Almost all patients with both obstructive sleep apnea syndrome and severe asthma fell into the obesity phenotype, not the allergy phenotype, based on data from nearly 1,500 adults.

Both asthma and sleep-disordered breathing are common conditions worldwide, and previous research suggests that obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) and severe asthma in particular could be associated, wrote Laurent Portel, MD, of Centre Hospitalier de Libourne, France, and colleagues.

“Even if the underlying mechanisms are not well established, it is clear that both OSAS and obesity act to aggravate existing asthma, making it more difficult to control,” they said. However, the pathology of this relationship is not well-understood, and data on severe asthma phenotypes and OSAS are limited, they said.

In a study published in Respiratory Medicine and Research, the investigators reviewed data from 1,465 patients older than 18 years with severe asthma who were part of a larger, prospective multicenter study of the management of asthma patients. The larger study, developed by the Collège des Pneumologues des Hôpitaux Généraux (CPHG) is known as the FASE-CPHG (France Asthme SEvère-CPHG) and includes 104 nonacademic hospitals in France.

Diagnosis of OSAS was reported by physicians; diagnosis of severe asthma was based on the Global Initiative for Asthma criteria. The average age of the patients was 54.4 years, 63% were women, and 60% were nonsmokers.

A total of 161 patients were diagnosed with OSAS. The researchers conducted a cluster analysis on 1,424 patients, including 156 of the OSAS patients. They identified five clusters: early-onset atopic asthma (690 patients), obese asthma (153 patients), late-onset asthma (299 patients), eosinophilic asthma (143 patients), and aspirin sensitivity asthma (139 patients).

All 153 patients in the obese asthma cluster had OSAS, by contrast, none of the patients in the early atopic asthma cluster had OSAS.

Overall, obesity, male sex, high blood pressure, depression, late-onset asthma, and early-onset atopic asthma were independently associated with OSAS, with odds ratios of 5.782, 3.047, 2.875, 2.552, 1.789, and 0.622, respectively.

Notably, OSAS patients were more frequently treated with long-term oral corticosteroids than those without OSAS (30% vs. 15%, P < .0001), the researchers said. “It is possible that this treatment may be responsible for obesity, and it represents a well-known risk factor for developing OSAS,” they wrote.

Uncontrolled asthma was significantly more common in OSAS patients than in those without OSAS (77.7% vs. 69%, P = .03), and significantly more OSAS patients reported no or occasional physical activity (79.8% vs. 68.2%, P ≤ .001).

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of patients from primary care or university hospitals, which may limit the generalizability of the results, the reliance on physician statements for diagnosis of OSAS, and the lack of data on OSAS severity or treatment, the researchers noted.

However, the results fill a needed gap in the literature because of the limited data on severe asthma patients in real life, and identifying severe asthma patients by phenotype may help identify those at greatest risk for OSAS, they said.

“Identified patients could more easily benefit from specific examinations such as poly(somno)graphy and, consequently, could benefit from a better management of both asthma and OSAS,” they emphasized.

The larger FASE-CPHG study was supported in part by ALK, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, and Le Nouveau Souffle. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Almost all patients with both obstructive sleep apnea syndrome and severe asthma fell into the obesity phenotype, not the allergy phenotype, based on data from nearly 1,500 adults.

Both asthma and sleep-disordered breathing are common conditions worldwide, and previous research suggests that obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) and severe asthma in particular could be associated, wrote Laurent Portel, MD, of Centre Hospitalier de Libourne, France, and colleagues.

“Even if the underlying mechanisms are not well established, it is clear that both OSAS and obesity act to aggravate existing asthma, making it more difficult to control,” they said. However, the pathology of this relationship is not well-understood, and data on severe asthma phenotypes and OSAS are limited, they said.

In a study published in Respiratory Medicine and Research, the investigators reviewed data from 1,465 patients older than 18 years with severe asthma who were part of a larger, prospective multicenter study of the management of asthma patients. The larger study, developed by the Collège des Pneumologues des Hôpitaux Généraux (CPHG) is known as the FASE-CPHG (France Asthme SEvère-CPHG) and includes 104 nonacademic hospitals in France.

Diagnosis of OSAS was reported by physicians; diagnosis of severe asthma was based on the Global Initiative for Asthma criteria. The average age of the patients was 54.4 years, 63% were women, and 60% were nonsmokers.

A total of 161 patients were diagnosed with OSAS. The researchers conducted a cluster analysis on 1,424 patients, including 156 of the OSAS patients. They identified five clusters: early-onset atopic asthma (690 patients), obese asthma (153 patients), late-onset asthma (299 patients), eosinophilic asthma (143 patients), and aspirin sensitivity asthma (139 patients).

All 153 patients in the obese asthma cluster had OSAS, by contrast, none of the patients in the early atopic asthma cluster had OSAS.

Overall, obesity, male sex, high blood pressure, depression, late-onset asthma, and early-onset atopic asthma were independently associated with OSAS, with odds ratios of 5.782, 3.047, 2.875, 2.552, 1.789, and 0.622, respectively.

Notably, OSAS patients were more frequently treated with long-term oral corticosteroids than those without OSAS (30% vs. 15%, P < .0001), the researchers said. “It is possible that this treatment may be responsible for obesity, and it represents a well-known risk factor for developing OSAS,” they wrote.

Uncontrolled asthma was significantly more common in OSAS patients than in those without OSAS (77.7% vs. 69%, P = .03), and significantly more OSAS patients reported no or occasional physical activity (79.8% vs. 68.2%, P ≤ .001).

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of patients from primary care or university hospitals, which may limit the generalizability of the results, the reliance on physician statements for diagnosis of OSAS, and the lack of data on OSAS severity or treatment, the researchers noted.

However, the results fill a needed gap in the literature because of the limited data on severe asthma patients in real life, and identifying severe asthma patients by phenotype may help identify those at greatest risk for OSAS, they said.

“Identified patients could more easily benefit from specific examinations such as poly(somno)graphy and, consequently, could benefit from a better management of both asthma and OSAS,” they emphasized.

The larger FASE-CPHG study was supported in part by ALK, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, and Le Nouveau Souffle. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Almost all patients with both obstructive sleep apnea syndrome and severe asthma fell into the obesity phenotype, not the allergy phenotype, based on data from nearly 1,500 adults.

Both asthma and sleep-disordered breathing are common conditions worldwide, and previous research suggests that obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) and severe asthma in particular could be associated, wrote Laurent Portel, MD, of Centre Hospitalier de Libourne, France, and colleagues.

“Even if the underlying mechanisms are not well established, it is clear that both OSAS and obesity act to aggravate existing asthma, making it more difficult to control,” they said. However, the pathology of this relationship is not well-understood, and data on severe asthma phenotypes and OSAS are limited, they said.

In a study published in Respiratory Medicine and Research, the investigators reviewed data from 1,465 patients older than 18 years with severe asthma who were part of a larger, prospective multicenter study of the management of asthma patients. The larger study, developed by the Collège des Pneumologues des Hôpitaux Généraux (CPHG) is known as the FASE-CPHG (France Asthme SEvère-CPHG) and includes 104 nonacademic hospitals in France.

Diagnosis of OSAS was reported by physicians; diagnosis of severe asthma was based on the Global Initiative for Asthma criteria. The average age of the patients was 54.4 years, 63% were women, and 60% were nonsmokers.

A total of 161 patients were diagnosed with OSAS. The researchers conducted a cluster analysis on 1,424 patients, including 156 of the OSAS patients. They identified five clusters: early-onset atopic asthma (690 patients), obese asthma (153 patients), late-onset asthma (299 patients), eosinophilic asthma (143 patients), and aspirin sensitivity asthma (139 patients).

All 153 patients in the obese asthma cluster had OSAS, by contrast, none of the patients in the early atopic asthma cluster had OSAS.

Overall, obesity, male sex, high blood pressure, depression, late-onset asthma, and early-onset atopic asthma were independently associated with OSAS, with odds ratios of 5.782, 3.047, 2.875, 2.552, 1.789, and 0.622, respectively.

Notably, OSAS patients were more frequently treated with long-term oral corticosteroids than those without OSAS (30% vs. 15%, P < .0001), the researchers said. “It is possible that this treatment may be responsible for obesity, and it represents a well-known risk factor for developing OSAS,” they wrote.

Uncontrolled asthma was significantly more common in OSAS patients than in those without OSAS (77.7% vs. 69%, P = .03), and significantly more OSAS patients reported no or occasional physical activity (79.8% vs. 68.2%, P ≤ .001).

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of patients from primary care or university hospitals, which may limit the generalizability of the results, the reliance on physician statements for diagnosis of OSAS, and the lack of data on OSAS severity or treatment, the researchers noted.

However, the results fill a needed gap in the literature because of the limited data on severe asthma patients in real life, and identifying severe asthma patients by phenotype may help identify those at greatest risk for OSAS, they said.

“Identified patients could more easily benefit from specific examinations such as poly(somno)graphy and, consequently, could benefit from a better management of both asthma and OSAS,” they emphasized.

The larger FASE-CPHG study was supported in part by ALK, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, and Le Nouveau Souffle. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

When the Food and Drug Administration approved abatacept in December 2021 as prophylaxis for acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD) in adults and children 2 years and older who are undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), the announcement was notable for couple of key reasons.

Firstly, abatacept – initially approved in 2005 as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis – was being repurposed for a different indication. Secondly, the new use for abatacept held promise for patients who are receiving HSCT and have trouble finding available, matched unrelated donors, a problem that disproportionately affects people of color.

Abatacept was approved based on results from the ABA2 trial, which evaluated 142 adults and children with hematologic malignancies who received a four-dose regimen of abatacept in addition to standard of care – a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) plus methotrexate (MTX) – prior to undergoing an 8/8 HLA-matched, unrelated donor (URD) HSCT, or standard of care alone.

Another arm of the trial examined 43 recipients of a 7/8 HLA-mismatched URD HSCT who received abatacept plus standard of care, compared with a prespecified registry cohort group provided by the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research, who received CNI and MTX.

Results published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed the proportion of patients in the 8/8 group with severe aGVHD in the abatacept group 100 days after HSCT was not significantly lower, compared with the standard of care group (6.8% vs. 14.8%; P = .13), but there was a significant improvement in severe aGVHD–free survival (SGFS) 180 days after HSCT in the abatacept group, compared with the group that received standard of care (93.2% vs. 80%; P = .05).

Among patients in the 7/8 group, there was a significant difference in the proportion of patients with severe aGVHD favoring the abatacept group (2.3% vs. 30.2%; P < .001), and significantly improved SGFS, compared with the CIBMTR registry cohort (97.7% vs. 58.7%; P < .001)

A post hoc analysis of ABA2 published as a research letter in Blood Advances assessed abatacept using real-world data from CIBMTR. Researchers compared the 8/8 group that received standard of care with the 7/8 group that received abatacept plus standard of care and found no significant differences between relapse-free survival and overall survival for patients in the 8/8 group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-1.28; P = .19) and 7/8 group (aHR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.34-1.71; P = .51).

The results suggest “abatacept may eliminate that risk of a mismatched transplant in the setting of that analysis and that small cohort that was assessed there, which is good news for patients that may not have a fully matched donor on the registry,” said Stephen Spellman, vice president at Be The Match Research (operated by the National Marrow Donor Program), and senior scientific director of CIBMTR. The findings from ABA2 “were even more impressive than necessarily expected, especially in the 7/8 arm. This is a truly substantial reduction in acute GVHD risk in that patient population,” he said in an interview.
 

Could abatacept fuel greater use of mismatched, unrelated donors?

One downside of using an HLA-mismatched donor is the potential risk of developing aGVHD, Doris M. Ponce, MD, a hematologic oncologist with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who was not involved with the research, said in an interview.

Potential risk factors for aGVHD include “having a female multiparous donor, HLA-mismatched donor, unrelated donor, donor and recipient age (>40 years), [peripheral blood stem cell] stem cell graft, recipient [cytomegalovirus] serostatus (recipient/donor), myeloablative conditioning, [total body irradiation]–based conditioning, [and] gut microbiome dysbiosis,” Dr. Ponce explained.

Abatacept’s approval may have particular relevance for people of color. “It’s been understood for a long time that the likelihood of finding an 8/8 well-matched, volunteer unrelated donor varies by race or ethnicity,” Steven Devine, MD, a board-certified oncologist who is chief medical officer of Be The Match and associate scientific director at CIBMTR, said in an interview.

Mr. Spellman noted that, of the more than 35 million donors on worldwide registries accessible through the National Marrow Donor Program’s Be The Match Registry, “the match rates differ quite substantially by race and ethnicity.” Approximately 29% of African Americans find a full match on the registry, compared with 81% of Whites, 49% of Hispanics, and 47% Asian/Pacific Islanders.

“Being able to utilize a 7/8 match in a safe, effective manner using abatacept, which abatacept has been approved for, does increase those match rates quite substantially,” he explained. Among African Americans, this means the match rate increases to 84%, among Hispanics and Asian/Pacific Islanders to approximately 90%, and among Whites to about 98%.

That kind of improvement in the match rate is “the equivalent of adding more than more than 10 million ethnically diverse donors to the registry in 1 day,” Dr. Devine said. “The availability of abatacept could really level the playing field for patients in need of a lifesaving transplant.”
 

Further study of abatacept

With abatacept, “I think the results are really encouraging, and I think that further studies [are needed] to better define how the drug would work and whether it can later prevent chronic graft versus host disease,” Dr. Devine said. He said the ABA3 trial has been designed around this question, with the hypothesis that extending abatacept to an eight-dose regimen may help with chronic GVHD.

Although the FDA’s approval of abatacept was recent, Mr. Spellman said, Be The Match has seen early indications that mismatched donors in the registry are being used, which may point to an increased utilization of abatacept. “Through October to December of 2021, there was a pretty substantial increase in the use of mismatched, unrelated donors in that time frame.”

Dr. Devine noted that he is seeing a lot of interest in using abatacept. “I think people are still learning how best to incorporate it into their standard of care right now.”

Meanwhile, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center is already planning to use abatacept, Dr. Ponce noted. “We have abatacept in our formulary for adult and children, and are planning on using it for patients receiving an unmodified graft from a [matched unrelated donor] or 1-allele [mismatched unrelated donor] using CNI and MTX-based GVHD prophylaxis.”

Dr. Devine and Mr. Spellman are employees of Be The Match and CIBMTR, which provided the registry control group for the ABA2 trial. Dr. Devine also reported that he has been a scientific advisory board member for Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Ponce reports no relevant conflicts of interest.

When the Food and Drug Administration approved abatacept in December 2021 as prophylaxis for acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD) in adults and children 2 years and older who are undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), the announcement was notable for couple of key reasons.

Firstly, abatacept – initially approved in 2005 as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis – was being repurposed for a different indication. Secondly, the new use for abatacept held promise for patients who are receiving HSCT and have trouble finding available, matched unrelated donors, a problem that disproportionately affects people of color.

Abatacept was approved based on results from the ABA2 trial, which evaluated 142 adults and children with hematologic malignancies who received a four-dose regimen of abatacept in addition to standard of care – a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) plus methotrexate (MTX) – prior to undergoing an 8/8 HLA-matched, unrelated donor (URD) HSCT, or standard of care alone.

Another arm of the trial examined 43 recipients of a 7/8 HLA-mismatched URD HSCT who received abatacept plus standard of care, compared with a prespecified registry cohort group provided by the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research, who received CNI and MTX.

Results published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed the proportion of patients in the 8/8 group with severe aGVHD in the abatacept group 100 days after HSCT was not significantly lower, compared with the standard of care group (6.8% vs. 14.8%; P = .13), but there was a significant improvement in severe aGVHD–free survival (SGFS) 180 days after HSCT in the abatacept group, compared with the group that received standard of care (93.2% vs. 80%; P = .05).

Among patients in the 7/8 group, there was a significant difference in the proportion of patients with severe aGVHD favoring the abatacept group (2.3% vs. 30.2%; P < .001), and significantly improved SGFS, compared with the CIBMTR registry cohort (97.7% vs. 58.7%; P < .001)

A post hoc analysis of ABA2 published as a research letter in Blood Advances assessed abatacept using real-world data from CIBMTR. Researchers compared the 8/8 group that received standard of care with the 7/8 group that received abatacept plus standard of care and found no significant differences between relapse-free survival and overall survival for patients in the 8/8 group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-1.28; P = .19) and 7/8 group (aHR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.34-1.71; P = .51).

The results suggest “abatacept may eliminate that risk of a mismatched transplant in the setting of that analysis and that small cohort that was assessed there, which is good news for patients that may not have a fully matched donor on the registry,” said Stephen Spellman, vice president at Be The Match Research (operated by the National Marrow Donor Program), and senior scientific director of CIBMTR. The findings from ABA2 “were even more impressive than necessarily expected, especially in the 7/8 arm. This is a truly substantial reduction in acute GVHD risk in that patient population,” he said in an interview.
 

Could abatacept fuel greater use of mismatched, unrelated donors?

One downside of using an HLA-mismatched donor is the potential risk of developing aGVHD, Doris M. Ponce, MD, a hematologic oncologist with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who was not involved with the research, said in an interview.

Potential risk factors for aGVHD include “having a female multiparous donor, HLA-mismatched donor, unrelated donor, donor and recipient age (>40 years), [peripheral blood stem cell] stem cell graft, recipient [cytomegalovirus] serostatus (recipient/donor), myeloablative conditioning, [total body irradiation]–based conditioning, [and] gut microbiome dysbiosis,” Dr. Ponce explained.

Abatacept’s approval may have particular relevance for people of color. “It’s been understood for a long time that the likelihood of finding an 8/8 well-matched, volunteer unrelated donor varies by race or ethnicity,” Steven Devine, MD, a board-certified oncologist who is chief medical officer of Be The Match and associate scientific director at CIBMTR, said in an interview.

