, MD, GME-psychiatry program director and adjunct professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, said in an interview.
In reducing doses, “patients appeared to blossom, becoming more active and less ‘zombie-like’; they started taking more interest in activities and their social [involvement] increased,” he said.
The study was among several presenting pros and cons of high antipsychotic doses at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.
Higher doses of antipsychotics are often relied upon when patients with acute psychosis fail to respond to standard treatment, however evidence supporting the approach is lacking.
And while some studies in fact show no benefit from the higher-dose maintenance therapy over conventional or even lower doses of antipsychotics, evidence regarding forensic patients hospitalized in long-term psychiatric facilities is also scant.
Meanwhile, the need to restore competency among those patients can be more pressing than normal.
“In a forensic population where executive cognitive function is one of the key elements to restore competency to stand trial, the continuation of high-dose therapy with excessive dopamine blockade may further compromise preexisting executive dysfunction to delay competency restoration,” Dr. Shad notes in the study.
The study describes a case series in which antipsychotic doses were lowered among 22 of Dr. Shad’s patients who had been determined to be incompetent to stand trial and referred to a state hospital to restore their competency.
With the objective of regaining the mental fitness to stand trial and being discharged from the facility, those on high doses of therapy, defined as a dose greater than 50% of the average package-insert dose, had their doses reduced to conventional dosages.
The approach led to as many as 68% of the patients being stabilized and discharged after having their competency restored, without symptom relapse, following an average antipsychotic dose reduction of 44%.
The average time to discharge following the dose reduction was just 2.3 months, after an average total hospitalization time of 11 months.
The shortest hospitalization durations (less than 7 months) were observed among those who did not receive changes in doses as they were already achieving efficacy with standard dosages.
Among two patients who were treated subtherapeutically, dose increases were required and they had the longest overall hospitalization (14.5 months)
Additional benefits of reduced dosages
Dr. Shad noted that, in addition to the earlier discharges, patients also had reductions in their polypharmacy, and in prolactin.
“We know that high prolactin level is such a huge problem, especially for female patients because it can cause osteoporosis, infertility, and abnormal menstruation, and the reductions in hyperprolactinemia can help reduce weight gain,” he said.
Dr. Shad added that he let some of those effects be his guide in making dose reductions.
“I was trying to gradually minimize the dose while monitoring the patients for relapse, and I used extrapyramidal symptoms and prolactin levels as my guide, looking for a sweet spot with the dosing,” he said.
“For example, if patients were taking an average of about 40-60 mg of a drug, I brought it down close to 20 mg, or close to the average package insert,” Dr. Shad said.
Key concerns among clinicians about reducing antipsychotic doses include the emergence of discontinuation or rebound symptoms, including psychosis, akathisia, or Parkinsonian symptoms, and studies, including a recent meta-analysis have supported those concerns, urging caution in reducing doses below standard levels.
However, Dr. Shad said his series suggests that reducing doses gradually while carefully monitoring extrapyramidal symptoms and prolactin levels may indeed pay off.
“They’re not the perfect guides, but they’re good guides, and with the right approach, [some] may be able to do this,” Dr. Shad said.
“However, the key to a successful dose reduction or discontinuation of an [antipsychotic medication] is to avoid abrupt discontinuation and follow a gradual dose reduction while monitoring symptoms and tolerability,” he said.
Commenting on the research, T. Scott Stroup, MD, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, chimed in on the side of urging caution with higher doses and supporting possible benefits with the lower-dose approach.
“I agree that people who need antipsychotic medications should receive the lowest effective dose and that often this is identified by careful dose reduction,” he said in an interview.
Dr. Shad and Stroup had no disclosures to report.
NEW ORLEANS –
“There is an argument by some experts in the field that state hospital populations represent a different set of patients who require higher antipsychotic dosages, with no alternative, but I don’t agree with that,” study lead author Mujeeb U. Shad, MD, GME-psychiatry program director and adjunct professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, said in an interview.
In reducing doses, “patients appeared to blossom, becoming more active and less ‘zombie-like’; they started taking more interest in activities and their social [involvement] increased,” he said.
The study was among several presenting pros and cons of high antipsychotic doses at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.
Higher doses of antipsychotics are often relied upon when patients with acute psychosis fail to respond to standard treatment, however evidence supporting the approach is lacking.
And while some studies in fact show no benefit from the higher-dose maintenance therapy over conventional or even lower doses of antipsychotics, evidence regarding forensic patients hospitalized in long-term psychiatric facilities is also scant.
Meanwhile, the need to restore competency among those patients can be more pressing than normal.
“In a forensic population where executive cognitive function is one of the key elements to restore competency to stand trial, the continuation of high-dose therapy with excessive dopamine blockade may further compromise preexisting executive dysfunction to delay competency restoration,” Dr. Shad notes in the study.
The study describes a case series in which antipsychotic doses were lowered among 22 of Dr. Shad’s patients who had been determined to be incompetent to stand trial and referred to a state hospital to restore their competency.
With the objective of regaining the mental fitness to stand trial and being discharged from the facility, those on high doses of therapy, defined as a dose greater than 50% of the average package-insert dose, had their doses reduced to conventional dosages.
The approach led to as many as 68% of the patients being stabilized and discharged after having their competency restored, without symptom relapse, following an average antipsychotic dose reduction of 44%.