Mr. Spellman noted that, of the more than 35 million donors on worldwide registries accessible through the National Marrow Donor Program’s Be The Match Registry, “the match rates differ quite substantially by race and ethnicity.” Approximately 29% of African Americans find a full match on the registry, compared with 81% of Whites, 49% of Hispanics, and 47% Asian/Pacific Islanders.

“Being able to utilize a 7/8 match in a safe, effective manner using abatacept, which abatacept has been approved for, does increase those match rates quite substantially,” he explained. Among African Americans, this means the match rate increases to 84%, among Hispanics and Asian/Pacific Islanders to approximately 90%, and among Whites to about 98%.

That kind of improvement in the match rate is “the equivalent of adding more than more than 10 million ethnically diverse donors to the registry in 1 day,” Dr. Devine said. “The availability of abatacept could really level the playing field for patients in need of a lifesaving transplant.”
 

Further study of abatacept

With abatacept, “I think the results are really encouraging, and I think that further studies [are needed] to better define how the drug would work and whether it can later prevent chronic graft versus host disease,” Dr. Devine said. He said the ABA3 trial has been designed around this question, with the hypothesis that extending abatacept to an eight-dose regimen may help with chronic GVHD.

Although the FDA’s approval of abatacept was recent, Mr. Spellman said, Be The Match has seen early indications that mismatched donors in the registry are being used, which may point to an increased utilization of abatacept. “Through October to December of 2021, there was a pretty substantial increase in the use of mismatched, unrelated donors in that time frame.”

Dr. Devine noted that he is seeing a lot of interest in using abatacept. “I think people are still learning how best to incorporate it into their standard of care right now.”

Meanwhile, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center is already planning to use abatacept, Dr. Ponce noted. “We have abatacept in our formulary for adult and children, and are planning on using it for patients receiving an unmodified graft from a [matched unrelated donor] or 1-allele [mismatched unrelated donor] using CNI and MTX-based GVHD prophylaxis.”

Dr. Devine and Mr. Spellman are employees of Be The Match and CIBMTR, which provided the registry control group for the ABA2 trial. Dr. Devine also reported that he has been a scientific advisory board member for Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Ponce reports no relevant conflicts of interest.

When the Food and Drug Administration approved abatacept in December 2021 as prophylaxis for acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD) in adults and children 2 years and older who are undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), the announcement was notable for couple of key reasons.

Firstly, abatacept – initially approved in 2005 as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis – was being repurposed for a different indication. Secondly, the new use for abatacept held promise for patients who are receiving HSCT and have trouble finding available, matched unrelated donors, a problem that disproportionately affects people of color.

Abatacept was approved based on results from the ABA2 trial, which evaluated 142 adults and children with hematologic malignancies who received a four-dose regimen of abatacept in addition to standard of care – a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) plus methotrexate (MTX) – prior to undergoing an 8/8 HLA-matched, unrelated donor (URD) HSCT, or standard of care alone.

Another arm of the trial examined 43 recipients of a 7/8 HLA-mismatched URD HSCT who received abatacept plus standard of care, compared with a prespecified registry cohort group provided by the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research, who received CNI and MTX.

Results published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed the proportion of patients in the 8/8 group with severe aGVHD in the abatacept group 100 days after HSCT was not significantly lower, compared with the standard of care group (6.8% vs. 14.8%; P = .13), but there was a significant improvement in severe aGVHD–free survival (SGFS) 180 days after HSCT in the abatacept group, compared with the group that received standard of care (93.2% vs. 80%; P = .05).

Among patients in the 7/8 group, there was a significant difference in the proportion of patients with severe aGVHD favoring the abatacept group (2.3% vs. 30.2%; P < .001), and significantly improved SGFS, compared with the CIBMTR registry cohort (97.7% vs. 58.7%; P < .001)

A post hoc analysis of ABA2 published as a research letter in Blood Advances assessed abatacept using real-world data from CIBMTR. Researchers compared the 8/8 group that received standard of care with the 7/8 group that received abatacept plus standard of care and found no significant differences between relapse-free survival and overall survival for patients in the 8/8 group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-1.28; P = .19) and 7/8 group (aHR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.34-1.71; P = .51).

The results suggest “abatacept may eliminate that risk of a mismatched transplant in the setting of that analysis and that small cohort that was assessed there, which is good news for patients that may not have a fully matched donor on the registry,” said Stephen Spellman, vice president at Be The Match Research (operated by the National Marrow Donor Program), and senior scientific director of CIBMTR. The findings from ABA2 “were even more impressive than necessarily expected, especially in the 7/8 arm. This is a truly substantial reduction in acute GVHD risk in that patient population,” he said in an interview.
 

Could abatacept fuel greater use of mismatched, unrelated donors?

One downside of using an HLA-mismatched donor is the potential risk of developing aGVHD, Doris M. Ponce, MD, a hematologic oncologist with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who was not involved with the research, said in an interview.

Potential risk factors for aGVHD include “having a female multiparous donor, HLA-mismatched donor, unrelated donor, donor and recipient age (>40 years), [peripheral blood stem cell] stem cell graft, recipient [cytomegalovirus] serostatus (recipient/donor), myeloablative conditioning, [total body irradiation]–based conditioning, [and] gut microbiome dysbiosis,” Dr. Ponce explained.

Abatacept’s approval may have particular relevance for people of color. “It’s been understood for a long time that the likelihood of finding an 8/8 well-matched, volunteer unrelated donor varies by race or ethnicity,” Steven Devine, MD, a board-certified oncologist who is chief medical officer of Be The Match and associate scientific director at CIBMTR, said in an interview.

Mr. Spellman noted that, of the more than 35 million donors on worldwide registries accessible through the National Marrow Donor Program’s Be The Match Registry, “the match rates differ quite substantially by race and ethnicity.” Approximately 29% of African Americans find a full match on the registry, compared with 81% of Whites, 49% of Hispanics, and 47% Asian/Pacific Islanders.

“Being able to utilize a 7/8 match in a safe, effective manner using abatacept, which abatacept has been approved for, does increase those match rates quite substantially,” he explained. Among African Americans, this means the match rate increases to 84%, among Hispanics and Asian/Pacific Islanders to approximately 90%, and among Whites to about 98%.

That kind of improvement in the match rate is “the equivalent of adding more than more than 10 million ethnically diverse donors to the registry in 1 day,” Dr. Devine said. “The availability of abatacept could really level the playing field for patients in need of a lifesaving transplant.”
 

Further study of abatacept

With abatacept, “I think the results are really encouraging, and I think that further studies [are needed] to better define how the drug would work and whether it can later prevent chronic graft versus host disease,” Dr. Devine said. He said the ABA3 trial has been designed around this question, with the hypothesis that extending abatacept to an eight-dose regimen may help with chronic GVHD.

Although the FDA’s approval of abatacept was recent, Mr. Spellman said, Be The Match has seen early indications that mismatched donors in the registry are being used, which may point to an increased utilization of abatacept. “Through October to December of 2021, there was a pretty substantial increase in the use of mismatched, unrelated donors in that time frame.”

Dr. Devine noted that he is seeing a lot of interest in using abatacept. “I think people are still learning how best to incorporate it into their standard of care right now.”

Meanwhile, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center is already planning to use abatacept, Dr. Ponce noted. “We have abatacept in our formulary for adult and children, and are planning on using it for patients receiving an unmodified graft from a [matched unrelated donor] or 1-allele [mismatched unrelated donor] using CNI and MTX-based GVHD prophylaxis.”

Dr. Devine and Mr. Spellman are employees of Be The Match and CIBMTR, which provided the registry control group for the ABA2 trial. Dr. Devine also reported that he has been a scientific advisory board member for Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Ponce reports no relevant conflicts of interest.

Skin hyperpigmentation – whether it is caused by postinflammatory hyperpigmentation from acne or trauma to the skin, melasma, autoimmune disorders, or disorders of pigmentation – is a condition where treatment is commonly sought after in dermatology offices. Topical products used to fade hyperpigmented areas of the skin have long been used around the world, and because of safety concerns, regulations aimed at reducing potential harm or adverse effects caused by certain ingredients in these products are increasing in different countries.

For example, while extremely effective at treating most forms of hyperpigmentation, hydroquinone has been definitively linked to ochronosis, kojic acid has been linked to contact dermatitis in humans, and acid peels and retinoids are associated with irritant dermatitis, disruption of the skin barrier, and photosensitivity. In animal studies, licorice root extract has been linked to endocrine and other organ system irregularities.

ados/iStock/Getty Images

Kojic acid was banned in Japan in 2003, and subsequently in South Korea and Switzerland because of concerns over animal studies indicating that its fungal metabolite might be carcinogenic (. Hydroquinone is classified as a drug and has been banned for use in cosmetic products in Japan, the European Union, Australia, and several African nations since at least 2006 because of concerns over adrenal gland dysregulation and high levels of mercury in hydroquinone products in those countries. In Africa specifically, South Africa banned all but 2% hydroquinone in 1983, the Ivory Coast banned all skin whitening creams in 2015, and in 2016, Ghana initiated a ban on certain skin products containing hydroquinone.

The United States followed suit in February 2020 with the Food and Drug Administration introducing a ban on all OTC hydroquinone-containing products because of concerns over carcinogenicity in animal studies (which has not been shown in human studies to date). The “Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security” (CARES) Act signed in March 2020 then made the changes effective by halting the sale of OTC hydroquinone products in the United States as of September 2020.

Mercury concerns

Despite these bans, hydroquinone continues to be sold in cosmetics and OTC products around the world and online. And despite being banned or limited in these products, mercury is still sometimes used alone or in tandem with hydroquinone as an ingredient for its desired effects in black market or unregulated skin lightening products in particular. Mercury has been used in cosmetic products as a skin lightening agent (on its own) and as a preservative.

Mercury has been shown to be carcinogenic, neurotoxic, as well as cytotoxic to the renal and endocrine systems, causes reproductive toxicity, and may be bioaccumulative in wildlife and humans. There is particular concern regarding the risks of exposure in pregnant women and babies because of potential harm to the developing brain and nervous system. Initial signs and symptoms of mercury poisoning include irritability, shyness, tremors, changes in vision or hearing, memory problems, depression, numbness and tingling in the hands, feet, or around the mouth.

Organizations such as the Zero Mercury Working Group (ZMWG) – an international coalition of public interest environmental and health nongovernmental organizations from more than 55 countries, focused on eliminating the use, release, and exposure to mercury – have been working to help ensure safety and mercury levels are below the threshold deemed allowable in hydroquinone-containing products.

In ZMWG’s prior publications, mercury concentrations reported in some of these products ranged from 93 ppm to over 16,000 ppm. Even higher concentrations have been reported by other entities. And according to a World Health Organization November 2019 report, mercury-containing skin lightening products have been manufactured in many countries and areas, including Bangladesh, China, Dominican Republic Hong Kong SAR (China), Jamaica, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Thailand, and the United States. According to the ZMWG, 137 countries have committed to the Minamata Convention to phase out and limit mercury, including in cosmetics.

Despite bans on some of these products, consumers in the United States and other countries with bans and restrictions are still at risk of exposure to mercury-containing skin lighteners because of online sales. Hopefully, the work of the ZMWG and similar entities will continue to help limit potentially harmful exposures to mercury, while maintaining access to safe and effective methods to treat hyperpigmentation.
 

Dr. Wesley and Dr. Lily Talakoub are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. Write to them at [email protected]. They had no relevant disclosures.

Skin hyperpigmentation – whether it is caused by postinflammatory hyperpigmentation from acne or trauma to the skin, melasma, autoimmune disorders, or disorders of pigmentation – is a condition where treatment is commonly sought after in dermatology offices. Topical products used to fade hyperpigmented areas of the skin have long been used around the world, and because of safety concerns, regulations aimed at reducing potential harm or adverse effects caused by certain ingredients in these products are increasing in different countries.

For example, while extremely effective at treating most forms of hyperpigmentation, hydroquinone has been definitively linked to ochronosis, kojic acid has been linked to contact dermatitis in humans, and acid peels and retinoids are associated with irritant dermatitis, disruption of the skin barrier, and photosensitivity. In animal studies, licorice root extract has been linked to endocrine and other organ system irregularities.

ados/iStock/Getty Images

Kojic acid was banned in Japan in 2003, and subsequently in South Korea and Switzerland because of concerns over animal studies indicating that its fungal metabolite might be carcinogenic (. Hydroquinone is classified as a drug and has been banned for use in cosmetic products in Japan, the European Union, Australia, and several African nations since at least 2006 because of concerns over adrenal gland dysregulation and high levels of mercury in hydroquinone products in those countries. In Africa specifically, South Africa banned all but 2% hydroquinone in 1983, the Ivory Coast banned all skin whitening creams in 2015, and in 2016, Ghana initiated a ban on certain skin products containing hydroquinone.

The United States followed suit in February 2020 with the Food and Drug Administration introducing a ban on all OTC hydroquinone-containing products because of concerns over carcinogenicity in animal studies (which has not been shown in human studies to date). The “Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security” (CARES) Act signed in March 2020 then made the changes effective by halting the sale of OTC hydroquinone products in the United States as of September 2020.

Mercury concerns

Despite these bans, hydroquinone continues to be sold in cosmetics and OTC products around the world and online. And despite being banned or limited in these products, mercury is still sometimes used alone or in tandem with hydroquinone as an ingredient for its desired effects in black market or unregulated skin lightening products in particular. Mercury has been used in cosmetic products as a skin lightening agent (on its own) and as a preservative.

Mercury has been shown to be carcinogenic, neurotoxic, as well as cytotoxic to the renal and endocrine systems, causes reproductive toxicity, and may be bioaccumulative in wildlife and humans. There is particular concern regarding the risks of exposure in pregnant women and babies because of potential harm to the developing brain and nervous system. Initial signs and symptoms of mercury poisoning include irritability, shyness, tremors, changes in vision or hearing, memory problems, depression, numbness and tingling in the hands, feet, or around the mouth.

Organizations such as the Zero Mercury Working Group (ZMWG) – an international coalition of public interest environmental and health nongovernmental organizations from more than 55 countries, focused on eliminating the use, release, and exposure to mercury – have been working to help ensure safety and mercury levels are below the threshold deemed allowable in hydroquinone-containing products.

In ZMWG’s prior publications, mercury concentrations reported in some of these products ranged from 93 ppm to over 16,000 ppm. Even higher concentrations have been reported by other entities. And according to a World Health Organization November 2019 report, mercury-containing skin lightening products have been manufactured in many countries and areas, including Bangladesh, China, Dominican Republic Hong Kong SAR (China), Jamaica, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Thailand, and the United States. According to the ZMWG, 137 countries have committed to the Minamata Convention to phase out and limit mercury, including in cosmetics.

Despite bans on some of these products, consumers in the United States and other countries with bans and restrictions are still at risk of exposure to mercury-containing skin lighteners because of online sales. Hopefully, the work of the ZMWG and similar entities will continue to help limit potentially harmful exposures to mercury, while maintaining access to safe and effective methods to treat hyperpigmentation.
 

Dr. Wesley and Dr. Lily Talakoub are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. Write to them at [email protected]. They had no relevant disclosures.

Skin hyperpigmentation – whether it is caused by postinflammatory hyperpigmentation from acne or trauma to the skin, melasma, autoimmune disorders, or disorders of pigmentation – is a condition where treatment is commonly sought after in dermatology offices. Topical products used to fade hyperpigmented areas of the skin have long been used around the world, and because of safety concerns, regulations aimed at reducing potential harm or adverse effects caused by certain ingredients in these products are increasing in different countries.

For example, while extremely effective at treating most forms of hyperpigmentation, hydroquinone has been definitively linked to ochronosis, kojic acid has been linked to contact dermatitis in humans, and acid peels and retinoids are associated with irritant dermatitis, disruption of the skin barrier, and photosensitivity. In animal studies, licorice root extract has been linked to endocrine and other organ system irregularities.

ados/iStock/Getty Images

Kojic acid was banned in Japan in 2003, and subsequently in South Korea and Switzerland because of concerns over animal studies indicating that its fungal metabolite might be carcinogenic (. Hydroquinone is classified as a drug and has been banned for use in cosmetic products in Japan, the European Union, Australia, and several African nations since at least 2006 because of concerns over adrenal gland dysregulation and high levels of mercury in hydroquinone products in those countries. In Africa specifically, South Africa banned all but 2% hydroquinone in 1983, the Ivory Coast banned all skin whitening creams in 2015, and in 2016, Ghana initiated a ban on certain skin products containing hydroquinone.

The United States followed suit in February 2020 with the Food and Drug Administration introducing a ban on all OTC hydroquinone-containing products because of concerns over carcinogenicity in animal studies (which has not been shown in human studies to date). The “Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security” (CARES) Act signed in March 2020 then made the changes effective by halting the sale of OTC hydroquinone products in the United States as of September 2020.

Mercury concerns

Despite these bans, hydroquinone continues to be sold in cosmetics and OTC products around the world and online. And despite being banned or limited in these products, mercury is still sometimes used alone or in tandem with hydroquinone as an ingredient for its desired effects in black market or unregulated skin lightening products in particular. Mercury has been used in cosmetic products as a skin lightening agent (on its own) and as a preservative.

Mercury has been shown to be carcinogenic, neurotoxic, as well as cytotoxic to the renal and endocrine systems, causes reproductive toxicity, and may be bioaccumulative in wildlife and humans. There is particular concern regarding the risks of exposure in pregnant women and babies because of potential harm to the developing brain and nervous system. Initial signs and symptoms of mercury poisoning include irritability, shyness, tremors, changes in vision or hearing, memory problems, depression, numbness and tingling in the hands, feet, or around the mouth.