The average time to discharge following the dose reduction was just 2.3 months, after an average total hospitalization time of 11 months.
The shortest hospitalization durations (less than 7 months) were observed among those who did not receive changes in doses as they were already achieving efficacy with standard dosages.
Among two patients who were treated subtherapeutically, dose increases were required and they had the longest overall hospitalization (14.5 months)
Additional benefits of reduced dosages
Dr. Shad noted that, in addition to the earlier discharges, patients also had reductions in their polypharmacy, and in prolactin.
“We know that high prolactin level is such a huge problem, especially for female patients because it can cause osteoporosis, infertility, and abnormal menstruation, and the reductions in hyperprolactinemia can help reduce weight gain,” he said.
Dr. Shad added that he let some of those effects be his guide in making dose reductions.
“I was trying to gradually minimize the dose while monitoring the patients for relapse, and I used extrapyramidal symptoms and prolactin levels as my guide, looking for a sweet spot with the dosing,” he said.
“For example, if patients were taking an average of about 40-60 mg of a drug, I brought it down close to 20 mg, or close to the average package insert,” Dr. Shad said.
Key concerns among clinicians about reducing antipsychotic doses include the emergence of discontinuation or rebound symptoms, including psychosis, akathisia, or Parkinsonian symptoms, and studies, including a recent meta-analysis have supported those concerns, urging caution in reducing doses below standard levels.
However, Dr. Shad said his series suggests that reducing doses gradually while carefully monitoring extrapyramidal symptoms and prolactin levels may indeed pay off.
“They’re not the perfect guides, but they’re good guides, and with the right approach, [some] may be able to do this,” Dr. Shad said.
“However, the key to a successful dose reduction or discontinuation of an [antipsychotic medication] is to avoid abrupt discontinuation and follow a gradual dose reduction while monitoring symptoms and tolerability,” he said.
Commenting on the research, T. Scott Stroup, MD, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, chimed in on the side of urging caution with higher doses and supporting possible benefits with the lower-dose approach.
“I agree that people who need antipsychotic medications should receive the lowest effective dose and that often this is identified by careful dose reduction,” he said in an interview.
Dr. Shad and Stroup had no disclosures to report.
NEW ORLEANS –
“There is an argument by some experts in the field that state hospital populations represent a different set of patients who require higher antipsychotic dosages, with no alternative, but I don’t agree with that,” study lead author Mujeeb U. Shad, MD, GME-psychiatry program director and adjunct professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, said in an interview.
In reducing doses, “patients appeared to blossom, becoming more active and less ‘zombie-like’; they started taking more interest in activities and their social [involvement] increased,” he said.
The study was among several presenting pros and cons of high antipsychotic doses at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.
Higher doses of antipsychotics are often relied upon when patients with acute psychosis fail to respond to standard treatment, however evidence supporting the approach is lacking.
And while some studies in fact show no benefit from the higher-dose maintenance therapy over conventional or even lower doses of antipsychotics, evidence regarding forensic patients hospitalized in long-term psychiatric facilities is also scant.
Meanwhile, the need to restore competency among those patients can be more pressing than normal.
“In a forensic population where executive cognitive function is one of the key elements to restore competency to stand trial, the continuation of high-dose therapy with excessive dopamine blockade may further compromise preexisting executive dysfunction to delay competency restoration,” Dr. Shad notes in the study.
The study describes a case series in which antipsychotic doses were lowered among 22 of Dr. Shad’s patients who had been determined to be incompetent to stand trial and referred to a state hospital to restore their competency.
With the objective of regaining the mental fitness to stand trial and being discharged from the facility, those on high doses of therapy, defined as a dose greater than 50% of the average package-insert dose, had their doses reduced to conventional dosages.
The approach led to as many as 68% of the patients being stabilized and discharged after having their competency restored, without symptom relapse, following an average antipsychotic dose reduction of 44%.
The average time to discharge following the dose reduction was just 2.3 months, after an average total hospitalization time of 11 months.
The shortest hospitalization durations (less than 7 months) were observed among those who did not receive changes in doses as they were already achieving efficacy with standard dosages.
Among two patients who were treated subtherapeutically, dose increases were required and they had the longest overall hospitalization (14.5 months)
Additional benefits of reduced dosages
Dr. Shad noted that, in addition to the earlier discharges, patients also had reductions in their polypharmacy, and in prolactin.
“We know that high prolactin level is such a huge problem, especially for female patients because it can cause osteoporosis, infertility, and abnormal menstruation, and the reductions in hyperprolactinemia can help reduce weight gain,” he said.
Dr. Shad added that he let some of those effects be his guide in making dose reductions.
“I was trying to gradually minimize the dose while monitoring the patients for relapse, and I used extrapyramidal symptoms and prolactin levels as my guide, looking for a sweet spot with the dosing,” he said.
“For example, if patients were taking an average of about 40-60 mg of a drug, I brought it down close to 20 mg, or close to the average package insert,” Dr. Shad said.
Key concerns among clinicians about reducing antipsychotic doses include the emergence of discontinuation or rebound symptoms, including psychosis, akathisia, or Parkinsonian symptoms, and studies, including a recent meta-analysis have supported those concerns, urging caution in reducing doses below standard levels.
However, Dr. Shad said his series suggests that reducing doses gradually while carefully monitoring extrapyramidal symptoms and prolactin levels may indeed pay off.
“They’re not the perfect guides, but they’re good guides, and with the right approach, [some] may be able to do this,” Dr. Shad said.
“However, the key to a successful dose reduction or discontinuation of an [antipsychotic medication] is to avoid abrupt discontinuation and follow a gradual dose reduction while monitoring symptoms and tolerability,” he said.
Commenting on the research, T. Scott Stroup, MD, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, chimed in on the side of urging caution with higher doses and supporting possible benefits with the lower-dose approach.
“I agree that people who need antipsychotic medications should receive the lowest effective dose and that often this is identified by careful dose reduction,” he said in an interview.
Dr. Shad and Stroup had no disclosures to report.
FROM APA 2022
‘Genetic’ height linked to peripheral neuropathy and certain skin and bone infections
, according to a study published in PLOS Genetics.
Prior studies have investigated height as a risk factor for chronic diseases, such as a higher risk for atrial fibrillation and a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease. It’s been consistently difficult, however, to eliminate the confounding influences of diet, socioeconomics, lifestyle behaviors, and other environmental factors that may interfere with a person’s reaching their expected height based on their genes.
This study, however, was able to better parse those differences by using Mendelian randomization within the comprehensive clinical and genetic dataset of a national health care system biobank. Mendelian randomization uses “genetic instruments for exposures of interest under the assumption that genotype is less susceptible to confounding than measured exposures,” the authors explained. The findings confirmed previously suspected associations between height and a range of cardiovascular and metabolic conditions as well as revealing new associations with several other conditions.
Prior associations confirmed, new associations uncovered
The results confirmed that being tall is linked to a higher risk of atrial fibrillation and varicose veins, and a lower risk of coronary heart disease, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol. The study also uncovered new associations between greater height and a higher risk of peripheral neuropathy, which is caused by damage to nerves on the extremities, as well as skin and bone infections, such as leg and foot ulcers.
The meta-analysis “identified five additional traits associated with genetically-predicted height,” wrote Sridharan Raghavan, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, and colleagues. “Two were genitourinary conditions – erectile dysfunction and urinary retention – that can be associated with neuropathy, and a third was a phecode for nonspecific skin disorders that may be related to skin infections – consistent with the race/ethnicity stratified results.”
Removing potential confounders
F. Perry Wilson, MD, associate professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., who was not involved in the study, said the findings were not particularly surprising overall, but it’s striking that the researchers had ”such a large cohort with such detailed electronic health records allowing for the comparison of genetic height with a variety of clinical outcomes.” He also noted the study’s strength in using Mendelian randomization so that the exposure is the predicted genetic height instead of a person’s measured height.
“This is key, since lots of things affect actual height – nutrition is an important one that could certainly be linked to disease as well,” Dr. Wilson said. ”By using genetic height, the authors remove these potential confounders. Since genetic height is “assigned” at birth (or conception), there is little opportunity for confounding. Of course, it is possible that some of the gene variants used to predict genetic height actually do something else, such as make you seek out less nutritious meals, but by and large this is how these types of studies need to be done.”
Height may impact over 100 clinical traits
The study relied on data from the U.S. Veteran Affairs Million Veteran Program with 222,300 non-Hispanic White and 58,151 non-Hispanic Black participants. The researchers first estimated the likelihood of participants’ genetic height based on 3,290 genetic variants determined to affect genetic height in a recent European-ancestry genome-wide meta-analysis. Then they compared these estimates with participants’ actual height in the VA medical record, adjusting for age, sex, and other genetic characteristics.
In doing so, the researchers found 345 clinical traits that were associated with the actual measured height in White participants plus another 17 clinical trials linked to actual measured height in Black participants. An overall 127 of these clinical traits were significantly associated with White participants’ genetically predicted height, and two of them were significantly associated with Black participants’ genetically predicted height.
In analyzing all these data together, the researchers were largely able to separate out those associations between genetically predicted height and certain health conditions from those associations between health conditions and a person’s actual measured height. They also determined that including body mass index as a covariate had little impact on the results. The researchers conducted the appropriate statistical correction to ensure the use of so many variables did not result in spurious statistical significance in some associations.
“Using genetic methods applied to the VA Million Veteran Program, we found evidence that adult height may impact over 100 clinical traits, including several conditions associated with poor outcomes and quality of life – peripheral neuropathy, lower extremity ulcers, and chronic venous insufficiency. We conclude that height may be an unrecognized nonmodifiable risk factor for several common conditions in adults.”
Height linked with health conditions
Genetically predicted height predicted a reduced risk of hyperlipidemia and hypertension independent of coronary heart disease, the analysis revealed. Genetically predicted height was also linked to an approximately 51% increased risk of atrial fibrillation in participants without coronary heart disease but, paradoxically, only a 39% increased risk in those with coronary heart disease, despite coronary heart disease being a risk factor for atrial fibrillation. Genetically predicted height was also associated with a greater risk of varicose veins in the legs and deep vein thrombosis.
Another novel association uncovered by the analysis was between women’s genetically predicted height and both asthma and nonspecific peripheral nerve disorders. “Whether these associations reflect differences by sex in disease pathophysiology related to height may warrant exploration in a sample with better balance between men and women,” the authors wrote. “In sum, our results suggest that an individual’s height may warrant consideration as a nonmodifiable predictor for several common conditions, particularly those affecting peripheral/distal extremities that are most physically impacted by tall stature.”