Organizations such as the Zero Mercury Working Group (ZMWG) – an international coalition of public interest environmental and health nongovernmental organizations from more than 55 countries, focused on eliminating the use, release, and exposure to mercury – have been working to help ensure safety and mercury levels are below the threshold deemed allowable in hydroquinone-containing products.

In ZMWG’s prior publications, mercury concentrations reported in some of these products ranged from 93 ppm to over 16,000 ppm. Even higher concentrations have been reported by other entities. And according to a World Health Organization November 2019 report, mercury-containing skin lightening products have been manufactured in many countries and areas, including Bangladesh, China, Dominican Republic Hong Kong SAR (China), Jamaica, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Thailand, and the United States. According to the ZMWG, 137 countries have committed to the Minamata Convention to phase out and limit mercury, including in cosmetics.

Despite bans on some of these products, consumers in the United States and other countries with bans and restrictions are still at risk of exposure to mercury-containing skin lighteners because of online sales. Hopefully, the work of the ZMWG and similar entities will continue to help limit potentially harmful exposures to mercury, while maintaining access to safe and effective methods to treat hyperpigmentation.
 

Dr. Wesley and Dr. Lily Talakoub are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. Write to them at [email protected]. They had no relevant disclosures.

For the past 2 years, oncology practitioners around the world have struggled with the same dilemma: how to maintain their patients’ cancer care without exposing them to COVID-19. Regardless of the country, language, or even which wave of the pandemic, the conversations have likely been very similar: weighing risks versuss benefits, and individualizing each patient’s pandemic cancer plan.

But one question most oncologists have probably overlooked in these discussions is about where their patients get their COVID information – or misinformation.

Surprisingly, this seemingly small detail could make a big difference in a patient’s prognosis.

A recent study found that adult cancer patients are more vulnerable to COVID misinformation, compared with healthy controls, building on an earlier finding of similar vulnerabilities among parents of children with cancer, compared with parents of healthy children.

“It doesn’t matter what you search for, there is an overwhelming level of information online,” the lead author on both studies, Jeanine Guidry, PhD, from Virginia Commonwealth University’s Massey Cancer Center in Richmond, said in an interview. “If misinformation is the first thing you encounter about a topic, you’re much more likely to believe it and it’s going to be very hard to convince you otherwise.”

Before the pandemic, Dr. Guidry, who is director of the Media+Health Lab at VCU, had already been studying vaccine misinformation on Pinterest and Instagram.

So when data coming out at the start of the pandemic suggested that an increase in pediatric cancer mortality might be partially because of COVID-19 misinformation, she jumped on it.

Dr. Guidry and associates designed a questionnaire involving COVID misinformation statements available online and found that parents of children with cancer were significantly more likely to endorse them, compared with parents of healthy children.

“Our advice to clinicians is you may have an issue here,” Dr. Guidry said in an interview. “You may want to check where they get their news, and if there’s any pieces of misinformation that could be harmful.”

Some beliefs, such as eating more garlic protects against COVID, are not particularly harmful, she acknowledged, but others – such as drinking bleach being protective – are quite harmful, and they often stem from the same misinformation sources.

Both of Dr. Guidry’s studies involved surveys of either adult patients with cancer or parents of children with cancer.

The adult patient survey was conducted June 1-15, 2020, and included 897 respondents, of whom 287 were patients in active treatment for cancer, 301 were survivors not currently in treatment, and 309 had no cancer history.

The parents’ survey, conducted in May 2020, included 735 parents of children aged 2-17 years, 315 of whom had children currently undergoing cancer treatment, and 420 of whom had children with no history of cancer.

Among the misinformation they were asked to agree or disagree with were statements such as “it is unsafe to receive mail from China,” “antibiotics can prevent and treat COVID-19,” and “COVID is less deadly than the ‘flu,’ ” among others.

The surveys revealed that the patients in current treatment for cancer and the parents of patients in current treatment were most likely to endorse COVID misinformation. Results from the parents’ survey showed that “believing misinformation was also more likely for fathers, younger parents, and parents with higher perceived stress from COVID-19,” the authors wrote. Among adult patients and controls, patients in active treatment were most likely to believe misinformation, with cancer survivors no longer in treatment being the least likely to believe it, compared with healthy controls who were in between.

Why the difference? The authors suggested that patients in active treatment “may seek out more information on the internet or via social media where they are more exposed to misinformation,” whereas survivors no longer undergoing treatment may be more “media savvy and have learned to be wary of questionable health information.”

In their articles, Dr. Guidry and associates advised oncologists to be aware of their patients’ potential to endorse COVID misinformation and to “proactively address this in routine visits as well as tailored written materials.” This is easier said than done, she commented, acknowledging that keeping up with the latest misinformation is a challenge.

The misinformation statements her group used in their surveys were popular early in the pandemic, but “some of them have shown fairly remarkable staying power and some have been replaced,” she said. She invited interested clinicians to contact her team for guidance on newer misinformation.

Ultimately, she believes most patients with cancer who endorse misinformation are simply afraid, and looking for help. “They’re already dealing with a level of stress from their illness and then they’re thrown into a pandemic,” Dr. Guidry said. “At some point you just want a solution. Hydroxychloroquine? Great! Horse dewormer? Fantastic! Just wanting to control the situation and not having something else to deal with.”

Both studies were funded by the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

For the past 2 years, oncology practitioners around the world have struggled with the same dilemma: how to maintain their patients’ cancer care without exposing them to COVID-19. Regardless of the country, language, or even which wave of the pandemic, the conversations have likely been very similar: weighing risks versuss benefits, and individualizing each patient’s pandemic cancer plan.

But one question most oncologists have probably overlooked in these discussions is about where their patients get their COVID information – or misinformation.

Surprisingly, this seemingly small detail could make a big difference in a patient’s prognosis.

A recent study found that adult cancer patients are more vulnerable to COVID misinformation, compared with healthy controls, building on an earlier finding of similar vulnerabilities among parents of children with cancer, compared with parents of healthy children.

“It doesn’t matter what you search for, there is an overwhelming level of information online,” the lead author on both studies, Jeanine Guidry, PhD, from Virginia Commonwealth University’s Massey Cancer Center in Richmond, said in an interview. “If misinformation is the first thing you encounter about a topic, you’re much more likely to believe it and it’s going to be very hard to convince you otherwise.”

Before the pandemic, Dr. Guidry, who is director of the Media+Health Lab at VCU, had already been studying vaccine misinformation on Pinterest and Instagram.

So when data coming out at the start of the pandemic suggested that an increase in pediatric cancer mortality might be partially because of COVID-19 misinformation, she jumped on it.

Dr. Guidry and associates designed a questionnaire involving COVID misinformation statements available online and found that parents of children with cancer were significantly more likely to endorse them, compared with parents of healthy children.

“Our advice to clinicians is you may have an issue here,” Dr. Guidry said in an interview. “You may want to check where they get their news, and if there’s any pieces of misinformation that could be harmful.”

Some beliefs, such as eating more garlic protects against COVID, are not particularly harmful, she acknowledged, but others – such as drinking bleach being protective – are quite harmful, and they often stem from the same misinformation sources.

Both of Dr. Guidry’s studies involved surveys of either adult patients with cancer or parents of children with cancer.

The adult patient survey was conducted June 1-15, 2020, and included 897 respondents, of whom 287 were patients in active treatment for cancer, 301 were survivors not currently in treatment, and 309 had no cancer history.

The parents’ survey, conducted in May 2020, included 735 parents of children aged 2-17 years, 315 of whom had children currently undergoing cancer treatment, and 420 of whom had children with no history of cancer.

Among the misinformation they were asked to agree or disagree with were statements such as “it is unsafe to receive mail from China,” “antibiotics can prevent and treat COVID-19,” and “COVID is less deadly than the ‘flu,’ ” among others.

The surveys revealed that the patients in current treatment for cancer and the parents of patients in current treatment were most likely to endorse COVID misinformation. Results from the parents’ survey showed that “believing misinformation was also more likely for fathers, younger parents, and parents with higher perceived stress from COVID-19,” the authors wrote. Among adult patients and controls, patients in active treatment were most likely to believe misinformation, with cancer survivors no longer in treatment being the least likely to believe it, compared with healthy controls who were in between.

Why the difference? The authors suggested that patients in active treatment “may seek out more information on the internet or via social media where they are more exposed to misinformation,” whereas survivors no longer undergoing treatment may be more “media savvy and have learned to be wary of questionable health information.”

In their articles, Dr. Guidry and associates advised oncologists to be aware of their patients’ potential to endorse COVID misinformation and to “proactively address this in routine visits as well as tailored written materials.” This is easier said than done, she commented, acknowledging that keeping up with the latest misinformation is a challenge.

The misinformation statements her group used in their surveys were popular early in the pandemic, but “some of them have shown fairly remarkable staying power and some have been replaced,” she said. She invited interested clinicians to contact her team for guidance on newer misinformation.

Ultimately, she believes most patients with cancer who endorse misinformation are simply afraid, and looking for help. “They’re already dealing with a level of stress from their illness and then they’re thrown into a pandemic,” Dr. Guidry said. “At some point you just want a solution. Hydroxychloroquine? Great! Horse dewormer? Fantastic! Just wanting to control the situation and not having something else to deal with.”

Both studies were funded by the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

For the past 2 years, oncology practitioners around the world have struggled with the same dilemma: how to maintain their patients’ cancer care without exposing them to COVID-19. Regardless of the country, language, or even which wave of the pandemic, the conversations have likely been very similar: weighing risks versuss benefits, and individualizing each patient’s pandemic cancer plan.

But one question most oncologists have probably overlooked in these discussions is about where their patients get their COVID information – or misinformation.

Surprisingly, this seemingly small detail could make a big difference in a patient’s prognosis.

A recent study found that adult cancer patients are more vulnerable to COVID misinformation, compared with healthy controls, building on an earlier finding of similar vulnerabilities among parents of children with cancer, compared with parents of healthy children.

“It doesn’t matter what you search for, there is an overwhelming level of information online,” the lead author on both studies, Jeanine Guidry, PhD, from Virginia Commonwealth University’s Massey Cancer Center in Richmond, said in an interview. “If misinformation is the first thing you encounter about a topic, you’re much more likely to believe it and it’s going to be very hard to convince you otherwise.”

Before the pandemic, Dr. Guidry, who is director of the Media+Health Lab at VCU, had already been studying vaccine misinformation on Pinterest and Instagram.

So when data coming out at the start of the pandemic suggested that an increase in pediatric cancer mortality might be partially because of COVID-19 misinformation, she jumped on it.

Dr. Guidry and associates designed a questionnaire involving COVID misinformation statements available online and found that parents of children with cancer were significantly more likely to endorse them, compared with parents of healthy children.

“Our advice to clinicians is you may have an issue here,” Dr. Guidry said in an interview. “You may want to check where they get their news, and if there’s any pieces of misinformation that could be harmful.”

Some beliefs, such as eating more garlic protects against COVID, are not particularly harmful, she acknowledged, but others – such as drinking bleach being protective – are quite harmful, and they often stem from the same misinformation sources.

Both of Dr. Guidry’s studies involved surveys of either adult patients with cancer or parents of children with cancer.

The adult patient survey was conducted June 1-15, 2020, and included 897 respondents, of whom 287 were patients in active treatment for cancer, 301 were survivors not currently in treatment, and 309 had no cancer history.

The parents’ survey, conducted in May 2020, included 735 parents of children aged 2-17 years, 315 of whom had children currently undergoing cancer treatment, and 420 of whom had children with no history of cancer.

Among the misinformation they were asked to agree or disagree with were statements such as “it is unsafe to receive mail from China,” “antibiotics can prevent and treat COVID-19,” and “COVID is less deadly than the ‘flu,’ ” among others.

The surveys revealed that the patients in current treatment for cancer and the parents of patients in current treatment were most likely to endorse COVID misinformation. Results from the parents’ survey showed that “believing misinformation was also more likely for fathers, younger parents, and parents with higher perceived stress from COVID-19,” the authors wrote. Among adult patients and controls, patients in active treatment were most likely to believe misinformation, with cancer survivors no longer in treatment being the least likely to believe it, compared with healthy controls who were in between.

Why the difference? The authors suggested that patients in active treatment “may seek out more information on the internet or via social media where they are more exposed to misinformation,” whereas survivors no longer undergoing treatment may be more “media savvy and have learned to be wary of questionable health information.”

In their articles, Dr. Guidry and associates advised oncologists to be aware of their patients’ potential to endorse COVID misinformation and to “proactively address this in routine visits as well as tailored written materials.” This is easier said than done, she commented, acknowledging that keeping up with the latest misinformation is a challenge.

The misinformation statements her group used in their surveys were popular early in the pandemic, but “some of them have shown fairly remarkable staying power and some have been replaced,” she said. She invited interested clinicians to contact her team for guidance on newer misinformation.

Ultimately, she believes most patients with cancer who endorse misinformation are simply afraid, and looking for help. “They’re already dealing with a level of stress from their illness and then they’re thrown into a pandemic,” Dr. Guidry said. “At some point you just want a solution. Hydroxychloroquine? Great! Horse dewormer? Fantastic! Just wanting to control the situation and not having something else to deal with.”

Both studies were funded by the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Doctors’ opinions about whether to treat women with osteoporosis with hormone therapy vary. Guidelines by medical societies including those of the American College of Physicians, on the other hand, generally do not recommend it as a first line therapy for the disease, at least in part due to the risks associated with taking it.

This type of hormone therapy (HT) can be given as estrogen or a combination of hormones including estrogen. The physicians interviewed for this piece who prescribe HT for osteoporosis suggest the benefits outweigh the downsides to its use for some of their patients. But such doctors may be a minority group, suggests Michael R. McClung, MD, founding director of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center, Portland.

According to Dr. McClung, HT is now rarely prescribed as treatment – as opposed to prevention – for osteoporosis in the absence of additional benefits such as reducing vasomotor symptoms.

Researchers’ findings on HT use in women with osteoporosis are complex. While HT is approved for menopausal prevention of osteoporosis, it is not indicated as a treatment for the disease by the Food and Drug Administration. See the prescribing information for Premarin tablets, which contain a mixture of estrogen hormones, for an example of the FDA’s indications and usage for the type of HT addressed in this article.
 

Women’s Health Initiative findings

The Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) hormone therapy trials showed that HT reduces the incidence of all osteoporosis-related fractures in postmenopausal women, even those at low risk of fracture, but osteoporosis-related fractures was not a study endpoint. These trials also revealed that HT was associated with increased risks of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, an increased risk of breast cancer, and other adverse health outcomes.

The release of the interim results of the WHI trials in 2002 led to a fair amount of fear and confusion about the use of HT after menopause. After the WHI findings were published, estrogen use dropped dramatically, but for everything, including for vasomotor symptoms and the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis.

Prior to the WHI study, it was very common for hormone therapy to be prescribed as women neared or entered menopause, said Risa Kagan MD, clinical professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences, University of California, San Francisco.

“When a woman turned 50, that was one of the first things we did – was to put her on hormone therapy. All that changed with the WHI, but now we are coming full circle,” noted Dr. Kagan, who currently prescribes HT as first line treatment for osteoporosis to some women.
 

Hormone therapy’s complex history

HT’s ability to reduce bone loss in postmenopausal women is well-documented in many papers, including one published March 8, 2018, in Osteoporosis International, by Dr. Kagan and colleagues. This reduced bone loss has been shown to significantly reduce fractures in patients with low bone mass and osteoporosis.

While a growing number of therapies are now available to treat osteoporosis, HT was traditionally viewed as a standard method of preventing fractures in this population. It was also widely used to prevent other types of symptoms associated with the menopause, such as hot flashes, night sweats, and sleep disturbances, and multiple observational studies had demonstrated that its use appeared to reduce the incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in symptomatic menopausal women who initiated HT in early menopause.

Even though the WHI studies were the largest randomized trials ever performed in postmenopausal women, they had notable limitations, according to Dr. Kagan.

“The women were older – the average age was 63 years,” she said. “And they only investigated one route and one dose of estrogen.”

Since then, many different formulations and routes of administration with more favorable safety profiles than what was used in the WHI have become available.

It’s both scientifically and clinically unsound to extrapolate the unfavorable risk-benefit profile of HT seen in the WHI trials to all women regardless of age, HT dosage or formulation, or the length of time they’re on it, she added.
 

Today’s use of HT in women with osteoporosis

Re-analyses and follow-up studies from the WHI trials, along with data from other studies, have suggested that the benefit-risk profiles of HT are affected by a variety of factors. These include the timing of use in relation to menopause and chronological age and the type of hormone regimen.

“Clinically, many advocate for [hormone therapy] use, especially in the newer younger postmenopausal women to prevent bone loss, but also in younger women who are diagnosed with osteoporosis and then as they get older transition to more bone specific agents,” noted Dr. Kagan.

“Some advocate preserving bone mass and preventing osteoporosis and even treating the younger newly postmenopausal women who have no contraindications with hormone therapy initially, and then gradually transitioning them to a bone specific agent as they get older and at risk for fracture.

“If a woman is already fractured and/or has very low bone density with no other obvious secondary metabolic reason, we also often advocate anabolic agents for 1-2 years then consider estrogen for maintenance – again, if [there is] no contraindication to using HT,” she added.

Thus, an individualized approach is recommended to determine a woman’s risk-benefit ratio of HT use based on the absolute risk of adverse effects, Dr. Kagan noted.

“Transdermal and low/ultra-low doses of HT, have a favorable risk profile, and are effective in preserving bone mineral density and bone quality in many women,” she said.

According to Dr. McClung, HT “is most often used for treatment in women in whom hormone therapy was begun for hot flashes and then, when osteoporosis was found later, was simply continued.