A substantial limitation of the study was its homogeneity of participants, who were 92% male with an average height of 176 cm and an average BMI of 30.1. The Black participants tended to be younger, with an average age of 58 compared with 64 years in the White participants, but the groups were otherwise similar in height and weight.* The database included data from Hispanic participants, but the researchers excluded these data because of the small sample size.
The smaller dataset for Black participants was a limitation as well as the fact that the genome-wide association study the researchers relied on came from a European population, which may not be as accurate in people with other ancestry, Dr. Wilson said. The bigger limitation, however, is what the findings’ clinical relevance is.
What does it all mean?
“Genetic height is in your genes – there is nothing to be done about it – so it is more of academic interest than clinical interest,” Dr. Wilson said. It’s not even clear whether incorporating a person’s height – actual or genetically predicted, if it could be easily determined for each person – into risk calculators. ”To know whether it would be beneficial to use height (or genetic height) as a risk factor, you’d need to examine each condition of interest, adjusting for all known risk factors, to see if height improved the prediction,” Dr. Wilson said. “I suspect for most conditions, the well-known risk factors would swamp height. For example, high genetic height might truly increase risk for neuropathy. But diabetes might increase the risk so much more that height is not particularly relevant.”
On the other hand, the fact that height in general has any potential influence at all on disease risk may inspire physicians to consider other risk factors in especially tall individuals.
”Physicians may find it interesting that we have some confirmation that height does increase the risk of certain conditions,” Dr. Wilson said. “While this is unlikely to dramatically change practice, they may be a bit more diligent in looking for other relevant risk factors for the diseases found in this study in their very tall patients.”
The research was funded by the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs, the Boettcher Foundation’s Webb-Waring Biomedical Research Program, the National Institutes of Health, and a Linda Pechenik Montague Investigator award. One study coauthor is a full-time employee of Novartis Institutes of Biomedical Research. The other authors and Dr. Wilson had no disclosures.
*Correction, 6/29/22: An earlier version of this article misstated the average age of Black participants.
, according to a study published in PLOS Genetics.
Prior studies have investigated height as a risk factor for chronic diseases, such as a higher risk for atrial fibrillation and a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease. It’s been consistently difficult, however, to eliminate the confounding influences of diet, socioeconomics, lifestyle behaviors, and other environmental factors that may interfere with a person’s reaching their expected height based on their genes.
This study, however, was able to better parse those differences by using Mendelian randomization within the comprehensive clinical and genetic dataset of a national health care system biobank. Mendelian randomization uses “genetic instruments for exposures of interest under the assumption that genotype is less susceptible to confounding than measured exposures,” the authors explained. The findings confirmed previously suspected associations between height and a range of cardiovascular and metabolic conditions as well as revealing new associations with several other conditions.
Prior associations confirmed, new associations uncovered
The results confirmed that being tall is linked to a higher risk of atrial fibrillation and varicose veins, and a lower risk of coronary heart disease, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol. The study also uncovered new associations between greater height and a higher risk of peripheral neuropathy, which is caused by damage to nerves on the extremities, as well as skin and bone infections, such as leg and foot ulcers.
The meta-analysis “identified five additional traits associated with genetically-predicted height,” wrote Sridharan Raghavan, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, and colleagues. “Two were genitourinary conditions – erectile dysfunction and urinary retention – that can be associated with neuropathy, and a third was a phecode for nonspecific skin disorders that may be related to skin infections – consistent with the race/ethnicity stratified results.”
Removing potential confounders
F. Perry Wilson, MD, associate professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., who was not involved in the study, said the findings were not particularly surprising overall, but it’s striking that the researchers had ”such a large cohort with such detailed electronic health records allowing for the comparison of genetic height with a variety of clinical outcomes.” He also noted the study’s strength in using Mendelian randomization so that the exposure is the predicted genetic height instead of a person’s measured height.
“This is key, since lots of things affect actual height – nutrition is an important one that could certainly be linked to disease as well,” Dr. Wilson said. ”By using genetic height, the authors remove these potential confounders. Since genetic height is “assigned” at birth (or conception), there is little opportunity for confounding. Of course, it is possible that some of the gene variants used to predict genetic height actually do something else, such as make you seek out less nutritious meals, but by and large this is how these types of studies need to be done.”
Height may impact over 100 clinical traits
The study relied on data from the U.S. Veteran Affairs Million Veteran Program with 222,300 non-Hispanic White and 58,151 non-Hispanic Black participants. The researchers first estimated the likelihood of participants’ genetic height based on 3,290 genetic variants determined to affect genetic height in a recent European-ancestry genome-wide meta-analysis. Then they compared these estimates with participants’ actual height in the VA medical record, adjusting for age, sex, and other genetic characteristics.
In doing so, the researchers found 345 clinical traits that were associated with the actual measured height in White participants plus another 17 clinical trials linked to actual measured height in Black participants. An overall 127 of these clinical traits were significantly associated with White participants’ genetically predicted height, and two of them were significantly associated with Black participants’ genetically predicted height.
In analyzing all these data together, the researchers were largely able to separate out those associations between genetically predicted height and certain health conditions from those associations between health conditions and a person’s actual measured height. They also determined that including body mass index as a covariate had little impact on the results. The researchers conducted the appropriate statistical correction to ensure the use of so many variables did not result in spurious statistical significance in some associations.
“Using genetic methods applied to the VA Million Veteran Program, we found evidence that adult height may impact over 100 clinical traits, including several conditions associated with poor outcomes and quality of life – peripheral neuropathy, lower extremity ulcers, and chronic venous insufficiency. We conclude that height may be an unrecognized nonmodifiable risk factor for several common conditions in adults.”
Height linked with health conditions
Genetically predicted height predicted a reduced risk of hyperlipidemia and hypertension independent of coronary heart disease, the analysis revealed. Genetically predicted height was also linked to an approximately 51% increased risk of atrial fibrillation in participants without coronary heart disease but, paradoxically, only a 39% increased risk in those with coronary heart disease, despite coronary heart disease being a risk factor for atrial fibrillation. Genetically predicted height was also associated with a greater risk of varicose veins in the legs and deep vein thrombosis.
Another novel association uncovered by the analysis was between women’s genetically predicted height and both asthma and nonspecific peripheral nerve disorders. “Whether these associations reflect differences by sex in disease pathophysiology related to height may warrant exploration in a sample with better balance between men and women,” the authors wrote. “In sum, our results suggest that an individual’s height may warrant consideration as a nonmodifiable predictor for several common conditions, particularly those affecting peripheral/distal extremities that are most physically impacted by tall stature.”
A substantial limitation of the study was its homogeneity of participants, who were 92% male with an average height of 176 cm and an average BMI of 30.1. The Black participants tended to be younger, with an average age of 58 compared with 64 years in the White participants, but the groups were otherwise similar in height and weight.* The database included data from Hispanic participants, but the researchers excluded these data because of the small sample size.
The smaller dataset for Black participants was a limitation as well as the fact that the genome-wide association study the researchers relied on came from a European population, which may not be as accurate in people with other ancestry, Dr. Wilson said. The bigger limitation, however, is what the findings’ clinical relevance is.
What does it all mean?
“Genetic height is in your genes – there is nothing to be done about it – so it is more of academic interest than clinical interest,” Dr. Wilson said. It’s not even clear whether incorporating a person’s height – actual or genetically predicted, if it could be easily determined for each person – into risk calculators. ”To know whether it would be beneficial to use height (or genetic height) as a risk factor, you’d need to examine each condition of interest, adjusting for all known risk factors, to see if height improved the prediction,” Dr. Wilson said. “I suspect for most conditions, the well-known risk factors would swamp height. For example, high genetic height might truly increase risk for neuropathy. But diabetes might increase the risk so much more that height is not particularly relevant.”
On the other hand, the fact that height in general has any potential influence at all on disease risk may inspire physicians to consider other risk factors in especially tall individuals.
”Physicians may find it interesting that we have some confirmation that height does increase the risk of certain conditions,” Dr. Wilson said. “While this is unlikely to dramatically change practice, they may be a bit more diligent in looking for other relevant risk factors for the diseases found in this study in their very tall patients.”
The research was funded by the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs, the Boettcher Foundation’s Webb-Waring Biomedical Research Program, the National Institutes of Health, and a Linda Pechenik Montague Investigator award. One study coauthor is a full-time employee of Novartis Institutes of Biomedical Research. The other authors and Dr. Wilson had no disclosures.
*Correction, 6/29/22: An earlier version of this article misstated the average age of Black participants.
, according to a study published in PLOS Genetics.
Prior studies have investigated height as a risk factor for chronic diseases, such as a higher risk for atrial fibrillation and a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease. It’s been consistently difficult, however, to eliminate the confounding influences of diet, socioeconomics, lifestyle behaviors, and other environmental factors that may interfere with a person’s reaching their expected height based on their genes.
This study, however, was able to better parse those differences by using Mendelian randomization within the comprehensive clinical and genetic dataset of a national health care system biobank. Mendelian randomization uses “genetic instruments for exposures of interest under the assumption that genotype is less susceptible to confounding than measured exposures,” the authors explained. The findings confirmed previously suspected associations between height and a range of cardiovascular and metabolic conditions as well as revealing new associations with several other conditions.
Prior associations confirmed, new associations uncovered
The results confirmed that being tall is linked to a higher risk of atrial fibrillation and varicose veins, and a lower risk of coronary heart disease, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol. The study also uncovered new associations between greater height and a higher risk of peripheral neuropathy, which is caused by damage to nerves on the extremities, as well as skin and bone infections, such as leg and foot ulcers.
The meta-analysis “identified five additional traits associated with genetically-predicted height,” wrote Sridharan Raghavan, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, and colleagues. “Two were genitourinary conditions – erectile dysfunction and urinary retention – that can be associated with neuropathy, and a third was a phecode for nonspecific skin disorders that may be related to skin infections – consistent with the race/ethnicity stratified results.”
Removing potential confounders
F. Perry Wilson, MD, associate professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., who was not involved in the study, said the findings were not particularly surprising overall, but it’s striking that the researchers had ”such a large cohort with such detailed electronic health records allowing for the comparison of genetic height with a variety of clinical outcomes.” He also noted the study’s strength in using Mendelian randomization so that the exposure is the predicted genetic height instead of a person’s measured height.