“Society guidelines are cautious about recommending hormone therapy for osteoporosis treatment since estrogen is not approved for treatment, despite the clear fracture protection benefit observed in the WHI study,” he said. “Since [women in the WHI trials] were not recruited as having osteoporosis, those results do not meet the FDA requirement for treatment approval, namely the reduction in fracture risk in patients with osteoporosis. However, knowing what we know about the salutary skeletal effects of estrogen, many of us do use them in our patients with osteoporosis – although not prescribed for that purpose.”
 

Additional scenarios when doctors may advise HT

“I often recommend – and I think colleagues do as well – that women with recent menopause and menopausal symptoms who also have low bone mineral density or even scores showing osteoporosis see their gynecologist to discuss HT for a few years, perhaps until age 60 if no contraindications, and if it is well tolerated,” said Ethel S. Siris, MD, professor of medicine at Columbia University Medical Center in New York.

“Once they stop it we can then give one of our other bone drugs, but it delays the need to start them since on adequate estrogen the bone density should remain stable while they take it,” added Dr. Siris, an endocrinologist and internist, and director of the Toni Stabile Osteoporosis Center in New York. “They may need a bisphosphonate or another bone drug to further protect them from bone loss and future fracture [after stopping HT].”

Victor L. Roberts, MD, founder of Endocrine Associates of Florida, Lake Mary, pointed out that women now have many options for treatment of osteoporosis.

“If a woman is in early menopause and is having other symptoms, then estrogen is warranted,” he said. “If she has osteoporosis, then it’s a bonus.”

“We have better agents that are bone specific,” for a patient who presents with osteoporosis and no other symptoms, he said.

“If a woman is intolerant of alendronate or other similar drugs, or chooses not to have an injectable, then estrogen or a SERM [selective estrogen receptor modulator] would be an option.”

Dr. Roberts added that HT would be more of a niche drug.

“It has a role and documented benefit and works,” he said. “There is good scientific data for the use of estrogen.”

Dr. Kagan is a consultant for Pfizer, Therapeutics MD, Amgen, on the Medical and Scientific Advisory Board of American Bone Health. The other  experts interviewed for this piece reported no conflicts.

Doctors’ opinions about whether to treat women with osteoporosis with hormone therapy vary. Guidelines by medical societies including those of the American College of Physicians, on the other hand, generally do not recommend it as a first line therapy for the disease, at least in part due to the risks associated with taking it.

This type of hormone therapy (HT) can be given as estrogen or a combination of hormones including estrogen. The physicians interviewed for this piece who prescribe HT for osteoporosis suggest the benefits outweigh the downsides to its use for some of their patients. But such doctors may be a minority group, suggests Michael R. McClung, MD, founding director of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center, Portland.

According to Dr. McClung, HT is now rarely prescribed as treatment – as opposed to prevention – for osteoporosis in the absence of additional benefits such as reducing vasomotor symptoms.

Researchers’ findings on HT use in women with osteoporosis are complex. While HT is approved for menopausal prevention of osteoporosis, it is not indicated as a treatment for the disease by the Food and Drug Administration. See the prescribing information for Premarin tablets, which contain a mixture of estrogen hormones, for an example of the FDA’s indications and usage for the type of HT addressed in this article.
 

Women’s Health Initiative findings

The Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) hormone therapy trials showed that HT reduces the incidence of all osteoporosis-related fractures in postmenopausal women, even those at low risk of fracture, but osteoporosis-related fractures was not a study endpoint. These trials also revealed that HT was associated with increased risks of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, an increased risk of breast cancer, and other adverse health outcomes.

The release of the interim results of the WHI trials in 2002 led to a fair amount of fear and confusion about the use of HT after menopause. After the WHI findings were published, estrogen use dropped dramatically, but for everything, including for vasomotor symptoms and the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis.

Prior to the WHI study, it was very common for hormone therapy to be prescribed as women neared or entered menopause, said Risa Kagan MD, clinical professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences, University of California, San Francisco.

“When a woman turned 50, that was one of the first things we did – was to put her on hormone therapy. All that changed with the WHI, but now we are coming full circle,” noted Dr. Kagan, who currently prescribes HT as first line treatment for osteoporosis to some women.
 

Hormone therapy’s complex history

HT’s ability to reduce bone loss in postmenopausal women is well-documented in many papers, including one published March 8, 2018, in Osteoporosis International, by Dr. Kagan and colleagues. This reduced bone loss has been shown to significantly reduce fractures in patients with low bone mass and osteoporosis.

While a growing number of therapies are now available to treat osteoporosis, HT was traditionally viewed as a standard method of preventing fractures in this population. It was also widely used to prevent other types of symptoms associated with the menopause, such as hot flashes, night sweats, and sleep disturbances, and multiple observational studies had demonstrated that its use appeared to reduce the incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in symptomatic menopausal women who initiated HT in early menopause.

Even though the WHI studies were the largest randomized trials ever performed in postmenopausal women, they had notable limitations, according to Dr. Kagan.

“The women were older – the average age was 63 years,” she said. “And they only investigated one route and one dose of estrogen.”

Since then, many different formulations and routes of administration with more favorable safety profiles than what was used in the WHI have become available.

It’s both scientifically and clinically unsound to extrapolate the unfavorable risk-benefit profile of HT seen in the WHI trials to all women regardless of age, HT dosage or formulation, or the length of time they’re on it, she added.
 

Today’s use of HT in women with osteoporosis

Re-analyses and follow-up studies from the WHI trials, along with data from other studies, have suggested that the benefit-risk profiles of HT are affected by a variety of factors. These include the timing of use in relation to menopause and chronological age and the type of hormone regimen.

“Clinically, many advocate for [hormone therapy] use, especially in the newer younger postmenopausal women to prevent bone loss, but also in younger women who are diagnosed with osteoporosis and then as they get older transition to more bone specific agents,” noted Dr. Kagan.

“Some advocate preserving bone mass and preventing osteoporosis and even treating the younger newly postmenopausal women who have no contraindications with hormone therapy initially, and then gradually transitioning them to a bone specific agent as they get older and at risk for fracture.

“If a woman is already fractured and/or has very low bone density with no other obvious secondary metabolic reason, we also often advocate anabolic agents for 1-2 years then consider estrogen for maintenance – again, if [there is] no contraindication to using HT,” she added.

Thus, an individualized approach is recommended to determine a woman’s risk-benefit ratio of HT use based on the absolute risk of adverse effects, Dr. Kagan noted.

“Transdermal and low/ultra-low doses of HT, have a favorable risk profile, and are effective in preserving bone mineral density and bone quality in many women,” she said.

According to Dr. McClung, HT “is most often used for treatment in women in whom hormone therapy was begun for hot flashes and then, when osteoporosis was found later, was simply continued.

“Society guidelines are cautious about recommending hormone therapy for osteoporosis treatment since estrogen is not approved for treatment, despite the clear fracture protection benefit observed in the WHI study,” he said. “Since [women in the WHI trials] were not recruited as having osteoporosis, those results do not meet the FDA requirement for treatment approval, namely the reduction in fracture risk in patients with osteoporosis. However, knowing what we know about the salutary skeletal effects of estrogen, many of us do use them in our patients with osteoporosis – although not prescribed for that purpose.”
 

Additional scenarios when doctors may advise HT

“I often recommend – and I think colleagues do as well – that women with recent menopause and menopausal symptoms who also have low bone mineral density or even scores showing osteoporosis see their gynecologist to discuss HT for a few years, perhaps until age 60 if no contraindications, and if it is well tolerated,” said Ethel S. Siris, MD, professor of medicine at Columbia University Medical Center in New York.

“Once they stop it we can then give one of our other bone drugs, but it delays the need to start them since on adequate estrogen the bone density should remain stable while they take it,” added Dr. Siris, an endocrinologist and internist, and director of the Toni Stabile Osteoporosis Center in New York. “They may need a bisphosphonate or another bone drug to further protect them from bone loss and future fracture [after stopping HT].”

Victor L. Roberts, MD, founder of Endocrine Associates of Florida, Lake Mary, pointed out that women now have many options for treatment of osteoporosis.

“If a woman is in early menopause and is having other symptoms, then estrogen is warranted,” he said. “If she has osteoporosis, then it’s a bonus.”

“We have better agents that are bone specific,” for a patient who presents with osteoporosis and no other symptoms, he said.

“If a woman is intolerant of alendronate or other similar drugs, or chooses not to have an injectable, then estrogen or a SERM [selective estrogen receptor modulator] would be an option.”

Dr. Roberts added that HT would be more of a niche drug.

“It has a role and documented benefit and works,” he said. “There is good scientific data for the use of estrogen.”

Dr. Kagan is a consultant for Pfizer, Therapeutics MD, Amgen, on the Medical and Scientific Advisory Board of American Bone Health. The other  experts interviewed for this piece reported no conflicts.

Doctors’ opinions about whether to treat women with osteoporosis with hormone therapy vary. Guidelines by medical societies including those of the American College of Physicians, on the other hand, generally do not recommend it as a first line therapy for the disease, at least in part due to the risks associated with taking it.

This type of hormone therapy (HT) can be given as estrogen or a combination of hormones including estrogen. The physicians interviewed for this piece who prescribe HT for osteoporosis suggest the benefits outweigh the downsides to its use for some of their patients. But such doctors may be a minority group, suggests Michael R. McClung, MD, founding director of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center, Portland.

According to Dr. McClung, HT is now rarely prescribed as treatment – as opposed to prevention – for osteoporosis in the absence of additional benefits such as reducing vasomotor symptoms.

Researchers’ findings on HT use in women with osteoporosis are complex. While HT is approved for menopausal prevention of osteoporosis, it is not indicated as a treatment for the disease by the Food and Drug Administration. See the prescribing information for Premarin tablets, which contain a mixture of estrogen hormones, for an example of the FDA’s indications and usage for the type of HT addressed in this article.
 

Women’s Health Initiative findings

The Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) hormone therapy trials showed that HT reduces the incidence of all osteoporosis-related fractures in postmenopausal women, even those at low risk of fracture, but osteoporosis-related fractures was not a study endpoint. These trials also revealed that HT was associated with increased risks of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, an increased risk of breast cancer, and other adverse health outcomes.

The release of the interim results of the WHI trials in 2002 led to a fair amount of fear and confusion about the use of HT after menopause. After the WHI findings were published, estrogen use dropped dramatically, but for everything, including for vasomotor symptoms and the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis.

Prior to the WHI study, it was very common for hormone therapy to be prescribed as women neared or entered menopause, said Risa Kagan MD, clinical professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences, University of California, San Francisco.

“When a woman turned 50, that was one of the first things we did – was to put her on hormone therapy. All that changed with the WHI, but now we are coming full circle,” noted Dr. Kagan, who currently prescribes HT as first line treatment for osteoporosis to some women.
 

Hormone therapy’s complex history

HT’s ability to reduce bone loss in postmenopausal women is well-documented in many papers, including one published March 8, 2018, in Osteoporosis International, by Dr. Kagan and colleagues. This reduced bone loss has been shown to significantly reduce fractures in patients with low bone mass and osteoporosis.

While a growing number of therapies are now available to treat osteoporosis, HT was traditionally viewed as a standard method of preventing fractures in this population. It was also widely used to prevent other types of symptoms associated with the menopause, such as hot flashes, night sweats, and sleep disturbances, and multiple observational studies had demonstrated that its use appeared to reduce the incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in symptomatic menopausal women who initiated HT in early menopause.

Even though the WHI studies were the largest randomized trials ever performed in postmenopausal women, they had notable limitations, according to Dr. Kagan.

“The women were older – the average age was 63 years,” she said. “And they only investigated one route and one dose of estrogen.”

Since then, many different formulations and routes of administration with more favorable safety profiles than what was used in the WHI have become available.

It’s both scientifically and clinically unsound to extrapolate the unfavorable risk-benefit profile of HT seen in the WHI trials to all women regardless of age, HT dosage or formulation, or the length of time they’re on it, she added.
 

Today’s use of HT in women with osteoporosis

Re-analyses and follow-up studies from the WHI trials, along with data from other studies, have suggested that the benefit-risk profiles of HT are affected by a variety of factors. These include the timing of use in relation to menopause and chronological age and the type of hormone regimen.

“Clinically, many advocate for [hormone therapy] use, especially in the newer younger postmenopausal women to prevent bone loss, but also in younger women who are diagnosed with osteoporosis and then as they get older transition to more bone specific agents,” noted Dr. Kagan.

“Some advocate preserving bone mass and preventing osteoporosis and even treating the younger newly postmenopausal women who have no contraindications with hormone therapy initially, and then gradually transitioning them to a bone specific agent as they get older and at risk for fracture.

“If a woman is already fractured and/or has very low bone density with no other obvious secondary metabolic reason, we also often advocate anabolic agents for 1-2 years then consider estrogen for maintenance – again, if [there is] no contraindication to using HT,” she added.

Thus, an individualized approach is recommended to determine a woman’s risk-benefit ratio of HT use based on the absolute risk of adverse effects, Dr. Kagan noted.

“Transdermal and low/ultra-low doses of HT, have a favorable risk profile, and are effective in preserving bone mineral density and bone quality in many women,” she said.

According to Dr. McClung, HT “is most often used for treatment in women in whom hormone therapy was begun for hot flashes and then, when osteoporosis was found later, was simply continued.

“Society guidelines are cautious about recommending hormone therapy for osteoporosis treatment since estrogen is not approved for treatment, despite the clear fracture protection benefit observed in the WHI study,” he said. “Since [women in the WHI trials] were not recruited as having osteoporosis, those results do not meet the FDA requirement for treatment approval, namely the reduction in fracture risk in patients with osteoporosis. However, knowing what we know about the salutary skeletal effects of estrogen, many of us do use them in our patients with osteoporosis – although not prescribed for that purpose.”
 

Additional scenarios when doctors may advise HT

“I often recommend – and I think colleagues do as well – that women with recent menopause and menopausal symptoms who also have low bone mineral density or even scores showing osteoporosis see their gynecologist to discuss HT for a few years, perhaps until age 60 if no contraindications, and if it is well tolerated,” said Ethel S. Siris, MD, professor of medicine at Columbia University Medical Center in New York.

“Once they stop it we can then give one of our other bone drugs, but it delays the need to start them since on adequate estrogen the bone density should remain stable while they take it,” added Dr. Siris, an endocrinologist and internist, and director of the Toni Stabile Osteoporosis Center in New York. “They may need a bisphosphonate or another bone drug to further protect them from bone loss and future fracture [after stopping HT].”

Victor L. Roberts, MD, founder of Endocrine Associates of Florida, Lake Mary, pointed out that women now have many options for treatment of osteoporosis.

“If a woman is in early menopause and is having other symptoms, then estrogen is warranted,” he said. “If she has osteoporosis, then it’s a bonus.”

“We have better agents that are bone specific,” for a patient who presents with osteoporosis and no other symptoms, he said.

“If a woman is intolerant of alendronate or other similar drugs, or chooses not to have an injectable, then estrogen or a SERM [selective estrogen receptor modulator] would be an option.”

Dr. Roberts added that HT would be more of a niche drug.

“It has a role and documented benefit and works,” he said. “There is good scientific data for the use of estrogen.”

Dr. Kagan is a consultant for Pfizer, Therapeutics MD, Amgen, on the Medical and Scientific Advisory Board of American Bone Health. The other  experts interviewed for this piece reported no conflicts.

The American College of Cardiology has issued an expert consensus clinical guidance document for the evaluation and management of adults with key cardiovascular consequences of COVID-19.

The document makes recommendations on how to evaluate and manage COVID-associated myocarditis and long COVID and gives advice on resumption of exercise following COVID-19 infection.

The clinical guidance was published online March 16 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

AlexLMX/Getty Images

“The best means to diagnose and treat myocarditis and long COVID following SARS-CoV-2 infection continues to evolve,” said Ty Gluckman, MD, MHA, cochair of the expert consensus decision pathway. “This document attempts to provide key recommendations for how to evaluate and manage adults with these conditions, including guidance for safe return to play for both competitive and noncompetitive athletes.”

The authors of the guidance note that COVID-19 can be associated with various abnormalities in cardiac testing and a wide range of cardiovascular complications. For some patients, cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, and palpitations persist, lasting months after the initial illness, and evidence of myocardial injury has also been observed in both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, as well as after receipt of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. 

“For clinicians treating these individuals, a growing number of questions exist related to evaluation and management of these conditions, as well as safe resumption of physical activity,” they say. This report is intended to provide practical guidance on these issues.
 

Myocarditis

The report states that myocarditis has been recognized as a rare but serious complication of SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as COVID-19 mRNA vaccination.

It defines myocarditis as: 1.cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, dyspnea, palpitations, or syncope; 2. elevated cardiac troponin; and 3. abnormal electrocardiographic, echocardiographic, cardiac MRI, and/or histopathologic findings on biopsy.

The document makes the following recommendations in regard to COVID-related myocarditis:

When there is increased suspicion for cardiac involvement with COVID-19, initial testing should consist of an ECG, measurement of cardiac troponin, and an echocardiogram. Cardiology consultation is recommended for those with a rising cardiac troponin and/or echocardiographic abnormalities. Cardiac MRI is recommended in hemodynamically stable patients with suspected myocarditis.

Hospitalization is recommended for patients with definite myocarditis, ideally at an advanced heart failure center. Patients with fulminant myocarditis should be managed at centers with an expertise in advanced heart failure, mechanical circulatory support, and other advanced therapies.

Patients with myocarditis and COVID-19 pneumonia (with an ongoing need for supplemental oxygen) should be treated with corticosteroids. For patients with suspected pericardial involvement, treatment with NSAIDs, colchicine, and/or prednisone is reasonable. Intravenous corticosteroids may be considered in those with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 myocarditis with hemodynamic compromise or MIS-A (multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults). Empiric use of corticosteroids may also be considered in those with biopsy evidence of severe myocardial infiltrates or fulminant myocarditis, balanced against infection risk.

As appropriate, guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure should be initiated and continued after discharge.

The document notes that myocarditis following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination is rare, with highest rates seen in young males after the second vaccine dose. As of May 22, 2021, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System noted rates of 40.6 cases per million after the second vaccine dose among male individuals aged 12-29 years and 2.4 cases per million among male individuals aged 30 and older. Corresponding rates in female individuals were 4.2 and 1 cases per million, respectively.

But the report says that COVID-19 vaccination is associated with “a very favorable benefit-to-risk ratio” for all age and sex groups evaluated thus far.

In general, vaccine-associated myocarditis should be diagnosed, categorized, and treated in a manner analogous to myocarditis following SARS-CoV-2 infection, the guidance advises.
 

Long COVID

The document refers to long COVID as postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), and reports that this condition is experienced by up to 10%-30% of infected individuals. It is defined by a constellation of new, returning, or persistent health problems experienced by individuals 4 or more weeks after COVID-19 infection.

Although individuals with this condition may experience wide-ranging symptoms, the symptoms that draw increased attention to the cardiovascular system include tachycardia, exercise intolerance, chest pain, and shortness of breath.

Nicole Bhave, MD, cochair of the expert consensus decision pathway, says: “There appears to be a ‘downward spiral’ for long-COVID patients. Fatigue and decreased exercise capacity lead to diminished activity and bed rest, in turn leading to worsening symptoms and decreased quality of life.” She adds that “the writing committee recommends a basic cardiopulmonary evaluation performed up front to determine if further specialty care and formalized medical therapy is needed for these patients.”

The authors propose two terms to better understand potential etiologies for those with cardiovascular symptoms:

PASC-CVD, or PASC-cardiovascular disease, refers to a broad group of cardiovascular conditions (including myocarditis) that manifest at least 4 weeks after COVID-19 infection.

PASC-CVS, or PASC-cardiovascular syndrome, includes a wide range of cardiovascular symptoms without objective evidence of cardiovascular disease following standard diagnostic testing.

The document makes the following recommendations for the management of PASC-CVD and PASC-CVS.

For patients with cardiovascular symptoms and suspected PASC, the authors suggest that a reasonable initial testing approach includes basic laboratory testing, including cardiac troponin, an ECG, an echocardiogram, an ambulatory rhythm monitor, chest imaging, and/or pulmonary function tests.

Cardiology consultation is recommended for patients with PASC who have abnormal cardiac test results, known cardiovascular disease with new or worsening symptoms, documented cardiac complications during SARS-CoV-2 infection, and/or persistent cardiopulmonary symptoms that are not otherwise explained.

Recumbent or semirecumbent exercise (for example, rowing, swimming, or cycling) is recommended initially for PASC-CVS patients with tachycardia, exercise/orthostatic intolerance, and/or deconditioning, with transition to upright exercise as orthostatic intolerance improves. Exercise duration should also be short (5-10 minutes/day) initially, with gradual increases as functional capacity improves.

Salt and fluid loading represent nonpharmacologic interventions that may provide symptomatic relief for patients with tachycardia, palpitations, and/or orthostatic hypotension.

Beta-blockers, nondihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers, ivabradine, fludrocortisone, and midodrine may be used empirically as well.
 

Return to play for athletes

The authors note that concerns about possible cardiac injury after COVID-19 fueled early apprehension regarding the safety of competitive sports for athletes recovering from the infection.

But they say that subsequent data from large registries have demonstrated an overall low prevalence of clinical myocarditis, without a rise in the rate of adverse cardiac events. Based on this, updated guidance is provided with a practical, evidence-based framework to guide resumption of athletics and intense exercise training.

They make the following recommendations:

• For athletes recovering from COVID-19 with ongoing cardiopulmonary symptoms (chest pain, shortness of breath, palpitations, lightheadedness) or those requiring hospitalization with increased suspicion for cardiac involvement, further evaluation with triad testing – an ECG, measurement of cardiac troponin, and an echocardiogram – should be performed.
• For those with abnormal test results, further evaluation with cardiac MRI should be considered. Individuals diagnosed with clinical myocarditis should abstain from exercise for 3-6 months.
• Cardiac testing is not recommended for asymptomatic individuals following COVID-19 infection. Individuals should abstain from training for 3 days to ensure that symptoms do not develop.
• For those with mild or moderate noncardiopulmonary symptoms (fever, lethargy, muscle aches), training may resume after symptom resolution.
• For those with remote infection (≥3 months) without ongoing cardiopulmonary symptoms, a gradual increase in exercise is recommended without the need for cardiac testing.

Based on the low prevalence of myocarditis observed in competitive athletes with COVID-19, the authors note that these recommendations can be reasonably applied to high-school athletes (aged 14 and older) along with adult recreational exercise enthusiasts.

Future study is needed, however, to better understand how long cardiac abnormalities persist following COVID-19 infection and the role of exercise training in long COVID.

The authors conclude that the current guidance is intended to help clinicians understand not only when testing may be warranted, but also when it is not.

“Given that it reflects the current state of knowledge through early 2022, it is anticipated that recommendations will change over time as our understanding evolves,” they say.

The 2022 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Cardiovascular Sequelae of COVID-19: Myocarditis, Post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 Infection (PASC), and Return to Play will be discussed in a session at the American College of Cardiology’s annual scientific session meeting in Washington in April.

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

The American College of Cardiology has issued an expert consensus clinical guidance document for the evaluation and management of adults with key cardiovascular consequences of COVID-19.

The document makes recommendations on how to evaluate and manage COVID-associated myocarditis and long COVID and gives advice on resumption of exercise following COVID-19 infection.

The clinical guidance was published online March 16 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

AlexLMX/Getty Images

“The best means to diagnose and treat myocarditis and long COVID following SARS-CoV-2 infection continues to evolve,” said Ty Gluckman, MD, MHA, cochair of the expert consensus decision pathway. “This document attempts to provide key recommendations for how to evaluate and manage adults with these conditions, including guidance for safe return to play for both competitive and noncompetitive athletes.”

The authors of the guidance note that COVID-19 can be associated with various abnormalities in cardiac testing and a wide range of cardiovascular complications. For some patients, cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, and palpitations persist, lasting months after the initial illness, and evidence of myocardial injury has also been observed in both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, as well as after receipt of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. 

“For clinicians treating these individuals, a growing number of questions exist related to evaluation and management of these conditions, as well as safe resumption of physical activity,” they say. This report is intended to provide practical guidance on these issues.
 

Myocarditis

The report states that myocarditis has been recognized as a rare but serious complication of SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as COVID-19 mRNA vaccination.

It defines myocarditis as: 1.cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, dyspnea, palpitations, or syncope; 2. elevated cardiac troponin; and 3. abnormal electrocardiographic, echocardiographic, cardiac MRI, and/or histopathologic findings on biopsy.

The document makes the following recommendations in regard to COVID-related myocarditis:

When there is increased suspicion for cardiac involvement with COVID-19, initial testing should consist of an ECG, measurement of cardiac troponin, and an echocardiogram. Cardiology consultation is recommended for those with a rising cardiac troponin and/or echocardiographic abnormalities. Cardiac MRI is recommended in hemodynamically stable patients with suspected myocarditis.

Hospitalization is recommended for patients with definite myocarditis, ideally at an advanced heart failure center. Patients with fulminant myocarditis should be managed at centers with an expertise in advanced heart failure, mechanical circulatory support, and other advanced therapies.

Patients with myocarditis and COVID-19 pneumonia (with an ongoing need for supplemental oxygen) should be treated with corticosteroids. For patients with suspected pericardial involvement, treatment with NSAIDs, colchicine, and/or prednisone is reasonable. Intravenous corticosteroids may be considered in those with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 myocarditis with hemodynamic compromise or MIS-A (multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults). Empiric use of corticosteroids may also be considered in those with biopsy evidence of severe myocardial infiltrates or fulminant myocarditis, balanced against infection risk.

As appropriate, guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure should be initiated and continued after discharge.

The document notes that myocarditis following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination is rare, with highest rates seen in young males after the second vaccine dose. As of May 22, 2021, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System noted rates of 40.6 cases per million after the second vaccine dose among male individuals aged 12-29 years and 2.4 cases per million among male individuals aged 30 and older. Corresponding rates in female individuals were 4.2 and 1 cases per million, respectively.

But the report says that COVID-19 vaccination is associated with “a very favorable benefit-to-risk ratio” for all age and sex groups evaluated thus far.

In general, vaccine-associated myocarditis should be diagnosed, categorized, and treated in a manner analogous to myocarditis following SARS-CoV-2 infection, the guidance advises.
 

Long COVID

The document refers to long COVID as postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), and reports that this condition is experienced by up to 10%-30% of infected individuals. It is defined by a constellation of new, returning, or persistent health problems experienced by individuals 4 or more weeks after COVID-19 infection.

Although individuals with this condition may experience wide-ranging symptoms, the symptoms that draw increased attention to the cardiovascular system include tachycardia, exercise intolerance, chest pain, and shortness of breath.

Nicole Bhave, MD, cochair of the expert consensus decision pathway, says: “There appears to be a ‘downward spiral’ for long-COVID patients. Fatigue and decreased exercise capacity lead to diminished activity and bed rest, in turn leading to worsening symptoms and decreased quality of life.” She adds that “the writing committee recommends a basic cardiopulmonary evaluation performed up front to determine if further specialty care and formalized medical therapy is needed for these patients.”

The authors propose two terms to better understand potential etiologies for those with cardiovascular symptoms:

PASC-CVD, or PASC-cardiovascular disease, refers to a broad group of cardiovascular conditions (including myocarditis) that manifest at least 4 weeks after COVID-19 infection.

PASC-CVS, or PASC-cardiovascular syndrome, includes a wide range of cardiovascular symptoms without objective evidence of cardiovascular disease following standard diagnostic testing.

The document makes the following recommendations for the management of PASC-CVD and PASC-CVS.

For patients with cardiovascular symptoms and suspected PASC, the authors suggest that a reasonable initial testing approach includes basic laboratory testing, including cardiac troponin, an ECG, an echocardiogram, an ambulatory rhythm monitor, chest imaging, and/or pulmonary function tests.

Cardiology consultation is recommended for patients with PASC who have abnormal cardiac test results, known cardiovascular disease with new or worsening symptoms, documented cardiac complications during SARS-CoV-2 infection, and/or persistent cardiopulmonary symptoms that are not otherwise explained.

Recumbent or semirecumbent exercise (for example, rowing, swimming, or cycling) is recommended initially for PASC-CVS patients with tachycardia, exercise/orthostatic intolerance, and/or deconditioning, with transition to upright exercise as orthostatic intolerance improves. Exercise duration should also be short (5-10 minutes/day) initially, with gradual increases as functional capacity improves.

Salt and fluid loading represent nonpharmacologic interventions that may provide symptomatic relief for patients with tachycardia, palpitations, and/or orthostatic hypotension.

Beta-blockers, nondihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers, ivabradine, fludrocortisone, and midodrine may be used empirically as well.
 

Return to play for athletes

The authors note that concerns about possible cardiac injury after COVID-19 fueled early apprehension regarding the safety of competitive sports for athletes recovering from the infection.

But they say that subsequent data from large registries have demonstrated an overall low prevalence of clinical myocarditis, without a rise in the rate of adverse cardiac events. Based on this, updated guidance is provided with a practical, evidence-based framework to guide resumption of athletics and intense exercise training.

They make the following recommendations:

• For athletes recovering from COVID-19 with ongoing cardiopulmonary symptoms (chest pain, shortness of breath, palpitations, lightheadedness) or those requiring hospitalization with increased suspicion for cardiac involvement, further evaluation with triad testing – an ECG, measurement of cardiac troponin, and an echocardiogram – should be performed.
• For those with abnormal test results, further evaluation with cardiac MRI should be considered. Individuals diagnosed with clinical myocarditis should abstain from exercise for 3-6 months.
• Cardiac testing is not recommended for asymptomatic individuals following COVID-19 infection. Individuals should abstain from training for 3 days to ensure that symptoms do not develop.
• For those with mild or moderate noncardiopulmonary symptoms (fever, lethargy, muscle aches), training may resume after symptom resolution.
• For those with remote infection (≥3 months) without ongoing cardiopulmonary symptoms, a gradual increase in exercise is recommended without the need for cardiac testing.

Based on the low prevalence of myocarditis observed in competitive athletes with COVID-19, the authors note that these recommendations can be reasonably applied to high-school athletes (aged 14 and older) along with adult recreational exercise enthusiasts.

Future study is needed, however, to better understand how long cardiac abnormalities persist following COVID-19 infection and the role of exercise training in long COVID.

The authors conclude that the current guidance is intended to help clinicians understand not only when testing may be warranted, but also when it is not.

“Given that it reflects the current state of knowledge through early 2022, it is anticipated that recommendations will change over time as our understanding evolves,” they say.

The 2022 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Cardiovascular Sequelae of COVID-19: Myocarditis, Post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 Infection (PASC), and Return to Play will be discussed in a session at the American College of Cardiology’s annual scientific session meeting in Washington in April.

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

The American College of Cardiology has issued an expert consensus clinical guidance document for the evaluation and management of adults with key cardiovascular consequences of COVID-19.

The document makes recommendations on how to evaluate and manage COVID-associated myocarditis and long COVID and gives advice on resumption of exercise following COVID-19 infection.

The clinical guidance was published online March 16 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

AlexLMX/Getty Images

“The best means to diagnose and treat myocarditis and long COVID following SARS-CoV-2 infection continues to evolve,” said Ty Gluckman, MD, MHA, cochair of the expert consensus decision pathway. “This document attempts to provide key recommendations for how to evaluate and manage adults with these conditions, including guidance for safe return to play for both competitive and noncompetitive athletes.”

The authors of the guidance note that COVID-19 can be associated with various abnormalities in cardiac testing and a wide range of cardiovascular complications. For some patients, cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, and palpitations persist, lasting months after the initial illness, and evidence of myocardial injury has also been observed in both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, as well as after receipt of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. 

“For clinicians treating these individuals, a growing number of questions exist related to evaluation and management of these conditions, as well as safe resumption of physical activity,” they say. This report is intended to provide practical guidance on these issues.
 

Myocarditis

The report states that myocarditis has been recognized as a rare but serious complication of SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as COVID-19 mRNA vaccination.

It defines myocarditis as: 1.cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, dyspnea, palpitations, or syncope; 2. elevated cardiac troponin; and 3. abnormal electrocardiographic, echocardiographic, cardiac MRI, and/or histopathologic findings on biopsy.

The document makes the following recommendations in regard to COVID-related myocarditis:

When there is increased suspicion for cardiac involvement with COVID-19, initial testing should consist of an ECG, measurement of cardiac troponin, and an echocardiogram. Cardiology consultation is recommended for those with a rising cardiac troponin and/or echocardiographic abnormalities. Cardiac MRI is recommended in hemodynamically stable patients with suspected myocarditis.

Hospitalization is recommended for patients with definite myocarditis, ideally at an advanced heart failure center. Patients with fulminant myocarditis should be managed at centers with an expertise in advanced heart failure, mechanical circulatory support, and other advanced therapies.

Patients with myocarditis and COVID-19 pneumonia (with an ongoing need for supplemental oxygen) should be treated with corticosteroids. For patients with suspected pericardial involvement, treatment with NSAIDs, colchicine, and/or prednisone is reasonable. Intravenous corticosteroids may be considered in those with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 myocarditis with hemodynamic compromise or MIS-A (multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults). Empiric use of corticosteroids may also be considered in those with biopsy evidence of severe myocardial infiltrates or fulminant myocarditis, balanced against infection risk.

As appropriate, guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure should be initiated and continued after discharge.

The document notes that myocarditis following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination is rare, with highest rates seen in young males after the second vaccine dose. As of May 22, 2021, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System noted rates of 40.6 cases per million after the second vaccine dose among male individuals aged 12-29 years and 2.4 cases per million among male individuals aged 30 and older. Corresponding rates in female individuals were 4.2 and 1 cases per million, respectively.

But the report says that COVID-19 vaccination is associated with “a very favorable benefit-to-risk ratio” for all age and sex groups evaluated thus far.

In general, vaccine-associated myocarditis should be diagnosed, categorized, and treated in a manner analogous to myocarditis following SARS-CoV-2 infection, the guidance advises.
 

Long COVID

The document refers to long COVID as postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), and reports that this condition is experienced by up to 10%-30% of infected individuals. It is defined by a constellation of new, returning, or persistent health problems experienced by individuals 4 or more weeks after COVID-19 infection.

Although individuals with this condition may experience wide-ranging symptoms, the symptoms that draw increased attention to the cardiovascular system include tachycardia, exercise intolerance, chest pain, and shortness of breath.

Nicole Bhave, MD, cochair of the expert consensus decision pathway, says: “There appears to be a ‘downward spiral’ for long-COVID patients. Fatigue and decreased exercise capacity lead to diminished activity and bed rest, in turn leading to worsening symptoms and decreased quality of life.” She adds that “the writing committee recommends a basic cardiopulmonary evaluation performed up front to determine if further specialty care and formalized medical therapy is needed for these patients.”

The authors propose two terms to better understand potential etiologies for those with cardiovascular symptoms:

PASC-CVD, or PASC-cardiovascular disease, refers to a broad group of cardiovascular conditions (including myocarditis) that manifest at least 4 weeks after COVID-19 infection.

PASC-CVS, or PASC-cardiovascular syndrome, includes a wide range of cardiovascular symptoms without objective evidence of cardiovascular disease following standard diagnostic testing.

The document makes the following recommendations for the management of PASC-CVD and PASC-CVS.

For patients with cardiovascular symptoms and suspected PASC, the authors suggest that a reasonable initial testing approach includes basic laboratory testing, including cardiac troponin, an ECG, an echocardiogram, an ambulatory rhythm monitor, chest imaging, and/or pulmonary function tests.

Cardiology consultation is recommended for patients with PASC who have abnormal cardiac test results, known cardiovascular disease with new or worsening symptoms, documented cardiac complications during SARS-CoV-2 infection, and/or persistent cardiopulmonary symptoms that are not otherwise explained.

Recumbent or semirecumbent exercise (for example, rowing, swimming, or cycling) is recommended initially for PASC-CVS patients with tachycardia, exercise/orthostatic intolerance, and/or deconditioning, with transition to upright exercise as orthostatic intolerance improves. Exercise duration should also be short (5-10 minutes/day) initially, with gradual increases as functional capacity improves.

Salt and fluid loading represent nonpharmacologic interventions that may provide symptomatic relief for patients with tachycardia, palpitations, and/or orthostatic hypotension.

Beta-blockers, nondihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers, ivabradine, fludrocortisone, and midodrine may be used empirically as well.
 

Return to play for athletes

The authors note that concerns about possible cardiac injury after COVID-19 fueled early apprehension regarding the safety of competitive sports for athletes recovering from the infection.

But they say that subsequent data from large registries have demonstrated an overall low prevalence of clinical myocarditis, without a rise in the rate of adverse cardiac events. Based on this, updated guidance is provided with a practical, evidence-based framework to guide resumption of athletics and intense exercise training.

They make the following recommendations:

• For athletes recovering from COVID-19 with ongoing cardiopulmonary symptoms (chest pain, shortness of breath, palpitations, lightheadedness) or those requiring hospitalization with increased suspicion for cardiac involvement, further evaluation with triad testing – an ECG, measurement of cardiac troponin, and an echocardiogram – should be performed.
• For those with abnormal test results, further evaluation with cardiac MRI should be considered. Individuals diagnosed with clinical myocarditis should abstain from exercise for 3-6 months.
• Cardiac testing is not recommended for asymptomatic individuals following COVID-19 infection. Individuals should abstain from training for 3 days to ensure that symptoms do not develop.
• For those with mild or moderate noncardiopulmonary symptoms (fever, lethargy, muscle aches), training may resume after symptom resolution.
• For those with remote infection (≥3 months) without ongoing cardiopulmonary symptoms, a gradual increase in exercise is recommended without the need for cardiac testing.

Based on the low prevalence of myocarditis observed in competitive athletes with COVID-19, the authors note that these recommendations can be reasonably applied to high-school athletes (aged 14 and older) along with adult recreational exercise enthusiasts.

Future study is needed, however, to better understand how long cardiac abnormalities persist following COVID-19 infection and the role of exercise training in long COVID.

The authors conclude that the current guidance is intended to help clinicians understand not only when testing may be warranted, but also when it is not.

“Given that it reflects the current state of knowledge through early 2022, it is anticipated that recommendations will change over time as our understanding evolves,” they say.

The 2022 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Cardiovascular Sequelae of COVID-19: Myocarditis, Post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 Infection (PASC), and Return to Play will be discussed in a session at the American College of Cardiology’s annual scientific session meeting in Washington in April.

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

Lichen planus (LP) is a chronic, pruritic, inflammatory disease that can affect the skin, hair, nails, and mucosal surfaces. The exact cause is unknown, but possible causes include medications, dental amalgam fillings, or an autoimmune reaction. Drugs implicated in causing LP include beta-blockers, methyldopa, penicillamine, quinidine, and quinine. A meta-analysis of case-control studies show a statistically significant association between hepatitis C infection and LP patients; thus, all patients presenting with LP should be screened for hepatitis.¹ Individuals of all age groups and races can be affected by LP, but it is predominantly observed in middle-aged adults. Women are also twice as likely to get oral lichen planus.²

Atrophic lichen planus, the least common form of LP, presents as flat, violaceous papules with an atrophic, pale center. Although these papules can be found anywhere on the body, they most commonly affect the trunk and/or legs on areas of the skin previously affected by classical lichen planus.³ In most cases, LP is diagnosed by observing its clinical features. A biopsy is recommended to confirm the diagnosis for more atypical cases.

Courtesy Alaa Erras, University of California, San Diego, and Brooke Resh Sateesh, MD, San Diego Family Dermatology

Histopathology reveals thinning of the epidermis with flattening of the rete ridges, vacuolar degeneration of the basal layer, and a lichenoid mononuclear infiltrate in the papillary dermis.

Courtesy Alaa Erras, University of California, San Diego, and Brooke Resh Sateesh, MD, San Diego Family Dermatology

If the patient is diagnosed with LP but experiences no symptoms, treatment is not needed as LP may resolve spontaneously within 1-2 years. Recurrences are common, however. Lesions may heal with hyperpigmentation. Possible treatments that can help relieve symptoms of pruritus are high potency topical corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, and antihistamines. In more severe and widespread cases, lesions may respond well to systemic corticosteroids or intralesional steroid injections.⁴ Phototherapy is reported to be effective as well. Acitretin, isotretinoin, methotrexate, hydroxychloroquine, and mycophenolate mofetil are all described in the literature. It is important to note that LP on mucous membranes may be more persistent and resistant to treatment.¹

In this patient, a punch biopsy was performed, confirming the diagnosis. The patient was treated with topical and intralesional steroids, as well as a course of prednisone, and her lesions improved with treatment. Hepatitis serologies were negative.

This case and photo were submitted by Ms. Erras of the University of California, San Diego, and Dr. Sateesh, of San Diego Family Dermatology, and edited by Donna Bilu Martin, MD.

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

1. Usatine R, Tinitigan M. Am Fam Physician. 2011 Jul 1;84(1):53-602.

2. Lichen planus, Johns Hopkins Medicine. [Cited 2022 Mar 13.]

3. Atrophic lichen planus, Genetic and Rare Diseases Information Center (GARD) – an NCATS Program. [Cited 2022 Mar 13.]

4. ”Atrophic lichen planus,” Medscape, 2004 Feb 1. [Cited 2022 Mar 13.]

Lichen planus (LP) is a chronic, pruritic, inflammatory disease that can affect the skin, hair, nails, and mucosal surfaces. The exact cause is unknown, but possible causes include medications, dental amalgam fillings, or an autoimmune reaction. Drugs implicated in causing LP include beta-blockers, methyldopa, penicillamine, quinidine, and quinine. A meta-analysis of case-control studies show a statistically significant association between hepatitis C infection and LP patients; thus, all patients presenting with LP should be screened for hepatitis.¹ Individuals of all age groups and races can be affected by LP, but it is predominantly observed in middle-aged adults. Women are also twice as likely to get oral lichen planus.²

Atrophic lichen planus, the least common form of LP, presents as flat, violaceous papules with an atrophic, pale center. Although these papules can be found anywhere on the body, they most commonly affect the trunk and/or legs on areas of the skin previously affected by classical lichen planus.³ In most cases, LP is diagnosed by observing its clinical features. A biopsy is recommended to confirm the diagnosis for more atypical cases.

Courtesy Alaa Erras, University of California, San Diego, and Brooke Resh Sateesh, MD, San Diego Family Dermatology

Histopathology reveals thinning of the epidermis with flattening of the rete ridges, vacuolar degeneration of the basal layer, and a lichenoid mononuclear infiltrate in the papillary dermis.

Courtesy Alaa Erras, University of California, San Diego, and Brooke Resh Sateesh, MD, San Diego Family Dermatology

If the patient is diagnosed with LP but experiences no symptoms, treatment is not needed as LP may resolve spontaneously within 1-2 years. Recurrences are common, however. Lesions may heal with hyperpigmentation. Possible treatments that can help relieve symptoms of pruritus are high potency topical corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, and antihistamines. In more severe and widespread cases, lesions may respond well to systemic corticosteroids or intralesional steroid injections.⁴ Phototherapy is reported to be effective as well. Acitretin, isotretinoin, methotrexate, hydroxychloroquine, and mycophenolate mofetil are all described in the literature. It is important to note that LP on mucous membranes may be more persistent and resistant to treatment.¹

In this patient, a punch biopsy was performed, confirming the diagnosis. The patient was treated with topical and intralesional steroids, as well as a course of prednisone, and her lesions improved with treatment. Hepatitis serologies were negative.

This case and photo were submitted by Ms. Erras of the University of California, San Diego, and Dr. Sateesh, of San Diego Family Dermatology, and edited by Donna Bilu Martin, MD.

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

1. Usatine R, Tinitigan M. Am Fam Physician. 2011 Jul 1;84(1):53-602.

2. Lichen planus, Johns Hopkins Medicine. [Cited 2022 Mar 13.]

3. Atrophic lichen planus, Genetic and Rare Diseases Information Center (GARD) – an NCATS Program. [Cited 2022 Mar 13.]

4. ”Atrophic lichen planus,” Medscape, 2004 Feb 1. [Cited 2022 Mar 13.]

Lichen planus (LP) is a chronic, pruritic, inflammatory disease that can affect the skin, hair, nails, and mucosal surfaces. The exact cause is unknown, but possible causes include medications, dental amalgam fillings, or an autoimmune reaction. Drugs implicated in causing LP include beta-blockers, methyldopa, penicillamine, quinidine, and quinine. A meta-analysis of case-control studies show a statistically significant association between hepatitis C infection and LP patients; thus, all patients presenting with LP should be screened for hepatitis.¹ Individuals of all age groups and races can be affected by LP, but it is predominantly observed in middle-aged adults. Women are also twice as likely to get oral lichen planus.²

Atrophic lichen planus, the least common form of LP, presents as flat, violaceous papules with an atrophic, pale center. Although these papules can be found anywhere on the body, they most commonly affect the trunk and/or legs on areas of the skin previously affected by classical lichen planus.³ In most cases, LP is diagnosed by observing its clinical features. A biopsy is recommended to confirm the diagnosis for more atypical cases.

Courtesy Alaa Erras, University of California, San Diego, and Brooke Resh Sateesh, MD, San Diego Family Dermatology

Histopathology reveals thinning of the epidermis with flattening of the rete ridges, vacuolar degeneration of the basal layer, and a lichenoid mononuclear infiltrate in the papillary dermis.

Courtesy Alaa Erras, University of California, San Diego, and Brooke Resh Sateesh, MD, San Diego Family Dermatology

If the patient is diagnosed with LP but experiences no symptoms, treatment is not needed as LP may resolve spontaneously within 1-2 years. Recurrences are common, however. Lesions may heal with hyperpigmentation. Possible treatments that can help relieve symptoms of pruritus are high potency topical corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, and antihistamines. In more severe and widespread cases, lesions may respond well to systemic corticosteroids or intralesional steroid injections.⁴ Phototherapy is reported to be effective as well. Acitretin, isotretinoin, methotrexate, hydroxychloroquine, and mycophenolate mofetil are all described in the literature. It is important to note that LP on mucous membranes may be more persistent and resistant to treatment.¹

In this patient, a punch biopsy was performed, confirming the diagnosis. The patient was treated with topical and intralesional steroids, as well as a course of prednisone, and her lesions improved with treatment. Hepatitis serologies were negative.

This case and photo were submitted by Ms. Erras of the University of California, San Diego, and Dr. Sateesh, of San Diego Family Dermatology, and edited by Donna Bilu Martin, MD.

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

1. Usatine R, Tinitigan M. Am Fam Physician. 2011 Jul 1;84(1):53-602.

2. Lichen planus, Johns Hopkins Medicine. [Cited 2022 Mar 13.]

3. Atrophic lichen planus, Genetic and Rare Diseases Information Center (GARD) – an NCATS Program. [Cited 2022 Mar 13.]

4. ”Atrophic lichen planus,” Medscape, 2004 Feb 1. [Cited 2022 Mar 13.]

A form of gene therapy has shown significant benefit in men with a severe form of the bleeding disorder hemophilia A.

Significant results were seen 1 year after receiving a single intravenous infusion of valoctocogene roxaparvovec (AAV5-hFVIII-SQ), investigators from the international GENEr8-1 trial reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

‘Truly transformative and liberating’

“If approved, this first-generation gene therapy would offer a new choice for care that could be truly transformative and liberating for eligible men with hemophilia,” writes Courtney D. Thornburg, from the Hemophilia and Thrombosis Treatment Center at Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego, in an accompanying editorial.

Hemophilia A is an X-linked bleeding disorder caused by mutations in the gene encoding for coagulation factor VIII. Although rare, it is nevertheless the most common type, affecting about 12 per 100,000. Hemophilia B affects about 3.7 per 100,000.  

The current treatment for hemophilia A is prophylactic infusions of factor VIII, often given three times per week.

With the gene therapy, such a patient could avoid at least 150 intravenous infusions of prophylactic factor in the span of a year, and have zero bleeds, Dr. Thornburg noted.

Valoctocogene roxaparvovec is an adeno-associated virus 5-based gene therapy vector that expresses a human factor VIII coding sequence, and is designed to correct the central genetic defect in hemophilia A.

Results from the phase 3 open-label trial show that it was associated with improved endogenous clotting factor production, and also a significant decrease in bleeding.

At 49-52 weeks of follow-up, 132 patients in a modified intention-to-treat analysis had a mean increase in factor VIII activity levels of 41.9 IU/dL (P < .001).

In a subgroup of 112 patients, the mean annualized factor concentrate use at 4 weeks decreased by 98.6%, and annualized rates of treated bleeding declined by 83.8% (P < .001 for both comparisons).

“Valoctocogene roxaparvovec gene transfer for severe hemophilia A provided significant increases in factor VIII activity, with reduced bleeding and factor VIII use for most participants over a period of up to 2 years,” conclude the investigators, led by Margareth C. Ozelo, MD, PhD, from the University of Campinas (Brazil).

“We are very enthusiastic about the results of this phase 3 clinical trial,” Dr. Ozelo commented to this news organization.

“It is important to recognize the clinical benefit achieved so far with treatment. During the first year, 90% of study participants had either zero treated bleeds or fewer treated bleeds post infusion than with factor VIII prophylaxis,” she said. “In addition, most of the study participants, including those from the phase 1/2 clinical trial, in the 5-year follow-up remain free of the use of additional prophylactic treatments.”

One issue that remains unanswered is how long the effects may last.

Valoctocogene roxaparvovec is a one-time infusion, she explained. “At least for now, redosing with the same AAV vector is not an option due to the immune response induced.”

“The durability of therapeutic response is one of the critical issues involving this new treatment for hemophilia. Currently, we cannot predict how long the transgene expression will last,” she added.

In the study, Dr. Ozelo and colleagues noted that “expression of the transferred gene appears to decline over time; further study is needed to address whether repeat treatment will be necessary or possible.”

Editorialist Dr. Thornburg touched on this point in an interview with this news organization.

Complete elimination of factor VIII replacement therapy is an ambitious goal, but gene therapy could obviate the need for prophylaxis in a substantial proportion of patients, she said. “Any increase of about 3%-5% in endogenous factor VIII production would eliminate the need for regular preventive treatments, either with regular factor or nonfactor replacements.

“How long that will be sustained is an open question,” she added. “With hemophilia B [factor IX deficiency] we have longer-term data showing quite good sustainability of the treatment, but I think it’s still an open question for hemophilia A.”

Dr. Thornburg also noted that further studies are needed to find similar therapies to benefit women and children with hemophilia, as well as for patients with factor VIII inhibitors, those with immunity to adenoviral vectors, and patients with hemophilia and concomitant liver disease or HIV infection.
 

GENEr8-1 study details and results

The trial was conducted in men 18 and older with severe congenital hemophilia A who had received prophylaxis with factor VIII concentrates for at least 1 year and were negative for factor VIII inhibitors.

The patient sample included 20 men enrolled directly, and 110 participants in a prospective noninterventional study of bleeding episodes, factor VIII infusions, and patient-reported outcomes in individuals with severe hemophilia A.

Participants received one infusion of valoctocogene roxaparvovec, at a dose of 6x10¹³ vector genomes per kilogram of body weight.

They remained on factor VIII prophylaxis for 4 weeks after the infusion of the gene therapy product, but after that factor VIII was used on an as-needed basis.

A total of 134 patients received an infusion and were included in the safety analysis. Two patients who were HIV positive were excluded from the modified intention-to-treat efficacy analysis.

As noted above, the trial met its primary efficacy endpoint of change from baseline in factor VIII activity 49-52 weeks after infusion, and the secondary endpoints of change from baseline to after week 4 in annualized use of factor VIII concentrate and the annualized number of treated bleeding episodes.

The most common adverse event was an elevation in alanine aminotransferase levels, the investigators noted.

These elevations in ALT levels, which have also been seen with gene therapy for hemophilia B, occurred in 85.8% of patients and could be safely managed with immunosuppressants, the authors commented.

Other common adverse events were headache, nausea, and elevations in aspartate aminotransferase levels, each occurring in slightly more than one third of patients.

“Overall, the risk-benefit profile appears favorable,” the team commented.

The study was supported by BioMarin Pharmaceutical. Dr. Ozelo disclosed grant support from the company. Dr. Thornburg disclosed serving as a consultant to BioMarin and others.

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

A form of gene therapy has shown significant benefit in men with a severe form of the bleeding disorder hemophilia A.

Significant results were seen 1 year after receiving a single intravenous infusion of valoctocogene roxaparvovec (AAV5-hFVIII-SQ), investigators from the international GENEr8-1 trial reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

‘Truly transformative and liberating’

“If approved, this first-generation gene therapy would offer a new choice for care that could be truly transformative and liberating for eligible men with hemophilia,” writes Courtney D. Thornburg, from the Hemophilia and Thrombosis Treatment Center at Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego, in an accompanying editorial.

Hemophilia A is an X-linked bleeding disorder caused by mutations in the gene encoding for coagulation factor VIII. Although rare, it is nevertheless the most common type, affecting about 12 per 100,000. Hemophilia B affects about 3.7 per 100,000.  

The current treatment for hemophilia A is prophylactic infusions of factor VIII, often given three times per week.

With the gene therapy, such a patient could avoid at least 150 intravenous infusions of prophylactic factor in the span of a year, and have zero bleeds, Dr. Thornburg noted.

Valoctocogene roxaparvovec is an adeno-associated virus 5-based gene therapy vector that expresses a human factor VIII coding sequence, and is designed to correct the central genetic defect in hemophilia A.

Results from the phase 3 open-label trial show that it was associated with improved endogenous clotting factor production, and also a significant decrease in bleeding.

At 49-52 weeks of follow-up, 132 patients in a modified intention-to-treat analysis had a mean increase in factor VIII activity levels of 41.9 IU/dL (P < .001).

In a subgroup of 112 patients, the mean annualized factor concentrate use at 4 weeks decreased by 98.6%, and annualized rates of treated bleeding declined by 83.8% (P < .001 for both comparisons).

“Valoctocogene roxaparvovec gene transfer for severe hemophilia A provided significant increases in factor VIII activity, with reduced bleeding and factor VIII use for most participants over a period of up to 2 years,” conclude the investigators, led by Margareth C. Ozelo, MD, PhD, from the University of Campinas (Brazil).

“We are very enthusiastic about the results of this phase 3 clinical trial,” Dr. Ozelo commented to this news organization.

“It is important to recognize the clinical benefit achieved so far with treatment. During the first year, 90% of study participants had either zero treated bleeds or fewer treated bleeds post infusion than with factor VIII prophylaxis,” she said. “In addition, most of the study participants, including those from the phase 1/2 clinical trial, in the 5-year follow-up remain free of the use of additional prophylactic treatments.”

One issue that remains unanswered is how long the effects may last.

Valoctocogene roxaparvovec is a one-time infusion, she explained. “At least for now, redosing with the same AAV vector is not an option due to the immune response induced.”

“The durability of therapeutic response is one of the critical issues involving this new treatment for hemophilia. Currently, we cannot predict how long the transgene expression will last,” she added.

In the study, Dr. Ozelo and colleagues noted that “expression of the transferred gene appears to decline over time; further study is needed to address whether repeat treatment will be necessary or possible.”

Editorialist Dr. Thornburg touched on this point in an interview with this news organization.

Complete elimination of factor VIII replacement therapy is an ambitious goal, but gene therapy could obviate the need for prophylaxis in a substantial proportion of patients, she said. “Any increase of about 3%-5% in endogenous factor VIII production would eliminate the need for regular preventive treatments, either with regular factor or nonfactor replacements.

“How long that will be sustained is an open question,” she added. “With hemophilia B [factor IX deficiency] we have longer-term data showing quite good sustainability of the treatment, but I think it’s still an open question for hemophilia A.”

Dr. Thornburg also noted that further studies are needed to find similar therapies to benefit women and children with hemophilia, as well as for patients with factor VIII inhibitors, those with immunity to adenoviral vectors, and patients with hemophilia and concomitant liver disease or HIV infection.
 

GENEr8-1 study details and results

The trial was conducted in men 18 and older with severe congenital hemophilia A who had received prophylaxis with factor VIII concentrates for at least 1 year and were negative for factor VIII inhibitors.

The patient sample included 20 men enrolled directly, and 110 participants in a prospective noninterventional study of bleeding episodes, factor VIII infusions, and patient-reported outcomes in individuals with severe hemophilia A.

Participants received one infusion of valoctocogene roxaparvovec, at a dose of 6x10¹³ vector genomes per kilogram of body weight.

They remained on factor VIII prophylaxis for 4 weeks after the infusion of the gene therapy product, but after that factor VIII was used on an as-needed basis.

A total of 134 patients received an infusion and were included in the safety analysis. Two patients who were HIV positive were excluded from the modified intention-to-treat efficacy analysis.

As noted above, the trial met its primary efficacy endpoint of change from baseline in factor VIII activity 49-52 weeks after infusion, and the secondary endpoints of change from baseline to after week 4 in annualized use of factor VIII concentrate and the annualized number of treated bleeding episodes.

The most common adverse event was an elevation in alanine aminotransferase levels, the investigators noted.

These elevations in ALT levels, which have also been seen with gene therapy for hemophilia B, occurred in 85.8% of patients and could be safely managed with immunosuppressants, the authors commented.

Other common adverse events were headache, nausea, and elevations in aspartate aminotransferase levels, each occurring in slightly more than one third of patients.

“Overall, the risk-benefit profile appears favorable,” the team commented.

The study was supported by BioMarin Pharmaceutical. Dr. Ozelo disclosed grant support from the company. Dr. Thornburg disclosed serving as a consultant to BioMarin and others.

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

A form of gene therapy has shown significant benefit in men with a severe form of the bleeding disorder hemophilia A.

Significant results were seen 1 year after receiving a single intravenous infusion of valoctocogene roxaparvovec (AAV5-hFVIII-SQ), investigators from the international GENEr8-1 trial reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

‘Truly transformative and liberating’

“If approved, this first-generation gene therapy would offer a new choice for care that could be truly transformative and liberating for eligible men with hemophilia,” writes Courtney D. Thornburg, from the Hemophilia and Thrombosis Treatment Center at Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego, in an accompanying editorial.

Hemophilia A is an X-linked bleeding disorder caused by mutations in the gene encoding for coagulation factor VIII. Although rare, it is nevertheless the most common type, affecting about 12 per 100,000. Hemophilia B affects about 3.7 per 100,000.  

The current treatment for hemophilia A is prophylactic infusions of factor VIII, often given three times per week.

With the gene therapy, such a patient could avoid at least 150 intravenous infusions of prophylactic factor in the span of a year, and have zero bleeds, Dr. Thornburg noted.

Valoctocogene roxaparvovec is an adeno-associated virus 5-based gene therapy vector that expresses a human factor VIII coding sequence, and is designed to correct the central genetic defect in hemophilia A.

Results from the phase 3 open-label trial show that it was associated with improved endogenous clotting factor production, and also a significant decrease in bleeding.

At 49-52 weeks of follow-up, 132 patients in a modified intention-to-treat analysis had a mean increase in factor VIII activity levels of 41.9 IU/dL (P < .001).

In a subgroup of 112 patients, the mean annualized factor concentrate use at 4 weeks decreased by 98.6%, and annualized rates of treated bleeding declined by 83.8% (P < .001 for both comparisons).

“Valoctocogene roxaparvovec gene transfer for severe hemophilia A provided significant increases in factor VIII activity, with reduced bleeding and factor VIII use for most participants over a period of up to 2 years,” conclude the investigators, led by Margareth C. Ozelo, MD, PhD, from the University of Campinas (Brazil).

“We are very enthusiastic about the results of this phase 3 clinical trial,” Dr. Ozelo commented to this news organization.

“It is important to recognize the clinical benefit achieved so far with treatment. During the first year, 90% of study participants had either zero treated bleeds or fewer treated bleeds post infusion than with factor VIII prophylaxis,” she said. “In addition, most of the study participants, including those from the phase 1/2 clinical trial, in the 5-year follow-up remain free of the use of additional prophylactic treatments.”

One issue that remains unanswered is how long the effects may last.

Valoctocogene roxaparvovec is a one-time infusion, she explained. “At least for now, redosing with the same AAV vector is not an option due to the immune response induced.”

“The durability of therapeutic response is one of the critical issues involving this new treatment for hemophilia. Currently, we cannot predict how long the transgene expression will last,” she added.

In the study, Dr. Ozelo and colleagues noted that “expression of the transferred gene appears to decline over time; further study is needed to address whether repeat treatment will be necessary or possible.”

Editorialist Dr. Thornburg touched on this point in an interview with this news organization.

Complete elimination of factor VIII replacement therapy is an ambitious goal, but gene therapy could obviate the need for prophylaxis in a substantial proportion of patients, she said. “Any increase of about 3%-5% in endogenous factor VIII production would eliminate the need for regular preventive treatments, either with regular factor or nonfactor replacements.

“How long that will be sustained is an open question,” she added. “With hemophilia B [factor IX deficiency] we have longer-term data showing quite good sustainability of the treatment, but I think it’s still an open question for hemophilia A.”

Dr. Thornburg also noted that further studies are needed to find similar therapies to benefit women and children with hemophilia, as well as for patients with factor VIII inhibitors, those with immunity to adenoviral vectors, and patients with hemophilia and concomitant liver disease or HIV infection.
 

GENEr8-1 study details and results

The trial was conducted in men 18 and older with severe congenital hemophilia A who had received prophylaxis with factor VIII concentrates for at least 1 year and were negative for factor VIII inhibitors.

The patient sample included 20 men enrolled directly, and 110 participants in a prospective noninterventional study of bleeding episodes, factor VIII infusions, and patient-reported outcomes in individuals with severe hemophilia A.

Participants received one infusion of valoctocogene roxaparvovec, at a dose of 6x10¹³ vector genomes per kilogram of body weight.

They remained on factor VIII prophylaxis for 4 weeks after the infusion of the gene therapy product, but after that factor VIII was used on an as-needed basis.

A total of 134 patients received an infusion and were included in the safety analysis. Two patients who were HIV positive were excluded from the modified intention-to-treat efficacy analysis.

As noted above, the trial met its primary efficacy endpoint of change from baseline in factor VIII activity 49-52 weeks after infusion, and the secondary endpoints of change from baseline to after week 4 in annualized use of factor VIII concentrate and the annualized number of treated bleeding episodes.

The most common adverse event was an elevation in alanine aminotransferase levels, the investigators noted.

These elevations in ALT levels, which have also been seen with gene therapy for hemophilia B, occurred in 85.8% of patients and could be safely managed with immunosuppressants, the authors commented.

Other common adverse events were headache, nausea, and elevations in aspartate aminotransferase levels, each occurring in slightly more than one third of patients.

“Overall, the risk-benefit profile appears favorable,” the team commented.

The study was supported by BioMarin Pharmaceutical. Dr. Ozelo disclosed grant support from the company. Dr. Thornburg disclosed serving as a consultant to BioMarin and others.

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

In assessing and managing patients presenting with acute, life-threatening asthma, if the exacerbation does not resolve relatively quickly, clinicians need to start looking for other causes of the patient’s respiratory distress, a review of the literature suggests.

“I think one of the most important points of this review is that asthma is a self-limiting disease, and it’s important to understand that with appropriate treatment and immediate response to it, exacerbations will get better with time,” Orlando Garner, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview.

“So I think one of the key points is, if these exacerbations do not resolve within 24-48 hours, clinicians need to start thinking: ‘This could be something else,’ and not get stuck in the diagnosis that this is an asthmatic patient who is having an exacerbation. If the distress doesn’t resolve within 48 hours, it’s time to look for other clues,” he stressed.

The study was published online in the journal CHEST^®.

Appropriate triage

Appropriate triage is key in the management of acute asthma, Dr. Garner and colleagues pointed out. A simplified severity score for the evaluation of asthma in the ED can help in this regard. Depending on the presence or absence of a number of key signs and symptoms, patients can be readily categorized as having mild, moderate, or severe asthma. “Static assessments and dynamic assessments of acute asthma exacerbation in the ED can also help triage patients,” the authors added.

Static assessment involves assessing the severity at presentation, which in turn determines the aggressiveness of initial treatment. Objective static assessments include the measurement of peak expiratory flow (PEF) or forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁). A severe exacerbation is usually defined as a PEF or an FEV₁ of less than 50%-60% of predicted normal values, the authors noted.

Dynamic assessment is more helpful than static assessment because it gauges response to treatment. “A lack of improvement in expiratory flow rates after initial bronchodilator therapy with continuous or worsening symptoms suggests need for hospitalization,” Dr. Garner and colleagues observed. The main treatment goals for patients with acute asthma are reversal of bronchospasm and correction of hypoxemia.

These are achieved at least initially with conventional agents, such as repeated doses of inhaled short-acting beta₂-agonists, inhaled short-acting anticholinergics, systemic corticosteroids, and occasionally intravenous magnesium sulfate. If there is concomitant hypoxemia, oxygen therapy should be initiated as well. Patients who have evidence of hypercapnic respiratory failure or diaphragmatic fatigue need to be admitted to the intensive care unit, the authors indicated.

For these patients, clinicians need to remember that there are therapies other than inhalers, such as epinephrine and systemic terbutaline. During a life-threatening asthma episode, airflow in the medium and small airways often becomes turbulent, increasing the work of breathing, the researchers pointed out.

Heliox, a combination of helium and oxygen, reduces turbulent flow, they noted, although FiO₂ requirements need to be less than 30% in order for it to work. “Heliox can be used in patients with severe bronchospasm who do not respond to the conventional therapies,” the authors noted, “[but] therapy should be abandoned if there is no clinical improvement after 15 minutes of use.”

Although none of the biologics such as dupilumab (Dupixent) has yet been approved for the treatment of acute exacerbations, Dr. Garner predicts they will become the “future of medicine” for patients with severe asthma as well.
 

Ventilation in life-threatening asthma

Rapid sequence intubation is generally recommended for patients who require mechanical ventilation, but as an alternative, “we are advocating a slower approach, where we get patients to slow down their breathing and relax them with something like ketamine infusions and wait before we given them a paralytic to see if the work of breathing improves,” Dr. Garner said. Bag-mask ventilation should be avoided because it can worsen dynamic hyperinflation or cause barotrauma.

Salvage therapies such as the use of bronchoscopy with N-acetylcysteine instilled directly into the airway is another option in cases in which mucus plugging is considered to be the main driver of airflow limitation.

Asked to comment, Brit Long, MD, an emergency medicine physician at the Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, Tex., felt the review was extremely useful and well done.

“We see these patients very frequently, and being able to assess them right away and get an accurate picture of what’s going on is very important,” he said in an interview. The one thing that is often more difficult, at least in the ED, is obtaining a PEF or the FEV₁ – “both very helpful if the patient can do them, but if the patient is critically ill, it’s more likely you will not be able to get those assessments, and if patients are speaking in one-word sentences and are working really hard to breathe, that’s a severe exacerbation, and they need immediate intervention.” Dr. Long also liked all the essential treatments the authors recommended that patients be given immediately, although he noted that Heliox is not going to be available in most EDs.

On the other hand, he agreed with the authors’ recommendation to take a slower approach to mechanical ventilation, if it is needed at all. “I try my best to absolutely avoid intubating these patients – you are not fixing the issue with mechanical ventilation, you are just creating further problems.

“And while I see the entire spectrum of asthma patients from very mild to severe patients, these authors did a good job in explaining what the goals of treatment are and what to do with the severe ones,” he said.

Dr. Garner and Dr. Long disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In assessing and managing patients presenting with acute, life-threatening asthma, if the exacerbation does not resolve relatively quickly, clinicians need to start looking for other causes of the patient’s respiratory distress, a review of the literature suggests.

“I think one of the most important points of this review is that asthma is a self-limiting disease, and it’s important to understand that with appropriate treatment and immediate response to it, exacerbations will get better with time,” Orlando Garner, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview.

“So I think one of the key points is, if these exacerbations do not resolve within 24-48 hours, clinicians need to start thinking: ‘This could be something else,’ and not get stuck in the diagnosis that this is an asthmatic patient who is having an exacerbation. If the distress doesn’t resolve within 48 hours, it’s time to look for other clues,” he stressed.

The study was published online in the journal CHEST^®.

Appropriate triage

Appropriate triage is key in the management of acute asthma, Dr. Garner and colleagues pointed out. A simplified severity score for the evaluation of asthma in the ED can help in this regard. Depending on the presence or absence of a number of key signs and symptoms, patients can be readily categorized as having mild, moderate, or severe asthma. “Static assessments and dynamic assessments of acute asthma exacerbation in the ED can also help triage patients,” the authors added.

Static assessment involves assessing the severity at presentation, which in turn determines the aggressiveness of initial treatment. Objective static assessments include the measurement of peak expiratory flow (PEF) or forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁). A severe exacerbation is usually defined as a PEF or an FEV₁ of less than 50%-60% of predicted normal values, the authors noted.

Dynamic assessment is more helpful than static assessment because it gauges response to treatment. “A lack of improvement in expiratory flow rates after initial bronchodilator therapy with continuous or worsening symptoms suggests need for hospitalization,” Dr. Garner and colleagues observed. The main treatment goals for patients with acute asthma are reversal of bronchospasm and correction of hypoxemia.

These are achieved at least initially with conventional agents, such as repeated doses of inhaled short-acting beta₂-agonists, inhaled short-acting anticholinergics, systemic corticosteroids, and occasionally intravenous magnesium sulfate. If there is concomitant hypoxemia, oxygen therapy should be initiated as well. Patients who have evidence of hypercapnic respiratory failure or diaphragmatic fatigue need to be admitted to the intensive care unit, the authors indicated.

For these patients, clinicians need to remember that there are therapies other than inhalers, such as epinephrine and systemic terbutaline. During a life-threatening asthma episode, airflow in the medium and small airways often becomes turbulent, increasing the work of breathing, the researchers pointed out.

Heliox, a combination of helium and oxygen, reduces turbulent flow, they noted, although FiO₂ requirements need to be less than 30% in order for it to work. “Heliox can be used in patients with severe bronchospasm who do not respond to the conventional therapies,” the authors noted, “[but] therapy should be abandoned if there is no clinical improvement after 15 minutes of use.”

Although none of the biologics such as dupilumab (Dupixent) has yet been approved for the treatment of acute exacerbations, Dr. Garner predicts they will become the “future of medicine” for patients with severe asthma as well.
 

Ventilation in life-threatening asthma

Rapid sequence intubation is generally recommended for patients who require mechanical ventilation, but as an alternative, “we are advocating a slower approach, where we get patients to slow down their breathing and relax them with something like ketamine infusions and wait before we given them a paralytic to see if the work of breathing improves,” Dr. Garner said. Bag-mask ventilation should be avoided because it can worsen dynamic hyperinflation or cause barotrauma.

Salvage therapies such as the use of bronchoscopy with N-acetylcysteine instilled directly into the airway is another option in cases in which mucus plugging is considered to be the main driver of airflow limitation.

Asked to comment, Brit Long, MD, an emergency medicine physician at the Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, Tex., felt the review was extremely useful and well done.

“We see these patients very frequently, and being able to assess them right away and get an accurate picture of what’s going on is very important,” he said in an interview. The one thing that is often more difficult, at least in the ED, is obtaining a PEF or the FEV₁ – “both very helpful if the patient can do them, but if the patient is critically ill, it’s more likely you will not be able to get those assessments, and if patients are speaking in one-word sentences and are working really hard to breathe, that’s a severe exacerbation, and they need immediate intervention.” Dr. Long also liked all the essential treatments the authors recommended that patients be given immediately, although he noted that Heliox is not going to be available in most EDs.

On the other hand, he agreed with the authors’ recommendation to take a slower approach to mechanical ventilation, if it is needed at all. “I try my best to absolutely avoid intubating these patients – you are not fixing the issue with mechanical ventilation, you are just creating further problems.

“And while I see the entire spectrum of asthma patients from very mild to severe patients, these authors did a good job in explaining what the goals of treatment are and what to do with the severe ones,” he said.

Dr. Garner and Dr. Long disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In assessing and managing patients presenting with acute, life-threatening asthma, if the exacerbation does not resolve relatively quickly, clinicians need to start looking for other causes of the patient’s respiratory distress, a review of the literature suggests.

“I think one of the most important points of this review is that asthma is a self-limiting disease, and it’s important to understand that with appropriate treatment and immediate response to it, exacerbations will get better with time,” Orlando Garner, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview.

“So I think one of the key points is, if these exacerbations do not resolve within 24-48 hours, clinicians need to start thinking: ‘This could be something else,’ and not get stuck in the diagnosis that this is an asthmatic patient who is having an exacerbation. If the distress doesn’t resolve within 48 hours, it’s time to look for other clues,” he stressed.

The study was published online in the journal CHEST^®.

Appropriate triage

Appropriate triage is key in the management of acute asthma, Dr. Garner and colleagues pointed out. A simplified severity score for the evaluation of asthma in the ED can help in this regard. Depending on the presence or absence of a number of key signs and symptoms, patients can be readily categorized as having mild, moderate, or severe asthma. “Static assessments and dynamic assessments of acute asthma exacerbation in the ED can also help triage patients,” the authors added.

Static assessment involves assessing the severity at presentation, which in turn determines the aggressiveness of initial treatment. Objective static assessments include the measurement of peak expiratory flow (PEF) or forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁). A severe exacerbation is usually defined as a PEF or an FEV₁ of less than 50%-60% of predicted normal values, the authors noted.

Dynamic assessment is more helpful than static assessment because it gauges response to treatment. “A lack of improvement in expiratory flow rates after initial bronchodilator therapy with continuous or worsening symptoms suggests need for hospitalization,” Dr. Garner and colleagues observed. The main treatment goals for patients with acute asthma are reversal of bronchospasm and correction of hypoxemia.

These are achieved at least initially with conventional agents, such as repeated doses of inhaled short-acting beta₂-agonists, inhaled short-acting anticholinergics, systemic corticosteroids, and occasionally intravenous magnesium sulfate. If there is concomitant hypoxemia, oxygen therapy should be initiated as well. Patients who have evidence of hypercapnic respiratory failure or diaphragmatic fatigue need to be admitted to the intensive care unit, the authors indicated.

For these patients, clinicians need to remember that there are therapies other than inhalers, such as epinephrine and systemic terbutaline. During a life-threatening asthma episode, airflow in the medium and small airways often becomes turbulent, increasing the work of breathing, the researchers pointed out.

Heliox, a combination of helium and oxygen, reduces turbulent flow, they noted, although FiO₂ requirements need to be less than 30% in order for it to work. “Heliox can be used in patients with severe bronchospasm who do not respond to the conventional therapies,” the authors noted, “[but] therapy should be abandoned if there is no clinical improvement after 15 minutes of use.”

Although none of the biologics such as dupilumab (Dupixent) has yet been approved for the treatment of acute exacerbations, Dr. Garner predicts they will become the “future of medicine” for patients with severe asthma as well.
 

Ventilation in life-threatening asthma

Rapid sequence intubation is generally recommended for patients who require mechanical ventilation, but as an alternative, “we are advocating a slower approach, where we get patients to slow down their breathing and relax them with something like ketamine infusions and wait before we given them a paralytic to see if the work of breathing improves,” Dr. Garner said. Bag-mask ventilation should be avoided because it can worsen dynamic hyperinflation or cause barotrauma.

Salvage therapies such as the use of bronchoscopy with N-acetylcysteine instilled directly into the airway is another option in cases in which mucus plugging is considered to be the main driver of airflow limitation.

Asked to comment, Brit Long, MD, an emergency medicine physician at the Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, Tex., felt the review was extremely useful and well done.

“We see these patients very frequently, and being able to assess them right away and get an accurate picture of what’s going on is very important,” he said in an interview. The one thing that is often more difficult, at least in the ED, is obtaining a PEF or the FEV₁ – “both very helpful if the patient can do them, but if the patient is critically ill, it’s more likely you will not be able to get those assessments, and if patients are speaking in one-word sentences and are working really hard to breathe, that’s a severe exacerbation, and they need immediate intervention.” Dr. Long also liked all the essential treatments the authors recommended that patients be given immediately, although he noted that Heliox is not going to be available in most EDs.

On the other hand, he agreed with the authors’ recommendation to take a slower approach to mechanical ventilation, if it is needed at all. “I try my best to absolutely avoid intubating these patients – you are not fixing the issue with mechanical ventilation, you are just creating further problems.

“And while I see the entire spectrum of asthma patients from very mild to severe patients, these authors did a good job in explaining what the goals of treatment are and what to do with the severe ones,” he said.

Dr. Garner and Dr. Long disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Babies born to moms who were vaccinated against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) while pregnant appear to need fewer antimicrobial prescriptions than babies of unvaccinated moms, according to authors of a recent study.

To fight antimicrobial resistance, we need to use fewer antimicrobial drugs, the authors write in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“In this study, an RSV vaccine was administered to pregnant women to prevent infection in their infants by the transfer of protective antibody to the infant,” Kathryn M. Edwards, MD, a professor of pediatrics and the scientific director of the Vanderbilt vaccine research program at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization. Dr. Edwards was not involved in the study.

“The authors investigated the impact of the vaccine on the use of antibiotics in infants during the first 90 days of life,” Dr. Edwards added in an email. “They found that the use of antibiotics was less in infants born to mothers who received the RSV vaccine than in infants born to mothers who received placebo. … They suggest that reducing RSV infection in infants will reduce respiratory infections that trigger antibiotic use.”

Senior author Ramanan Laxminarayan, PhD, MPH, director and senior fellow at the Center for Disease Dynamics, Economics & Policy in Washington and his colleagues conducted a secondary analysis of a double-blind, randomized controlled trial at 87 sites in 11 countries on several continents.

In the original study, which was conducted between December 2015 and May 2018, 3,005 maternal participants and 2,978 infant participants received the experimental RSV F vaccine, and 1,573 maternal participants and 1,546 infants received a placebo shot. Baseline characteristics of mothers and infants were well balanced, according to the authors.

In the current study, infants born to mothers who received the RSV vaccine were found to be 12.9% (95% confidence interval, 1.3%-23.1%) less likely to be prescribed antimicrobials during their first 3 months of life, compared with infants whose mothers received placebo. Vaccine efficacy against antimicrobial prescriptions for acute lower respiratory tract infections was 16.9% (95% CI, 1.4%-29.4%).

During the first 3 months of life, for every 100 infants born, maternal vaccination prevented 3.6 courses of antimicrobials in high-income countries (20.2% of all antimicrobial prescribing), and 5.1 courses in low- and middle-income countries (10.9% of all antimicrobial prescribing).

In addition to finding that lower respiratory tract infections accounted for 69%-73% of all antimicrobial prescribing prevented by maternal vaccination, the researchers found marked vaccine efficacy (71.3% [95% CI, 28.1%-88.6%]) against acute otitis media–associated antimicrobial prescription in infants in high-income countries.
 

RSV vaccine is ‘one of our best investments’

RSV, the authors explain, is a major cause of upper and lower respiratory tract infections that develop as a single agent or along with bacterial pathogens.

“With decreases in bacterial pneumonia following the introduction of the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, a vaccine against RSV represents one of our best investments to lower the burden of respiratory infections in children,” Dr. Laxminarayan said in a press release.

“These findings are not unexpected because viral infections can trigger bacterial infections such as otitis, and reducing viral infections will reduce bacterial infections,” Dr. Edwards said. “Also, viral infections are often treated with antibiotics because the provider cannot rule out a bacterial infection.”

She acknowledged the value of investigating multiple outcomes but added that “the study was underpowered to assess the full impact of the antibiotics.”

“If a more effective RSV vaccine can be designed, the impact on reducing antibiotic use will likely be even greater,” Dr. Edwards advised. “Also, the vaccine was not highly effective in preventing RSV pneumonia. If it had been more effective, the antibiotic impact would likely have been greater.”

The authors acknowledged the study’s limitations. “Results of this post hoc secondary analysis should be viewed as hypothesis generating, as the trial was not powered for determination of effects against antimicrobial prescribing, and our analyses were not adjusted for multiplicity,” they write, and they joined Dr. Edwards in recommending further related research.

First author Joseph A. Lewnard, PhD, declares financial support from Pfizer unrelated to this research, three authors are employees of Novavax, and Dr. Laxminarayan has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Edwards reports funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; consultancy to BioNEt and IBM; membership on data safety and monitoring boards for Pfizer, Sanofi, GSK, Merck, X-4 Pharma, Roche, and Seqirus. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation supported the study.

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

Babies born to moms who were vaccinated against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) while pregnant appear to need fewer antimicrobial prescriptions than babies of unvaccinated moms, according to authors of a recent study.

To fight antimicrobial resistance, we need to use fewer antimicrobial drugs, the authors write in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“In this study, an RSV vaccine was administered to pregnant women to prevent infection in their infants by the transfer of protective antibody to the infant,” Kathryn M. Edwards, MD, a professor of pediatrics and the scientific director of the Vanderbilt vaccine research program at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization. Dr. Edwards was not involved in the study.

“The authors investigated the impact of the vaccine on the use of antibiotics in infants during the first 90 days of life,” Dr. Edwards added in an email. “They found that the use of antibiotics was less in infants born to mothers who received the RSV vaccine than in infants born to mothers who received placebo. … They suggest that reducing RSV infection in infants will reduce respiratory infections that trigger antibiotic use.”

Senior author Ramanan Laxminarayan, PhD, MPH, director and senior fellow at the Center for Disease Dynamics, Economics & Policy in Washington and his colleagues conducted a secondary analysis of a double-blind, randomized controlled trial at 87 sites in 11 countries on several continents.

In the original study, which was conducted between December 2015 and May 2018, 3,005 maternal participants and 2,978 infant participants received the experimental RSV F vaccine, and 1,573 maternal participants and 1,546 infants received a placebo shot. Baseline characteristics of mothers and infants were well balanced, according to the authors.

In the current study, infants born to mothers who received the RSV vaccine were found to be 12.9% (95% confidence interval, 1.3%-23.1%) less likely to be prescribed antimicrobials during their first 3 months of life, compared with infants whose mothers received placebo. Vaccine efficacy against antimicrobial prescriptions for acute lower respiratory tract infections was 16.9% (95% CI, 1.4%-29.4%).

During the first 3 months of life, for every 100 infants born, maternal vaccination prevented 3.6 courses of antimicrobials in high-income countries (20.2% of all antimicrobial prescribing), and 5.1 courses in low- and middle-income countries (10.9% of all antimicrobial prescribing).

In addition to finding that lower respiratory tract infections accounted for 69%-73% of all antimicrobial prescribing prevented by maternal vaccination, the researchers found marked vaccine efficacy (71.3% [95% CI, 28.1%-88.6%]) against acute otitis media–associated antimicrobial prescription in infants in high-income countries.
 

RSV vaccine is ‘one of our best investments’

RSV, the authors explain, is a major cause of upper and lower respiratory tract infections that develop as a single agent or along with bacterial pathogens.

“With decreases in bacterial pneumonia following the introduction of the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, a vaccine against RSV represents one of our best investments to lower the burden of respiratory infections in children,” Dr. Laxminarayan said in a press release.

“These findings are not unexpected because viral infections can trigger bacterial infections such as otitis, and reducing viral infections will reduce bacterial infections,” Dr. Edwards said. “Also, viral infections are often treated with antibiotics because the provider cannot rule out a bacterial infection.”

She acknowledged the value of investigating multiple outcomes but added that “the study was underpowered to assess the full impact of the antibiotics.”

“If a more effective RSV vaccine can be designed, the impact on reducing antibiotic use will likely be even greater,” Dr. Edwards advised. “Also, the vaccine was not highly effective in preventing RSV pneumonia. If it had been more effective, the antibiotic impact would likely have been greater.”

The authors acknowledged the study’s limitations. “Results of this post hoc secondary analysis should be viewed as hypothesis generating, as the trial was not powered for determination of effects against antimicrobial prescribing, and our analyses were not adjusted for multiplicity,” they write, and they joined Dr. Edwards in recommending further related research.

First author Joseph A. Lewnard, PhD, declares financial support from Pfizer unrelated to this research, three authors are employees of Novavax, and Dr. Laxminarayan has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Edwards reports funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; consultancy to BioNEt and IBM; membership on data safety and monitoring boards for Pfizer, Sanofi, GSK, Merck, X-4 Pharma, Roche, and Seqirus. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation supported the study.

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

Babies born to moms who were vaccinated against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) while pregnant appear to need fewer antimicrobial prescriptions than babies of unvaccinated moms, according to authors of a recent study.

To fight antimicrobial resistance, we need to use fewer antimicrobial drugs, the authors write in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“In this study, an RSV vaccine was administered to pregnant women to prevent infection in their infants by the transfer of protective antibody to the infant,” Kathryn M. Edwards, MD, a professor of pediatrics and the scientific director of the Vanderbilt vaccine research program at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization. Dr. Edwards was not involved in the study.

“The authors investigated the impact of the vaccine on the use of antibiotics in infants during the first 90 days of life,” Dr. Edwards added in an email. “They found that the use of antibiotics was less in infants born to mothers who received the RSV vaccine than in infants born to mothers who received placebo. … They suggest that reducing RSV infection in infants will reduce respiratory infections that trigger antibiotic use.”

Senior author Ramanan Laxminarayan, PhD, MPH, director and senior fellow at the Center for Disease Dynamics, Economics & Policy in Washington and his colleagues conducted a secondary analysis of a double-blind, randomized controlled trial at 87 sites in 11 countries on several continents.

In the original study, which was conducted between December 2015 and May 2018, 3,005 maternal participants and 2,978 infant participants received the experimental RSV F vaccine, and 1,573 maternal participants and 1,546 infants received a placebo shot. Baseline characteristics of mothers and infants were well balanced, according to the authors.

In the current study, infants born to mothers who received the RSV vaccine were found to be 12.9% (95% confidence interval, 1.3%-23.1%) less likely to be prescribed antimicrobials during their first 3 months of life, compared with infants whose mothers received placebo. Vaccine efficacy against antimicrobial prescriptions for acute lower respiratory tract infections was 16.9% (95% CI, 1.4%-29.4%).

During the first 3 months of life, for every 100 infants born, maternal vaccination prevented 3.6 courses of antimicrobials in high-income countries (20.2% of all antimicrobial prescribing), and 5.1 courses in low- and middle-income countries (10.9% of all antimicrobial prescribing).

In addition to finding that lower respiratory tract infections accounted for 69%-73% of all antimicrobial prescribing prevented by maternal vaccination, the researchers found marked vaccine efficacy (71.3% [95% CI, 28.1%-88.6%]) against acute otitis media–associated antimicrobial prescription in infants in high-income countries.
 

RSV vaccine is ‘one of our best investments’

RSV, the authors explain, is a major cause of upper and lower respiratory tract infections that develop as a single agent or along with bacterial pathogens.

“With decreases in bacterial pneumonia following the introduction of the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, a vaccine against RSV represents one of our best investments to lower the burden of respiratory infections in children,” Dr. Laxminarayan said in a press release.

“These findings are not unexpected because viral infections can trigger bacterial infections such as otitis, and reducing viral infections will reduce bacterial infections,” Dr. Edwards said. “Also, viral infections are often treated with antibiotics because the provider cannot rule out a bacterial infection.”

She acknowledged the value of investigating multiple outcomes but added that “the study was underpowered to assess the full impact of the antibiotics.”

“If a more effective RSV vaccine can be designed, the impact on reducing antibiotic use will likely be even greater,” Dr. Edwards advised. “Also, the vaccine was not highly effective in preventing RSV pneumonia. If it had been more effective, the antibiotic impact would likely have been greater.”

The authors acknowledged the study’s limitations. “Results of this post hoc secondary analysis should be viewed as hypothesis generating, as the trial was not powered for determination of effects against antimicrobial prescribing, and our analyses were not adjusted for multiplicity,” they write, and they joined Dr. Edwards in recommending further related research.

First author Joseph A. Lewnard, PhD, declares financial support from Pfizer unrelated to this research, three authors are employees of Novavax, and Dr. Laxminarayan has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Edwards reports funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; consultancy to BioNEt and IBM; membership on data safety and monitoring boards for Pfizer, Sanofi, GSK, Merck, X-4 Pharma, Roche, and Seqirus. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation supported the study.

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