“This is key, since lots of things affect actual height – nutrition is an important one that could certainly be linked to disease as well,” Dr. Wilson said. ”By using genetic height, the authors remove these potential confounders. Since genetic height is “assigned” at birth (or conception), there is little opportunity for confounding. Of course, it is possible that some of the gene variants used to predict genetic height actually do something else, such as make you seek out less nutritious meals, but by and large this is how these types of studies need to be done.”
Height may impact over 100 clinical traits
The study relied on data from the U.S. Veteran Affairs Million Veteran Program with 222,300 non-Hispanic White and 58,151 non-Hispanic Black participants. The researchers first estimated the likelihood of participants’ genetic height based on 3,290 genetic variants determined to affect genetic height in a recent European-ancestry genome-wide meta-analysis. Then they compared these estimates with participants’ actual height in the VA medical record, adjusting for age, sex, and other genetic characteristics.
In doing so, the researchers found 345 clinical traits that were associated with the actual measured height in White participants plus another 17 clinical trials linked to actual measured height in Black participants. An overall 127 of these clinical traits were significantly associated with White participants’ genetically predicted height, and two of them were significantly associated with Black participants’ genetically predicted height.
In analyzing all these data together, the researchers were largely able to separate out those associations between genetically predicted height and certain health conditions from those associations between health conditions and a person’s actual measured height. They also determined that including body mass index as a covariate had little impact on the results. The researchers conducted the appropriate statistical correction to ensure the use of so many variables did not result in spurious statistical significance in some associations.
“Using genetic methods applied to the VA Million Veteran Program, we found evidence that adult height may impact over 100 clinical traits, including several conditions associated with poor outcomes and quality of life – peripheral neuropathy, lower extremity ulcers, and chronic venous insufficiency. We conclude that height may be an unrecognized nonmodifiable risk factor for several common conditions in adults.”
Height linked with health conditions
Genetically predicted height predicted a reduced risk of hyperlipidemia and hypertension independent of coronary heart disease, the analysis revealed. Genetically predicted height was also linked to an approximately 51% increased risk of atrial fibrillation in participants without coronary heart disease but, paradoxically, only a 39% increased risk in those with coronary heart disease, despite coronary heart disease being a risk factor for atrial fibrillation. Genetically predicted height was also associated with a greater risk of varicose veins in the legs and deep vein thrombosis.
Another novel association uncovered by the analysis was between women’s genetically predicted height and both asthma and nonspecific peripheral nerve disorders. “Whether these associations reflect differences by sex in disease pathophysiology related to height may warrant exploration in a sample with better balance between men and women,” the authors wrote. “In sum, our results suggest that an individual’s height may warrant consideration as a nonmodifiable predictor for several common conditions, particularly those affecting peripheral/distal extremities that are most physically impacted by tall stature.”
A substantial limitation of the study was its homogeneity of participants, who were 92% male with an average height of 176 cm and an average BMI of 30.1. The Black participants tended to be younger, with an average age of 58 compared with 64 years in the White participants, but the groups were otherwise similar in height and weight.* The database included data from Hispanic participants, but the researchers excluded these data because of the small sample size.
The smaller dataset for Black participants was a limitation as well as the fact that the genome-wide association study the researchers relied on came from a European population, which may not be as accurate in people with other ancestry, Dr. Wilson said. The bigger limitation, however, is what the findings’ clinical relevance is.
What does it all mean?
“Genetic height is in your genes – there is nothing to be done about it – so it is more of academic interest than clinical interest,” Dr. Wilson said. It’s not even clear whether incorporating a person’s height – actual or genetically predicted, if it could be easily determined for each person – into risk calculators. ”To know whether it would be beneficial to use height (or genetic height) as a risk factor, you’d need to examine each condition of interest, adjusting for all known risk factors, to see if height improved the prediction,” Dr. Wilson said. “I suspect for most conditions, the well-known risk factors would swamp height. For example, high genetic height might truly increase risk for neuropathy. But diabetes might increase the risk so much more that height is not particularly relevant.”
On the other hand, the fact that height in general has any potential influence at all on disease risk may inspire physicians to consider other risk factors in especially tall individuals.
”Physicians may find it interesting that we have some confirmation that height does increase the risk of certain conditions,” Dr. Wilson said. “While this is unlikely to dramatically change practice, they may be a bit more diligent in looking for other relevant risk factors for the diseases found in this study in their very tall patients.”
The research was funded by the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs, the Boettcher Foundation’s Webb-Waring Biomedical Research Program, the National Institutes of Health, and a Linda Pechenik Montague Investigator award. One study coauthor is a full-time employee of Novartis Institutes of Biomedical Research. The other authors and Dr. Wilson had no disclosures.
*Correction, 6/29/22: An earlier version of this article misstated the average age of Black participants.
FROM PLOS GENETICS
PCOS comes with high morbidity, medication use into late 40s
Women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) have an increased risk for several diseases and symptoms, many independent of body mass index (BMI), new research indicates.
Some diseases are linked for the first time to PCOS in this study, the authors wrote.
Researchers, led by Linda Kujanpää, MD, of the research unit for pediatrics, dermatology, clinical genetics, obstetrics, and gynecology at University of Oulu (Finland), found the morbidity risk is evident through the late reproductive years.
The paper was published online in Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica.
This population-based follow-up study investigated comorbidities and medication and health care services use among women with PCOS in Finland at age 46 years via answers to a questionnaire.
The whole PCOS population (n = 280) consisted of women who reported both hirsutism and oligo/amenorrhea at age 31 (4.1%) and/or polycystic ovary morphology/PCOS at age 46 (3.1%), of which 246 replied to the 46-year questionnaire. They were compared with a control group of 1,573 women without PCOS.
Overall morbidity risk was 35% higher than for women without PCOS (risk ratio, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-1.57). Medication use was 27% higher (RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.08-1.50), and the risk remained after adjusting for BMI.
Diagnoses with increased prevalence in women with PCOS were osteoarthritis, migraine, hypertension, tendinitis, and endometriosis. PCOS was also associated with autoimmune diseases and recurrent upper respiratory tract infections.
“BMI seems not to be solely responsible for the increased morbidity,” the researchers found. The average morbidity score of women with PCOS with a BMI of 25 kg/m2 or higher was similar to that of women with PCOS and lower BMI.
Mindy Christianson, MD, medical director at Johns Hopkins Fertility Center and associate professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore, said in an interview that the links to diseases independent of BMI are interesting because there’s so much focus on counseling women with PCOS to lose weight.
While that message is still important, it’s important to realize that some related diseases and conditions – such as autoimmune diseases and migraine – are not driven by BMI.
“It really drives home the point that polycystic ovary syndrome is really a chronic medical condition and puts patients at risk for a number of health conditions,” she said. “Having a good primary care physician is important to help them with their overall health.”
Women with PCOS said their health was poor or very poor almost three times more often than did women in the control group.
Surprisingly few studies have looked at overall comorbidity in women with PCOS, the authors wrote.
“This should be of high priority given the high cost to society resulting from PCOS-related morbidity,” they added. As an example, they pointed out that PCOS-related type 2 diabetes alone costs an estimated $1.77 billion in the United States and £237 million ($310 million) each year in the United Kingdom.
Additionally, the focus in previous research has typically been on women in their early or mid-reproductive years, and morbidity burden data in late reproductive years are scarce.
The study population was pulled from the longitudinal Northern Finland Birth Cohort 1966 and included all pregnancies with estimated date of delivery during 1966 in two provinces of Finland (5,889 women).
Dr. Christianson said she hopes this study will spur more research on PCOS, which has been severely underfunded, especially in the United States.
Part of the reason for that is there is a limited number of subspecialists in the country who work with patients with PCOS and do research in the area. PCOS often gets lost in the research priorities of infertility, diabetes, and thyroid disease.
The message in this study that PCOS is not just a fertility issue or an obesity issue but an overall health issue with a substantial cost to the health system may help raise awareness, Dr. Christianson said.
This study was supported by grants from The Finnish Medical Foundation, The Academy of Finland, The Sigrid Juselius Foundation, The Finnish Cultural Foundation, The Jalmari and Rauha Ahokas Foundation, The Päivikki and Sakari Sohlberg Foundation, Genesis Research Trust, The Medical Research Council, University of Oulu, Oulu University Hospital, Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, National Institute for Health and Welfare, Regional Institute of Occupational Health, and the European Regional Development Fund. The Study authors and Dr. Christianson reported no relevant financial relationships.
Women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) have an increased risk for several diseases and symptoms, many independent of body mass index (BMI), new research indicates.
Some diseases are linked for the first time to PCOS in this study, the authors wrote.
Researchers, led by Linda Kujanpää, MD, of the research unit for pediatrics, dermatology, clinical genetics, obstetrics, and gynecology at University of Oulu (Finland), found the morbidity risk is evident through the late reproductive years.
The paper was published online in Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica.
This population-based follow-up study investigated comorbidities and medication and health care services use among women with PCOS in Finland at age 46 years via answers to a questionnaire.
The whole PCOS population (n = 280) consisted of women who reported both hirsutism and oligo/amenorrhea at age 31 (4.1%) and/or polycystic ovary morphology/PCOS at age 46 (3.1%), of which 246 replied to the 46-year questionnaire. They were compared with a control group of 1,573 women without PCOS.
Overall morbidity risk was 35% higher than for women without PCOS (risk ratio, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-1.57). Medication use was 27% higher (RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.08-1.50), and the risk remained after adjusting for BMI.
Diagnoses with increased prevalence in women with PCOS were osteoarthritis, migraine, hypertension, tendinitis, and endometriosis. PCOS was also associated with autoimmune diseases and recurrent upper respiratory tract infections.
“BMI seems not to be solely responsible for the increased morbidity,” the researchers found. The average morbidity score of women with PCOS with a BMI of 25 kg/m2 or higher was similar to that of women with PCOS and lower BMI.
Mindy Christianson, MD, medical director at Johns Hopkins Fertility Center and associate professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore, said in an interview that the links to diseases independent of BMI are interesting because there’s so much focus on counseling women with PCOS to lose weight.
While that message is still important, it’s important to realize that some related diseases and conditions – such as autoimmune diseases and migraine – are not driven by BMI.
“It really drives home the point that polycystic ovary syndrome is really a chronic medical condition and puts patients at risk for a number of health conditions,” she said. “Having a good primary care physician is important to help them with their overall health.”
Women with PCOS said their health was poor or very poor almost three times more often than did women in the control group.
Surprisingly few studies have looked at overall comorbidity in women with PCOS, the authors wrote.
“This should be of high priority given the high cost to society resulting from PCOS-related morbidity,” they added. As an example, they pointed out that PCOS-related type 2 diabetes alone costs an estimated $1.77 billion in the United States and £237 million ($310 million) each year in the United Kingdom.
Additionally, the focus in previous research has typically been on women in their early or mid-reproductive years, and morbidity burden data in late reproductive years are scarce.
The study population was pulled from the longitudinal Northern Finland Birth Cohort 1966 and included all pregnancies with estimated date of delivery during 1966 in two provinces of Finland (5,889 women).
Dr. Christianson said she hopes this study will spur more research on PCOS, which has been severely underfunded, especially in the United States.
Part of the reason for that is there is a limited number of subspecialists in the country who work with patients with PCOS and do research in the area. PCOS often gets lost in the research priorities of infertility, diabetes, and thyroid disease.
The message in this study that PCOS is not just a fertility issue or an obesity issue but an overall health issue with a substantial cost to the health system may help raise awareness, Dr. Christianson said.
This study was supported by grants from The Finnish Medical Foundation, The Academy of Finland, The Sigrid Juselius Foundation, The Finnish Cultural Foundation, The Jalmari and Rauha Ahokas Foundation, The Päivikki and Sakari Sohlberg Foundation, Genesis Research Trust, The Medical Research Council, University of Oulu, Oulu University Hospital, Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, National Institute for Health and Welfare, Regional Institute of Occupational Health, and the European Regional Development Fund. The Study authors and Dr. Christianson reported no relevant financial relationships.
Women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) have an increased risk for several diseases and symptoms, many independent of body mass index (BMI), new research indicates.
Some diseases are linked for the first time to PCOS in this study, the authors wrote.
Researchers, led by Linda Kujanpää, MD, of the research unit for pediatrics, dermatology, clinical genetics, obstetrics, and gynecology at University of Oulu (Finland), found the morbidity risk is evident through the late reproductive years.
The paper was published online in Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica.
This population-based follow-up study investigated comorbidities and medication and health care services use among women with PCOS in Finland at age 46 years via answers to a questionnaire.
The whole PCOS population (n = 280) consisted of women who reported both hirsutism and oligo/amenorrhea at age 31 (4.1%) and/or polycystic ovary morphology/PCOS at age 46 (3.1%), of which 246 replied to the 46-year questionnaire. They were compared with a control group of 1,573 women without PCOS.
Overall morbidity risk was 35% higher than for women without PCOS (risk ratio, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-1.57). Medication use was 27% higher (RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.08-1.50), and the risk remained after adjusting for BMI.
Diagnoses with increased prevalence in women with PCOS were osteoarthritis, migraine, hypertension, tendinitis, and endometriosis. PCOS was also associated with autoimmune diseases and recurrent upper respiratory tract infections.
“BMI seems not to be solely responsible for the increased morbidity,” the researchers found. The average morbidity score of women with PCOS with a BMI of 25 kg/m2 or higher was similar to that of women with PCOS and lower BMI.
Mindy Christianson, MD, medical director at Johns Hopkins Fertility Center and associate professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore, said in an interview that the links to diseases independent of BMI are interesting because there’s so much focus on counseling women with PCOS to lose weight.
While that message is still important, it’s important to realize that some related diseases and conditions – such as autoimmune diseases and migraine – are not driven by BMI.
“It really drives home the point that polycystic ovary syndrome is really a chronic medical condition and puts patients at risk for a number of health conditions,” she said. “Having a good primary care physician is important to help them with their overall health.”
Women with PCOS said their health was poor or very poor almost three times more often than did women in the control group.
Surprisingly few studies have looked at overall comorbidity in women with PCOS, the authors wrote.
“This should be of high priority given the high cost to society resulting from PCOS-related morbidity,” they added. As an example, they pointed out that PCOS-related type 2 diabetes alone costs an estimated $1.77 billion in the United States and £237 million ($310 million) each year in the United Kingdom.
Additionally, the focus in previous research has typically been on women in their early or mid-reproductive years, and morbidity burden data in late reproductive years are scarce.
The study population was pulled from the longitudinal Northern Finland Birth Cohort 1966 and included all pregnancies with estimated date of delivery during 1966 in two provinces of Finland (5,889 women).
Dr. Christianson said she hopes this study will spur more research on PCOS, which has been severely underfunded, especially in the United States.
Part of the reason for that is there is a limited number of subspecialists in the country who work with patients with PCOS and do research in the area. PCOS often gets lost in the research priorities of infertility, diabetes, and thyroid disease.
The message in this study that PCOS is not just a fertility issue or an obesity issue but an overall health issue with a substantial cost to the health system may help raise awareness, Dr. Christianson said.
This study was supported by grants from The Finnish Medical Foundation, The Academy of Finland, The Sigrid Juselius Foundation, The Finnish Cultural Foundation, The Jalmari and Rauha Ahokas Foundation, The Päivikki and Sakari Sohlberg Foundation, Genesis Research Trust, The Medical Research Council, University of Oulu, Oulu University Hospital, Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, National Institute for Health and Welfare, Regional Institute of Occupational Health, and the European Regional Development Fund. The Study authors and Dr. Christianson reported no relevant financial relationships.
FROM ACTA OBSTETRICIA ET GYNECOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA