The environmental impact of virtual isotretinoin management at West Virginia University Hospital (WVUH) in 2020 has been estimated in a new study: A reduction of 5,137 kg of greenhouse gas emissions in carbon dioxide equivalents.

In what they say is “one of the first studies to evaluate the environmental impact of any aspect of dermatology,” the authors of the retrospective cross-sectional study identified patients who had virtual visits for isotretinoin management between March 25 and May 29, 2020, – the period during which all such visits were conducted virtually in keeping with hospital recommendations to minimize the spread of COVID-19.

The investigators, from the department of dermatology and the department of civil and environmental engineering at West Virginia University, Morgantown, then counted the number of virtual visits that occurred during this period and through Dec. 1, 2020, (175 virtual visits), calculated the distance patients would have traveled round-trip had these visits been in-person, and converted miles saved into the environmental impact using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Federal Highway Administration data and relevant EPA standards.

Most patients had elected to continue virtual visits after May 29, the point at which patients were given the option to return to the WVUH clinic. (Patients who initiated treatment during the 2-month identification period were not included.)

The investigators determined that virtual management of isotretinoin saved a median of 37.8 miles per visit during the study period of March 25 to Dec. 1, and estimated that the virtual visits reduced total travel by 14,450 miles. For the analysis, patients were assumed to use light-duty vehicles.

In addition to calculating the reduction in emissions during the study period (5,137 kg of CO₂equivalents) they used patient census data from 2019 to 2020 and data from the study period to project the mileage – and the associated emissions – that would be saved annually if all in-person visits for isotretinoin management occurred virtually.

Their calculation for a projected emissions reduction with 1 year of all-virtual isotretinoin management was 49,400 kg of greenhouse gas emissions in CO₂equivalents. This is the emission load released when 24,690 kg of coal are burned or 6.3 million smartphones are charged, the researchers wrote.

“Considering that more than 1,000,000 prescriptions of isotretinoin are authorized annually in the United States, the environmental impact could be magnified if virtual delivery of isotretinoin care is adopted on a national scale,” they commented.“Given the serious consequences of global climate change, analysis of the environmental impact of all fields of medicine, including dermatology, is warranted,” they added.

The reduced greenhouse gas emissions are “definitely [being taken] into consideration for future decisions about virtual visits” in the department of dermatology, said Zachary Zinn, MD, residency director and associate professor in the department of dermatology at West Virginia University, Morgantown, who is the senior author of the study. “The main benefit of virtual care in my opinion,” he said in an interview, “is the potential to reduce our carbon footprint.”

Justin Lee, MD, an intern at WVU and the study’s first author, said that the research team was motivated to think about how they “could reduce the negative environmental impact of practicing dermatology” after they read a paper about the environmental impact of endoscopy, written by a gastroenterologist.

In the study, no pregnancies occurred and monthly tests were performed, but “formal assessment of pregnancy risk with virtual isotretinoin management would be warranted,” Dr. Lee and coauthors wrote, noting too that, while no differences were seen with respect to isotretinoin side effects, these were not formally analyzed.

Dr. Zinn said that he and colleagues at WVUH are currently conducting clinical trials to assess the quality and efficacy of virtual care for patients with acne, atopic dermatitis, and psoriasis. Delivering care virtually “will be easier to do if there are data supporting [its] quality and efficacy,” he said. Rosacea is another condition that may be amendable to virtual care, he noted.

Meanwhile, he said, isotretinoin management is “well suited” for virtual visits. When initiating isotretinoin treatment, Dr. Zinn now “proactively inquires” if patients would like to pursue their follow-up visits virtually. “I’ll note that it will save the time and decrease the burden of travel, including the financial cost as well as the environmental cost of travel,” he said, estimating that about half of their management visits are currently virtual.

Asked about the study, Misha Rosenbach, MD, associate professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the reduced carbon footprint calculated by the researchers and its downstream health benefits “should be taken into consideration by [dermatology] departments, insurers and policymakers” when making decisions about teledermatology.

While environmental impact is “not something I think most institutions are considering for virtual versus in-person care, they should be. And some are,” said Dr. Rosenbach, a founder and cochair of the American Academy of Dermatology Expert Resource Group for Climate Change and Environmental Issues.

Limitations of the study include the generalizability of the results. The impact of virtual isotretinoin management “may be less in predominantly urban areas” than it is in predominately rural West Virginia, the study authors note. And in the case of West Virginia, travel to a local laboratory and pharmacy offsets some of the environmental benefits for the virtual care, they noted. Such travel wasn’t accounted for in the study, but it was found to be a fraction of travel to the WVU hospital clinic. (Patients traveled a median of 5.8 miles to a lab 2.4 times from March 25 to Dec. 1, 2020.)

Dr. Lee will start his dermatology residency at WVU next year. The study was funded by a grant from the U.S. National Science Foundation. The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest, according to Dr. Lee.

The environmental impact of virtual isotretinoin management at West Virginia University Hospital (WVUH) in 2020 has been estimated in a new study: A reduction of 5,137 kg of greenhouse gas emissions in carbon dioxide equivalents.

In what they say is “one of the first studies to evaluate the environmental impact of any aspect of dermatology,” the authors of the retrospective cross-sectional study identified patients who had virtual visits for isotretinoin management between March 25 and May 29, 2020, – the period during which all such visits were conducted virtually in keeping with hospital recommendations to minimize the spread of COVID-19.

The investigators, from the department of dermatology and the department of civil and environmental engineering at West Virginia University, Morgantown, then counted the number of virtual visits that occurred during this period and through Dec. 1, 2020, (175 virtual visits), calculated the distance patients would have traveled round-trip had these visits been in-person, and converted miles saved into the environmental impact using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Federal Highway Administration data and relevant EPA standards.

Most patients had elected to continue virtual visits after May 29, the point at which patients were given the option to return to the WVUH clinic. (Patients who initiated treatment during the 2-month identification period were not included.)

The investigators determined that virtual management of isotretinoin saved a median of 37.8 miles per visit during the study period of March 25 to Dec. 1, and estimated that the virtual visits reduced total travel by 14,450 miles. For the analysis, patients were assumed to use light-duty vehicles.

In addition to calculating the reduction in emissions during the study period (5,137 kg of CO₂equivalents) they used patient census data from 2019 to 2020 and data from the study period to project the mileage – and the associated emissions – that would be saved annually if all in-person visits for isotretinoin management occurred virtually.

Their calculation for a projected emissions reduction with 1 year of all-virtual isotretinoin management was 49,400 kg of greenhouse gas emissions in CO₂equivalents. This is the emission load released when 24,690 kg of coal are burned or 6.3 million smartphones are charged, the researchers wrote.

“Considering that more than 1,000,000 prescriptions of isotretinoin are authorized annually in the United States, the environmental impact could be magnified if virtual delivery of isotretinoin care is adopted on a national scale,” they commented.“Given the serious consequences of global climate change, analysis of the environmental impact of all fields of medicine, including dermatology, is warranted,” they added.

The reduced greenhouse gas emissions are “definitely [being taken] into consideration for future decisions about virtual visits” in the department of dermatology, said Zachary Zinn, MD, residency director and associate professor in the department of dermatology at West Virginia University, Morgantown, who is the senior author of the study. “The main benefit of virtual care in my opinion,” he said in an interview, “is the potential to reduce our carbon footprint.”

Justin Lee, MD, an intern at WVU and the study’s first author, said that the research team was motivated to think about how they “could reduce the negative environmental impact of practicing dermatology” after they read a paper about the environmental impact of endoscopy, written by a gastroenterologist.

In the study, no pregnancies occurred and monthly tests were performed, but “formal assessment of pregnancy risk with virtual isotretinoin management would be warranted,” Dr. Lee and coauthors wrote, noting too that, while no differences were seen with respect to isotretinoin side effects, these were not formally analyzed.

Dr. Zinn said that he and colleagues at WVUH are currently conducting clinical trials to assess the quality and efficacy of virtual care for patients with acne, atopic dermatitis, and psoriasis. Delivering care virtually “will be easier to do if there are data supporting [its] quality and efficacy,” he said. Rosacea is another condition that may be amendable to virtual care, he noted.

Meanwhile, he said, isotretinoin management is “well suited” for virtual visits. When initiating isotretinoin treatment, Dr. Zinn now “proactively inquires” if patients would like to pursue their follow-up visits virtually. “I’ll note that it will save the time and decrease the burden of travel, including the financial cost as well as the environmental cost of travel,” he said, estimating that about half of their management visits are currently virtual.

Asked about the study, Misha Rosenbach, MD, associate professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the reduced carbon footprint calculated by the researchers and its downstream health benefits “should be taken into consideration by [dermatology] departments, insurers and policymakers” when making decisions about teledermatology.

While environmental impact is “not something I think most institutions are considering for virtual versus in-person care, they should be. And some are,” said Dr. Rosenbach, a founder and cochair of the American Academy of Dermatology Expert Resource Group for Climate Change and Environmental Issues.

Limitations of the study include the generalizability of the results. The impact of virtual isotretinoin management “may be less in predominantly urban areas” than it is in predominately rural West Virginia, the study authors note. And in the case of West Virginia, travel to a local laboratory and pharmacy offsets some of the environmental benefits for the virtual care, they noted. Such travel wasn’t accounted for in the study, but it was found to be a fraction of travel to the WVU hospital clinic. (Patients traveled a median of 5.8 miles to a lab 2.4 times from March 25 to Dec. 1, 2020.)

Dr. Lee will start his dermatology residency at WVU next year. The study was funded by a grant from the U.S. National Science Foundation. The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest, according to Dr. Lee.

The environmental impact of virtual isotretinoin management at West Virginia University Hospital (WVUH) in 2020 has been estimated in a new study: A reduction of 5,137 kg of greenhouse gas emissions in carbon dioxide equivalents.

In what they say is “one of the first studies to evaluate the environmental impact of any aspect of dermatology,” the authors of the retrospective cross-sectional study identified patients who had virtual visits for isotretinoin management between March 25 and May 29, 2020, – the period during which all such visits were conducted virtually in keeping with hospital recommendations to minimize the spread of COVID-19.

The investigators, from the department of dermatology and the department of civil and environmental engineering at West Virginia University, Morgantown, then counted the number of virtual visits that occurred during this period and through Dec. 1, 2020, (175 virtual visits), calculated the distance patients would have traveled round-trip had these visits been in-person, and converted miles saved into the environmental impact using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Federal Highway Administration data and relevant EPA standards.

Most patients had elected to continue virtual visits after May 29, the point at which patients were given the option to return to the WVUH clinic. (Patients who initiated treatment during the 2-month identification period were not included.)

The investigators determined that virtual management of isotretinoin saved a median of 37.8 miles per visit during the study period of March 25 to Dec. 1, and estimated that the virtual visits reduced total travel by 14,450 miles. For the analysis, patients were assumed to use light-duty vehicles.

In addition to calculating the reduction in emissions during the study period (5,137 kg of CO₂equivalents) they used patient census data from 2019 to 2020 and data from the study period to project the mileage – and the associated emissions – that would be saved annually if all in-person visits for isotretinoin management occurred virtually.

Their calculation for a projected emissions reduction with 1 year of all-virtual isotretinoin management was 49,400 kg of greenhouse gas emissions in CO₂equivalents. This is the emission load released when 24,690 kg of coal are burned or 6.3 million smartphones are charged, the researchers wrote.

“Considering that more than 1,000,000 prescriptions of isotretinoin are authorized annually in the United States, the environmental impact could be magnified if virtual delivery of isotretinoin care is adopted on a national scale,” they commented.“Given the serious consequences of global climate change, analysis of the environmental impact of all fields of medicine, including dermatology, is warranted,” they added.

The reduced greenhouse gas emissions are “definitely [being taken] into consideration for future decisions about virtual visits” in the department of dermatology, said Zachary Zinn, MD, residency director and associate professor in the department of dermatology at West Virginia University, Morgantown, who is the senior author of the study. “The main benefit of virtual care in my opinion,” he said in an interview, “is the potential to reduce our carbon footprint.”

Justin Lee, MD, an intern at WVU and the study’s first author, said that the research team was motivated to think about how they “could reduce the negative environmental impact of practicing dermatology” after they read a paper about the environmental impact of endoscopy, written by a gastroenterologist.

In the study, no pregnancies occurred and monthly tests were performed, but “formal assessment of pregnancy risk with virtual isotretinoin management would be warranted,” Dr. Lee and coauthors wrote, noting too that, while no differences were seen with respect to isotretinoin side effects, these were not formally analyzed.

Dr. Zinn said that he and colleagues at WVUH are currently conducting clinical trials to assess the quality and efficacy of virtual care for patients with acne, atopic dermatitis, and psoriasis. Delivering care virtually “will be easier to do if there are data supporting [its] quality and efficacy,” he said. Rosacea is another condition that may be amendable to virtual care, he noted.

Meanwhile, he said, isotretinoin management is “well suited” for virtual visits. When initiating isotretinoin treatment, Dr. Zinn now “proactively inquires” if patients would like to pursue their follow-up visits virtually. “I’ll note that it will save the time and decrease the burden of travel, including the financial cost as well as the environmental cost of travel,” he said, estimating that about half of their management visits are currently virtual.

Asked about the study, Misha Rosenbach, MD, associate professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the reduced carbon footprint calculated by the researchers and its downstream health benefits “should be taken into consideration by [dermatology] departments, insurers and policymakers” when making decisions about teledermatology.

While environmental impact is “not something I think most institutions are considering for virtual versus in-person care, they should be. And some are,” said Dr. Rosenbach, a founder and cochair of the American Academy of Dermatology Expert Resource Group for Climate Change and Environmental Issues.

Limitations of the study include the generalizability of the results. The impact of virtual isotretinoin management “may be less in predominantly urban areas” than it is in predominately rural West Virginia, the study authors note. And in the case of West Virginia, travel to a local laboratory and pharmacy offsets some of the environmental benefits for the virtual care, they noted. Such travel wasn’t accounted for in the study, but it was found to be a fraction of travel to the WVU hospital clinic. (Patients traveled a median of 5.8 miles to a lab 2.4 times from March 25 to Dec. 1, 2020.)

Dr. Lee will start his dermatology residency at WVU next year. The study was funded by a grant from the U.S. National Science Foundation. The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest, according to Dr. Lee.

In the largest comparison of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and ACE inhibitors to date, a study of nearly 2.3 million patients starting the drugs as monotherapy shows no significant differences between the two in the long-term prevention of hypertension-related cardiovascular events.

However, side effects were notably lower with ARBs.

“This is a very large, well-executed observational study that confirms that ARBs appear to have fewer side effects than ACE inhibitors, and no unexpected ARB side effects were detected,” senior author George Hripcsak, MD, professor and chair of biomedical informatics at Columbia University, New York, told this news organization.

“Despite being equally guideline-recommended first-line therapies for hypertension, these results support preferentially starting ARBs rather than ACE inhibitors when initiating treatment for hypertension for physicians and patients considering renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibition,” the authors added in the study, published online July 26, 2021, in the journal Hypertension.

They noted that both drug classes have been on the market a long time, with proven efficacy in hypertension and “a wide availability of inexpensive generic forms.”

They also stressed that their findings only apply to patients with hypertension for whom a RAS inhibitor would be the best choice of therapy.

Commenting on the research, George Bakris, MD, of the American Heart Association’s Comprehensive Hypertension Center at the University of Chicago, said the findings were consistent with his experience in prescribing as well as researching the two drug classes.

“I have been in practice for over 30 years and studied both classes, including head-to-head prospective trials to assess blood pressure, and found in many cases better blood pressure lowering by some ARBs and always better tolerability,” he told this news organization. “I think this study confirms and extends my thoughts between the two classes of blood pressure–lowering agents.”
 

Head-to-head comparisons of ACE inhibitors and ARBs limited to date

ACE inhibitors and ARBs each have extensive evidence supporting their roles as first-line medications in the treatment of hypertension, and each have the strongest recommendations in international guidelines.

However, ACE inhibitors are prescribed more commonly than ARBs as the first-line drug for lowering blood pressure, and head-to-head comparisons of the two are limited, with conflicting results.

For the study, Dr. Hripcsak and colleagues evaluated data on almost 3 million patients starting monotherapy with an ACE inhibitor or ARB for the first time between 1996 and 2018 in the United States, Germany, and South Korea, who had no history of heart disease or stroke.

They identified a total of 2,297,881 patients initiating ACE inhibitors and 673,938 starting ARBs. Among new users of ACE inhibitors, most received lisinopril (80%), followed by ramipril and enalapril, while most patients prescribed ARBs received losartan (45%), followed by valsartan and olmesartan.

With follow-up times ranging from about 4 months to more than 18 months, the data show no statistically significant differences between ACE inhibitors versus ARBs in the primary outcomes of acute myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 1.11), heart failure (HR, 1.03), stroke (HR, 1.07), or composite cardiovascular events (HR, 1.06).

For secondary and safety outcomes, including an analysis of 51 possible side effects, ACE inhibitors, compared with ARBs, were associated with a significantly higher risk of angioedema (HR, 3.31; P < .01), cough (HR, 1.32; P < .01), acute pancreatitis (HR, 1.32; P = .02), gastrointestinal bleeding (HR, 1.18; P = .04), and abnormal weight loss (HR, 1.18; P = .04).

While the link between ACE inhibitors and pancreatitis has been previously reported, the association with GI bleeding may be a novel finding, with no prior studies comparing those effects in the two drug classes, the authors noted.

Despite most patients taking just a couple of drugs in either class, Dr. Hripcsak said, “we don’t expect that other drugs from those classes will have fewer differences. It is possible, of course, but that is not our expectation.”
 

Results only applicable to those starting therapy with RAS inhibitors

First author RuiJun Chen, MD, added that, importantly, the results may not apply to patients switching therapies or adding on therapy, “such as for the patient whose hypertension is not effectively controlled with one drug and requires the addition of a second medication,” he said in an interview.

“Also, the suggestion of preferentially prescribing ARBs only applies to those patients and providers intending to control blood pressure through RAS inhibition,” said Dr. Chen, an assistant professor in translational data science and informatics at Geisinger Medical Center in Danville, Pa., who was a National Library of Medicine postdoctoral fellow at Columbia University at the time of the study.

Hence, he stressed the results do not extend to other classes of recommended first-line blood pressure medications.

“Essentially, since this is an ACE inhibitor versus ARB study, we would not claim that ARBs are preferred over all other types of hypertension medications which were not studied here,” the researchers emphasize.

In addition to ARBs and ACE inhibitors, other medications recommended by the AHA/American College of Cardiology in the 2017 “Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation and Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults” for the primary treatment of hypertension include thiazide diuretics and calcium channel blockers.

The study received support from the National Library of Medicine and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health; the National Science Foundation; and the Ministries of Health & Welfare and of Trade, Industry & Energy of the Republic of Korea. Dr. Hripcsak reported receiving grants from the National Library of Medicine during the study and grants from Janssen Research outside the submitted work. Dr. Bakris reported being a consultant for Merck, KBP Biosciences, and Ionis.

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

In the largest comparison of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and ACE inhibitors to date, a study of nearly 2.3 million patients starting the drugs as monotherapy shows no significant differences between the two in the long-term prevention of hypertension-related cardiovascular events.

However, side effects were notably lower with ARBs.

“This is a very large, well-executed observational study that confirms that ARBs appear to have fewer side effects than ACE inhibitors, and no unexpected ARB side effects were detected,” senior author George Hripcsak, MD, professor and chair of biomedical informatics at Columbia University, New York, told this news organization.

“Despite being equally guideline-recommended first-line therapies for hypertension, these results support preferentially starting ARBs rather than ACE inhibitors when initiating treatment for hypertension for physicians and patients considering renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibition,” the authors added in the study, published online July 26, 2021, in the journal Hypertension.

They noted that both drug classes have been on the market a long time, with proven efficacy in hypertension and “a wide availability of inexpensive generic forms.”

They also stressed that their findings only apply to patients with hypertension for whom a RAS inhibitor would be the best choice of therapy.

Commenting on the research, George Bakris, MD, of the American Heart Association’s Comprehensive Hypertension Center at the University of Chicago, said the findings were consistent with his experience in prescribing as well as researching the two drug classes.

“I have been in practice for over 30 years and studied both classes, including head-to-head prospective trials to assess blood pressure, and found in many cases better blood pressure lowering by some ARBs and always better tolerability,” he told this news organization. “I think this study confirms and extends my thoughts between the two classes of blood pressure–lowering agents.”
 

Head-to-head comparisons of ACE inhibitors and ARBs limited to date

ACE inhibitors and ARBs each have extensive evidence supporting their roles as first-line medications in the treatment of hypertension, and each have the strongest recommendations in international guidelines.

However, ACE inhibitors are prescribed more commonly than ARBs as the first-line drug for lowering blood pressure, and head-to-head comparisons of the two are limited, with conflicting results.

For the study, Dr. Hripcsak and colleagues evaluated data on almost 3 million patients starting monotherapy with an ACE inhibitor or ARB for the first time between 1996 and 2018 in the United States, Germany, and South Korea, who had no history of heart disease or stroke.

They identified a total of 2,297,881 patients initiating ACE inhibitors and 673,938 starting ARBs. Among new users of ACE inhibitors, most received lisinopril (80%), followed by ramipril and enalapril, while most patients prescribed ARBs received losartan (45%), followed by valsartan and olmesartan.

With follow-up times ranging from about 4 months to more than 18 months, the data show no statistically significant differences between ACE inhibitors versus ARBs in the primary outcomes of acute myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 1.11), heart failure (HR, 1.03), stroke (HR, 1.07), or composite cardiovascular events (HR, 1.06).

For secondary and safety outcomes, including an analysis of 51 possible side effects, ACE inhibitors, compared with ARBs, were associated with a significantly higher risk of angioedema (HR, 3.31; P < .01), cough (HR, 1.32; P < .01), acute pancreatitis (HR, 1.32; P = .02), gastrointestinal bleeding (HR, 1.18; P = .04), and abnormal weight loss (HR, 1.18; P = .04).

While the link between ACE inhibitors and pancreatitis has been previously reported, the association with GI bleeding may be a novel finding, with no prior studies comparing those effects in the two drug classes, the authors noted.

Despite most patients taking just a couple of drugs in either class, Dr. Hripcsak said, “we don’t expect that other drugs from those classes will have fewer differences. It is possible, of course, but that is not our expectation.”
 

Results only applicable to those starting therapy with RAS inhibitors

First author RuiJun Chen, MD, added that, importantly, the results may not apply to patients switching therapies or adding on therapy, “such as for the patient whose hypertension is not effectively controlled with one drug and requires the addition of a second medication,” he said in an interview.

“Also, the suggestion of preferentially prescribing ARBs only applies to those patients and providers intending to control blood pressure through RAS inhibition,” said Dr. Chen, an assistant professor in translational data science and informatics at Geisinger Medical Center in Danville, Pa., who was a National Library of Medicine postdoctoral fellow at Columbia University at the time of the study.

Hence, he stressed the results do not extend to other classes of recommended first-line blood pressure medications.

“Essentially, since this is an ACE inhibitor versus ARB study, we would not claim that ARBs are preferred over all other types of hypertension medications which were not studied here,” the researchers emphasize.

In addition to ARBs and ACE inhibitors, other medications recommended by the AHA/American College of Cardiology in the 2017 “Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation and Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults” for the primary treatment of hypertension include thiazide diuretics and calcium channel blockers.

The study received support from the National Library of Medicine and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health; the National Science Foundation; and the Ministries of Health & Welfare and of Trade, Industry & Energy of the Republic of Korea. Dr. Hripcsak reported receiving grants from the National Library of Medicine during the study and grants from Janssen Research outside the submitted work. Dr. Bakris reported being a consultant for Merck, KBP Biosciences, and Ionis.

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

In the largest comparison of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and ACE inhibitors to date, a study of nearly 2.3 million patients starting the drugs as monotherapy shows no significant differences between the two in the long-term prevention of hypertension-related cardiovascular events.

However, side effects were notably lower with ARBs.

“This is a very large, well-executed observational study that confirms that ARBs appear to have fewer side effects than ACE inhibitors, and no unexpected ARB side effects were detected,” senior author George Hripcsak, MD, professor and chair of biomedical informatics at Columbia University, New York, told this news organization.

“Despite being equally guideline-recommended first-line therapies for hypertension, these results support preferentially starting ARBs rather than ACE inhibitors when initiating treatment for hypertension for physicians and patients considering renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibition,” the authors added in the study, published online July 26, 2021, in the journal Hypertension.

They noted that both drug classes have been on the market a long time, with proven efficacy in hypertension and “a wide availability of inexpensive generic forms.”

They also stressed that their findings only apply to patients with hypertension for whom a RAS inhibitor would be the best choice of therapy.

Commenting on the research, George Bakris, MD, of the American Heart Association’s Comprehensive Hypertension Center at the University of Chicago, said the findings were consistent with his experience in prescribing as well as researching the two drug classes.

“I have been in practice for over 30 years and studied both classes, including head-to-head prospective trials to assess blood pressure, and found in many cases better blood pressure lowering by some ARBs and always better tolerability,” he told this news organization. “I think this study confirms and extends my thoughts between the two classes of blood pressure–lowering agents.”
 

Head-to-head comparisons of ACE inhibitors and ARBs limited to date

ACE inhibitors and ARBs each have extensive evidence supporting their roles as first-line medications in the treatment of hypertension, and each have the strongest recommendations in international guidelines.

However, ACE inhibitors are prescribed more commonly than ARBs as the first-line drug for lowering blood pressure, and head-to-head comparisons of the two are limited, with conflicting results.

For the study, Dr. Hripcsak and colleagues evaluated data on almost 3 million patients starting monotherapy with an ACE inhibitor or ARB for the first time between 1996 and 2018 in the United States, Germany, and South Korea, who had no history of heart disease or stroke.

They identified a total of 2,297,881 patients initiating ACE inhibitors and 673,938 starting ARBs. Among new users of ACE inhibitors, most received lisinopril (80%), followed by ramipril and enalapril, while most patients prescribed ARBs received losartan (45%), followed by valsartan and olmesartan.

With follow-up times ranging from about 4 months to more than 18 months, the data show no statistically significant differences between ACE inhibitors versus ARBs in the primary outcomes of acute myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 1.11), heart failure (HR, 1.03), stroke (HR, 1.07), or composite cardiovascular events (HR, 1.06).

For secondary and safety outcomes, including an analysis of 51 possible side effects, ACE inhibitors, compared with ARBs, were associated with a significantly higher risk of angioedema (HR, 3.31; P < .01), cough (HR, 1.32; P < .01), acute pancreatitis (HR, 1.32; P = .02), gastrointestinal bleeding (HR, 1.18; P = .04), and abnormal weight loss (HR, 1.18; P = .04).

While the link between ACE inhibitors and pancreatitis has been previously reported, the association with GI bleeding may be a novel finding, with no prior studies comparing those effects in the two drug classes, the authors noted.

Despite most patients taking just a couple of drugs in either class, Dr. Hripcsak said, “we don’t expect that other drugs from those classes will have fewer differences. It is possible, of course, but that is not our expectation.”
 

Results only applicable to those starting therapy with RAS inhibitors

First author RuiJun Chen, MD, added that, importantly, the results may not apply to patients switching therapies or adding on therapy, “such as for the patient whose hypertension is not effectively controlled with one drug and requires the addition of a second medication,” he said in an interview.

“Also, the suggestion of preferentially prescribing ARBs only applies to those patients and providers intending to control blood pressure through RAS inhibition,” said Dr. Chen, an assistant professor in translational data science and informatics at Geisinger Medical Center in Danville, Pa., who was a National Library of Medicine postdoctoral fellow at Columbia University at the time of the study.

Hence, he stressed the results do not extend to other classes of recommended first-line blood pressure medications.

“Essentially, since this is an ACE inhibitor versus ARB study, we would not claim that ARBs are preferred over all other types of hypertension medications which were not studied here,” the researchers emphasize.

In addition to ARBs and ACE inhibitors, other medications recommended by the AHA/American College of Cardiology in the 2017 “Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation and Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults” for the primary treatment of hypertension include thiazide diuretics and calcium channel blockers.

The study received support from the National Library of Medicine and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health; the National Science Foundation; and the Ministries of Health & Welfare and of Trade, Industry & Energy of the Republic of Korea. Dr. Hripcsak reported receiving grants from the National Library of Medicine during the study and grants from Janssen Research outside the submitted work. Dr. Bakris reported being a consultant for Merck, KBP Biosciences, and Ionis.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic has overwhelmed health care facilities and health care providers (HCPs) due to the limited resources available to treat a rapidly expanding patient population. Health care providers have been required to work long hours and put themselves at increased risk of infection by coming into frequent contact with infected patients. In addition to the risk of becoming infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, HCPs might be required to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) for the entirety of the workday, which can cause a variety of adverse effects.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been an increase in reported cases of facial acne, pressure injury, urticaria, allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), irritant contact dermatitis (ICD), and exacerbation of underlying cutaneous conditions among health care workers.^1-4 This increase in dermatologic disorders among HCPs has been associated with the increased utilization of and duration of exposure to PPE—particularly N95 respirator masks and surgical masks.^5-7 Most studies of these reactions have attributed them to local pressure, friction, hyperhydration, elevated pH, and occlusion caused by prolonged wearing of the masks, resulting ultimately in acne and other rashes^8-10; however, a few studies have suggested that formaldehyde is a potential culprit underlying the increase in skin reactions to face masks.^11-14

Formaldehyde is a known skin irritant and has been found to cause ACD and ICD from exposure to textiles and cosmetics treated with this chemical.^15-18 Both N95 and surgical masks previously have been found to contain sufficient levels of formaldehyde or formaldehyde-releasing resins (FRRs) to induce ACD or ICD in susceptible people.^12-14 In this article, we focus on the role of formaldehyde in N95 masks as a potential cause of ACD and ICD in HCPs who have been wearing PPE during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Formaldehyde: Benefits With Significant Problems

Formaldehyde is nearly ubiquitous in the textile industry because it confers advantageous properties, including resistance to flames, water, and wrinkling.¹⁵ Despite these advantages, it has long been established that consumers can become sensitized to formaldehyde and FRRs in textiles after chronic exposure.^15-18

A study of Australian HCPs found that 5.2% of those tested had ACD in response to formaldehyde, which was attributed to their PPE.¹¹ In a case report of ACD caused by FRRs, Donovan and Skotnicki-Grant¹² suggested that individuals who are sensitive to formaldehyde are vulnerable to reactions that are exacerbated by friction, warmth, moisture, and tight-fitting materials—all of which can occur when wearing an N95 mask. In that report, a formaldehyde-sensitive patient had a strong positive reaction on patch testing to melamine formaldehyde and to a piece of her N95 mask while taking prednisone 8 mg/d, suggesting that some sensitized patients have a strong reaction to their mask even when they are immunosuppressed.¹²

This finding, along with the known formaldehyde content of some N95 masks, suggests that these masks might be a cause of contact dermatitis in some HCPs. Somewhat complicating the situation is that false-negative patch testing can occur in and might contribute to the underdiagnosis of formaldehyde-induced N95 mask facial dermatitis.^12,13 Some HCPs have reported mild respiratory symptoms and eye irritation associated with the use of an N95 mask—symptoms that are consistent with formaldehyde exposure. In some cases, those symptoms have caused discomfort sufficient to prompt HCPs to take leave from work.^13,14

Development of contact dermatitis in response to an N95 mask is not novel; this problem also was observed during the severe acute respiratory syndrome pandemic of the early 2000s.^9,17 Some HCPs noticed onset of skin reactions after they were required to wear an N95 mask in the workplace, which some studies attributed to material in the mask increasing the likelihood of developing an adverse reaction.^2,6,8 The components of N95 masks and the materials from which they are manufactured are listed in the Table.¹⁹

Face Masks, Adverse Reactions, and Formaldehyde

Allergic contact dermatitis and ICD typically are rare responses to wearing facial masks, but the recent COVID-19 pandemic has forced HCPs to wear masks for longer than 6 hours at a time and to reuse a single mask, which has been shown to increase the likelihood of adverse reactions.^1,4,6 Additionally, humid environments, tight-fitting materials, and skin abrasions—all of which can be induced by wearing an N95 mask—have been found to increase the likelihood of formaldehyde-related contact dermatitis by increasing the release of free formaldehyde or by enhancing its penetration into the skin.^6,20,21

Formaldehyde is an ubiquitous chemical agent that is part of indoor and outdoor working and residential environments. Health care professionals have many opportunities to be exposed to formaldehyde, which is a well-known mucous membrane irritant and a primary skin-sensitizing agent associated with both contact dermatitis (type IV hypersensitivity reaction), and an immediate anaphylactic reaction (type I hypersensitivity reaction).^22-25 Exposure to formaldehyde by inhalation has been identified as a potential cause of asthma.^26,27 More studies on the prevalence of formaldehyde-induced hypersensitivity reactions would be beneficial to HCPs for early diagnosis of hypersensitivity, adequate prophylaxis, and occupational risk assessment.

N95 mask dermatitis also heightens the potential for breaches of PPE protocols. The discomfort that HCPs experience in response to adverse skin reactions to masks can cause an increased rate of inappropriate mask-wearing, face-touching during mask adjustment, and removal of the mask in the health care setting.²⁸ These acts of face-touching and PPE adjustment have been shown to increase microbial transmission and to reduce the efficacy of PPE in blocking pathogens.^29,30

Considering the mounting evidence that widespread use of masks effectively prevents viral transmission, it is crucial that all HCPs wear appropriate PPE when treating patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.^31,32 The recent surge in ACD and ICD among HCPs in response to wearing N95 masks creates a need to determine the underlying cause of these dermatoses and find methods of mitigating sensitization of HCPs to the offending agents. The current epidemiology of COVID-19 in the United States suggests that PPE will be necessary for much longer than originally anticipated and will continue to be worn for long hours by HCPs.

Formaldehyde-Free Alternatives?

Some researchers have proposed that using materials that are free of allergens like formaldehyde might be a long-term solution to the development of contact dermatitis.^15,33 Formaldehyde is used in the finishing process of N95 masks for wrinkle and crease resistance and to prevent mildew. It is possible that formaldehyde could be completely removed from the manufacturing process, although no studies on the effects of such alternatives on mask efficacy have been performed.

Formaldehyde-free alternatives that would confer similar properties on textiles have been explored; the most promising alternative to formaldehyde in cross-linking cellulose fibers is polycarboxylic acid in combination with sodium hypophosphite, which can help avoid the adverse health outcomes and environmental impact of formaldehyde.^34-36 Studies of such alternatives in the manufacturing of N95 masks would be needed to establish the efficacy and durability of formaldehyde-free PPE.

Final Thoughts

Additional studies are needed to confirm the presence of formaldehyde in N95 masks and to confirm that the mask material yields a positive patch test in sensitized individuals. The paucity of available studies that quantify formaldehyde or FRR content of N95 and surgical masks makes it difficult to establish an association between the chemical content of masks and the prevalence of mask dermatitis among HCPs; however, available reports of skin reactions, including contact dermatitis, from PPE suggest that formaldehyde sensitivity might be at least part of the problem. As such, we propose that manufacturers of N95 and surgical masks be required to reveal the chemical components of their products so that consumers can make educated purchasing decisions.

The COVID-19 pandemic has overwhelmed health care facilities and health care providers (HCPs) due to the limited resources available to treat a rapidly expanding patient population. Health care providers have been required to work long hours and put themselves at increased risk of infection by coming into frequent contact with infected patients. In addition to the risk of becoming infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, HCPs might be required to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) for the entirety of the workday, which can cause a variety of adverse effects.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been an increase in reported cases of facial acne, pressure injury, urticaria, allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), irritant contact dermatitis (ICD), and exacerbation of underlying cutaneous conditions among health care workers.^1-4 This increase in dermatologic disorders among HCPs has been associated with the increased utilization of and duration of exposure to PPE—particularly N95 respirator masks and surgical masks.^5-7 Most studies of these reactions have attributed them to local pressure, friction, hyperhydration, elevated pH, and occlusion caused by prolonged wearing of the masks, resulting ultimately in acne and other rashes^8-10; however, a few studies have suggested that formaldehyde is a potential culprit underlying the increase in skin reactions to face masks.^11-14

Formaldehyde is a known skin irritant and has been found to cause ACD and ICD from exposure to textiles and cosmetics treated with this chemical.^15-18 Both N95 and surgical masks previously have been found to contain sufficient levels of formaldehyde or formaldehyde-releasing resins (FRRs) to induce ACD or ICD in susceptible people.^12-14 In this article, we focus on the role of formaldehyde in N95 masks as a potential cause of ACD and ICD in HCPs who have been wearing PPE during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Formaldehyde: Benefits With Significant Problems

Formaldehyde is nearly ubiquitous in the textile industry because it confers advantageous properties, including resistance to flames, water, and wrinkling.¹⁵ Despite these advantages, it has long been established that consumers can become sensitized to formaldehyde and FRRs in textiles after chronic exposure.^15-18

A study of Australian HCPs found that 5.2% of those tested had ACD in response to formaldehyde, which was attributed to their PPE.¹¹ In a case report of ACD caused by FRRs, Donovan and Skotnicki-Grant¹² suggested that individuals who are sensitive to formaldehyde are vulnerable to reactions that are exacerbated by friction, warmth, moisture, and tight-fitting materials—all of which can occur when wearing an N95 mask. In that report, a formaldehyde-sensitive patient had a strong positive reaction on patch testing to melamine formaldehyde and to a piece of her N95 mask while taking prednisone 8 mg/d, suggesting that some sensitized patients have a strong reaction to their mask even when they are immunosuppressed.¹²

This finding, along with the known formaldehyde content of some N95 masks, suggests that these masks might be a cause of contact dermatitis in some HCPs. Somewhat complicating the situation is that false-negative patch testing can occur in and might contribute to the underdiagnosis of formaldehyde-induced N95 mask facial dermatitis.^12,13 Some HCPs have reported mild respiratory symptoms and eye irritation associated with the use of an N95 mask—symptoms that are consistent with formaldehyde exposure. In some cases, those symptoms have caused discomfort sufficient to prompt HCPs to take leave from work.^13,14

Development of contact dermatitis in response to an N95 mask is not novel; this problem also was observed during the severe acute respiratory syndrome pandemic of the early 2000s.^9,17 Some HCPs noticed onset of skin reactions after they were required to wear an N95 mask in the workplace, which some studies attributed to material in the mask increasing the likelihood of developing an adverse reaction.^2,6,8 The components of N95 masks and the materials from which they are manufactured are listed in the Table.¹⁹

Face Masks, Adverse Reactions, and Formaldehyde

Allergic contact dermatitis and ICD typically are rare responses to wearing facial masks, but the recent COVID-19 pandemic has forced HCPs to wear masks for longer than 6 hours at a time and to reuse a single mask, which has been shown to increase the likelihood of adverse reactions.^1,4,6 Additionally, humid environments, tight-fitting materials, and skin abrasions—all of which can be induced by wearing an N95 mask—have been found to increase the likelihood of formaldehyde-related contact dermatitis by increasing the release of free formaldehyde or by enhancing its penetration into the skin.^6,20,21

Formaldehyde is an ubiquitous chemical agent that is part of indoor and outdoor working and residential environments. Health care professionals have many opportunities to be exposed to formaldehyde, which is a well-known mucous membrane irritant and a primary skin-sensitizing agent associated with both contact dermatitis (type IV hypersensitivity reaction), and an immediate anaphylactic reaction (type I hypersensitivity reaction).^22-25 Exposure to formaldehyde by inhalation has been identified as a potential cause of asthma.^26,27 More studies on the prevalence of formaldehyde-induced hypersensitivity reactions would be beneficial to HCPs for early diagnosis of hypersensitivity, adequate prophylaxis, and occupational risk assessment.

N95 mask dermatitis also heightens the potential for breaches of PPE protocols. The discomfort that HCPs experience in response to adverse skin reactions to masks can cause an increased rate of inappropriate mask-wearing, face-touching during mask adjustment, and removal of the mask in the health care setting.²⁸ These acts of face-touching and PPE adjustment have been shown to increase microbial transmission and to reduce the efficacy of PPE in blocking pathogens.^29,30

Considering the mounting evidence that widespread use of masks effectively prevents viral transmission, it is crucial that all HCPs wear appropriate PPE when treating patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.^31,32 The recent surge in ACD and ICD among HCPs in response to wearing N95 masks creates a need to determine the underlying cause of these dermatoses and find methods of mitigating sensitization of HCPs to the offending agents. The current epidemiology of COVID-19 in the United States suggests that PPE will be necessary for much longer than originally anticipated and will continue to be worn for long hours by HCPs.

Formaldehyde-Free Alternatives?

Some researchers have proposed that using materials that are free of allergens like formaldehyde might be a long-term solution to the development of contact dermatitis.^15,33 Formaldehyde is used in the finishing process of N95 masks for wrinkle and crease resistance and to prevent mildew. It is possible that formaldehyde could be completely removed from the manufacturing process, although no studies on the effects of such alternatives on mask efficacy have been performed.

Formaldehyde-free alternatives that would confer similar properties on textiles have been explored; the most promising alternative to formaldehyde in cross-linking cellulose fibers is polycarboxylic acid in combination with sodium hypophosphite, which can help avoid the adverse health outcomes and environmental impact of formaldehyde.^34-36 Studies of such alternatives in the manufacturing of N95 masks would be needed to establish the efficacy and durability of formaldehyde-free PPE.

Final Thoughts

Additional studies are needed to confirm the presence of formaldehyde in N95 masks and to confirm that the mask material yields a positive patch test in sensitized individuals. The paucity of available studies that quantify formaldehyde or FRR content of N95 and surgical masks makes it difficult to establish an association between the chemical content of masks and the prevalence of mask dermatitis among HCPs; however, available reports of skin reactions, including contact dermatitis, from PPE suggest that formaldehyde sensitivity might be at least part of the problem. As such, we propose that manufacturers of N95 and surgical masks be required to reveal the chemical components of their products so that consumers can make educated purchasing decisions.

The COVID-19 pandemic has overwhelmed health care facilities and health care providers (HCPs) due to the limited resources available to treat a rapidly expanding patient population. Health care providers have been required to work long hours and put themselves at increased risk of infection by coming into frequent contact with infected patients. In addition to the risk of becoming infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, HCPs might be required to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) for the entirety of the workday, which can cause a variety of adverse effects.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been an increase in reported cases of facial acne, pressure injury, urticaria, allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), irritant contact dermatitis (ICD), and exacerbation of underlying cutaneous conditions among health care workers.^1-4 This increase in dermatologic disorders among HCPs has been associated with the increased utilization of and duration of exposure to PPE—particularly N95 respirator masks and surgical masks.^5-7 Most studies of these reactions have attributed them to local pressure, friction, hyperhydration, elevated pH, and occlusion caused by prolonged wearing of the masks, resulting ultimately in acne and other rashes^8-10; however, a few studies have suggested that formaldehyde is a potential culprit underlying the increase in skin reactions to face masks.^11-14

Formaldehyde is a known skin irritant and has been found to cause ACD and ICD from exposure to textiles and cosmetics treated with this chemical.^15-18 Both N95 and surgical masks previously have been found to contain sufficient levels of formaldehyde or formaldehyde-releasing resins (FRRs) to induce ACD or ICD in susceptible people.^12-14 In this article, we focus on the role of formaldehyde in N95 masks as a potential cause of ACD and ICD in HCPs who have been wearing PPE during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Formaldehyde: Benefits With Significant Problems

Formaldehyde is nearly ubiquitous in the textile industry because it confers advantageous properties, including resistance to flames, water, and wrinkling.¹⁵ Despite these advantages, it has long been established that consumers can become sensitized to formaldehyde and FRRs in textiles after chronic exposure.^15-18

A study of Australian HCPs found that 5.2% of those tested had ACD in response to formaldehyde, which was attributed to their PPE.¹¹ In a case report of ACD caused by FRRs, Donovan and Skotnicki-Grant¹² suggested that individuals who are sensitive to formaldehyde are vulnerable to reactions that are exacerbated by friction, warmth, moisture, and tight-fitting materials—all of which can occur when wearing an N95 mask. In that report, a formaldehyde-sensitive patient had a strong positive reaction on patch testing to melamine formaldehyde and to a piece of her N95 mask while taking prednisone 8 mg/d, suggesting that some sensitized patients have a strong reaction to their mask even when they are immunosuppressed.¹²

This finding, along with the known formaldehyde content of some N95 masks, suggests that these masks might be a cause of contact dermatitis in some HCPs. Somewhat complicating the situation is that false-negative patch testing can occur in and might contribute to the underdiagnosis of formaldehyde-induced N95 mask facial dermatitis.^12,13 Some HCPs have reported mild respiratory symptoms and eye irritation associated with the use of an N95 mask—symptoms that are consistent with formaldehyde exposure. In some cases, those symptoms have caused discomfort sufficient to prompt HCPs to take leave from work.^13,14

Development of contact dermatitis in response to an N95 mask is not novel; this problem also was observed during the severe acute respiratory syndrome pandemic of the early 2000s.^9,17 Some HCPs noticed onset of skin reactions after they were required to wear an N95 mask in the workplace, which some studies attributed to material in the mask increasing the likelihood of developing an adverse reaction.^2,6,8 The components of N95 masks and the materials from which they are manufactured are listed in the Table.¹⁹

Face Masks, Adverse Reactions, and Formaldehyde

Allergic contact dermatitis and ICD typically are rare responses to wearing facial masks, but the recent COVID-19 pandemic has forced HCPs to wear masks for longer than 6 hours at a time and to reuse a single mask, which has been shown to increase the likelihood of adverse reactions.^1,4,6 Additionally, humid environments, tight-fitting materials, and skin abrasions—all of which can be induced by wearing an N95 mask—have been found to increase the likelihood of formaldehyde-related contact dermatitis by increasing the release of free formaldehyde or by enhancing its penetration into the skin.^6,20,21

Formaldehyde is an ubiquitous chemical agent that is part of indoor and outdoor working and residential environments. Health care professionals have many opportunities to be exposed to formaldehyde, which is a well-known mucous membrane irritant and a primary skin-sensitizing agent associated with both contact dermatitis (type IV hypersensitivity reaction), and an immediate anaphylactic reaction (type I hypersensitivity reaction).^22-25 Exposure to formaldehyde by inhalation has been identified as a potential cause of asthma.^26,27 More studies on the prevalence of formaldehyde-induced hypersensitivity reactions would be beneficial to HCPs for early diagnosis of hypersensitivity, adequate prophylaxis, and occupational risk assessment.

N95 mask dermatitis also heightens the potential for breaches of PPE protocols. The discomfort that HCPs experience in response to adverse skin reactions to masks can cause an increased rate of inappropriate mask-wearing, face-touching during mask adjustment, and removal of the mask in the health care setting.²⁸ These acts of face-touching and PPE adjustment have been shown to increase microbial transmission and to reduce the efficacy of PPE in blocking pathogens.^29,30

Considering the mounting evidence that widespread use of masks effectively prevents viral transmission, it is crucial that all HCPs wear appropriate PPE when treating patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.^31,32 The recent surge in ACD and ICD among HCPs in response to wearing N95 masks creates a need to determine the underlying cause of these dermatoses and find methods of mitigating sensitization of HCPs to the offending agents. The current epidemiology of COVID-19 in the United States suggests that PPE will be necessary for much longer than originally anticipated and will continue to be worn for long hours by HCPs.

Formaldehyde-Free Alternatives?

Some researchers have proposed that using materials that are free of allergens like formaldehyde might be a long-term solution to the development of contact dermatitis.^15,33 Formaldehyde is used in the finishing process of N95 masks for wrinkle and crease resistance and to prevent mildew. It is possible that formaldehyde could be completely removed from the manufacturing process, although no studies on the effects of such alternatives on mask efficacy have been performed.

Formaldehyde-free alternatives that would confer similar properties on textiles have been explored; the most promising alternative to formaldehyde in cross-linking cellulose fibers is polycarboxylic acid in combination with sodium hypophosphite, which can help avoid the adverse health outcomes and environmental impact of formaldehyde.^34-36 Studies of such alternatives in the manufacturing of N95 masks would be needed to establish the efficacy and durability of formaldehyde-free PPE.

Final Thoughts

Additional studies are needed to confirm the presence of formaldehyde in N95 masks and to confirm that the mask material yields a positive patch test in sensitized individuals. The paucity of available studies that quantify formaldehyde or FRR content of N95 and surgical masks makes it difficult to establish an association between the chemical content of masks and the prevalence of mask dermatitis among HCPs; however, available reports of skin reactions, including contact dermatitis, from PPE suggest that formaldehyde sensitivity might be at least part of the problem. As such, we propose that manufacturers of N95 and surgical masks be required to reveal the chemical components of their products so that consumers can make educated purchasing decisions.

Identifying safe, effective, and affordable evidence-based dermatologic treatments for older adults can be challenging because of age-related changes in the skin, comorbidities, polypharmacy, mobility issues, and cognitive changes. Phototherapy has been shown to be an effective nonpharmacologic treatment option for multiple challenging dermatologic conditions^1-8; however, few studies have specifically examined its effectiveness in older adults. The challenge for older patients with psoriasis and dermatitis is that the conditions can be difficult to control and often require multiple treatment modalities.^9,10 Patients with psoriasis also have a higher risk for diabetes, dyslipidemia, and cardiovascular disease compared to other older patients,^11,12 which poses treatment challenges and makes nonpharmacologic treatments even more appealing.

Recent studies show that phototherapy can help decrease the use of dermatologic medications. Foerster and colleagues² found that adults with psoriasis who were treated with phototherapy significantly decreased their use of topical steroids (24.5% fewer patients required steroid creams and 31.1% fewer patients required psoriasis-specific topicals)(P<.01) while their use of non–psoriasis-specific medications did not change. Click and colleagues¹³ identified a decrease in medication costs, health care utilization, and risk for immunosuppression in patients treated with phototherapy when compared to those treated with biologics and apremilast. Methotrexate is a common dermatologic medication that is highly associated with increased risks in elderly patients because of impaired immune system function and the presence of comorbidities (eg, kidney disease, obesity, diabetes, fatty liver),¹⁴ which increase in prevalence with age. Combining phototherapy with methotrexate can substantially decrease the amount of methotrexate needed to achieve disease control,¹⁵ thereby decreasing the methotrexate-associated risks. Findings from these studies suggest that a safe, effective, cost-effective, and well-tolerated nonpharmacologic alternative, such as phototherapy, is highly desirable and should be optimized. Unfortunately, most studies that report the effectiveness of phototherapy are in younger populations.

This retrospective study aimed to (1) identify the most common dermatologic conditions treated with phototherapy in older adults, (2) examine the effectiveness and safety of phototherapy in older adults, and (3) compare the outcomes with 2 similar studies in the United Kingdom¹⁶ and Turkey.¹⁷

Methods

Design, Setting, Sample, and Statistical Analysis
The institutional review boards of Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, and the University of Washington, Seattle, approved this study. It was conducted in a large US multispecialty health care system (Group Health, Seattle, Washington [now Kaiser Permanente Washington]) serving approximately 600,000 patients, using billing records to identify all patients treated with phototherapy between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2015, all who received narrowband UVB (NB-UVB) phototherapy. All adults 65 years and older who received phototherapy treatment during the 12-month study period were included. Patients were included regardless of comorbidities and other dermatologic treatments to maintain as much uniformity as possible between the present study and 2 prior studies examining phototherapy in older adult populations in the United Kingdom¹⁶ and Turkey.¹⁷ Demographic and clinical factors were presented using frequencies (percentages) or means and medians as appropriate. Comparisons of dermatologic conditions and clearance levels used a Fisher exact test. The number of phototherapy treatments to clearance and total number of treatments were compared between groups of patients using independent sample t tests.

Phototherapy Protocol
All patients received treatments administered by specially trained phototherapy nurses using a Daavlin UV Series (The Daavlin Company) or an Ultralite unit (Ultralite Enterprises, Inc), both with 48 lamps. All phototherapy nurses had been previously trained to provide treatments based on standardized protocols (Table 1) and to determine the patient’s level of disease clearance using a high to low clearance scale (Table 2). Daavlin’s treatment protocols were built into the software that accompanied the units and were developed based on the American Academy of Dermatology guidelines. The starting dose for an individual patient was determined based on the estimated minimal erythema dose for each phototype. If the patient was using photosensitizing medications, then the protocol guided the nurse to start the patient at a lower dose appropriate for their phototype. Patients with vitiligo were treated with the same starting and escalation doses as patients with Fitzpatrick phototype I because of the assumption that their vitiliginous skin had an increased risk for photosensitivity. A more recent review of the evidence has indicated that this assumption was overly conservative,¹⁸ and Kaiser Permanente Washington’s vitiligo protocol has been adjusted.

Results

Patients
Billing records identified 229 total patients who received phototherapy in 2015, of whom 52 (22.7%) were at least 65 years old. The median age was 70 years (range, 65–91 years). Twenty-nine (56%) were men and 35 (67%) had previously received phototherapy treatments.

Dermatologic Conditions Treated With Phototherapy
Our primary aim was to identify the most common dermatologic conditions treated with phototherapy in older adults. Psoriasis and dermatitis were the most common conditions treated in the sample (50% [26/52] and 21% [11/52], respectively), with mycosis fungoides being the third most common (10% [5/52]) and vitiligo tied with prurigo nodularis as fourth most common (6% [3/52])(Figure 1).

Effectiveness and Safety of Phototherapy
Our secondary aim was to examine the effectiveness and safety of phototherapy in older adults. Phototherapy was effective in this population, with 50 of 52 patients (96%) achieving a high or medium level of clearance. The degree of clearance for each of the dermatologic conditions is shown in Figure 2. Psoriasis and dermatitis achieved high clearance rates in 81% (21/26) and 82% (9/11) of patients, respectively. Overall, conditions did not have significant differences in clearances rates (Fisher exact test, P=.10). On average, it took patients 33 treatments to achieve medium or high rates of clearance. Psoriasis cleared more quickly, with an average of 30.4 treatments vs 36.1 treatments for other conditions, but the difference was not significant (t test, P=.26). Patients received an average of 98 total phototherapy treatments; the median number of treatments was 81 due to many being on maintenance therapy over several months. There was no relationship between a history of treatment with phototherapy and the total number of treatments needed to achieve clearance (t test, P=.40), but interestingly, those who had a history of phototherapy took approximately 5 more treatments to achieve clearance. The present study found that a slightly larger number of men were being treated for psoriasis (15 men vs 11 women), but there was no significant difference in response rate based on gender.

Comment

Our study found that 94% of patients with psoriasis achieved clearance with an average of 30.4 treatments, which is comparable to the reported 91% response rate with an average of 30 treatments in the United Kingdom.¹⁶ The other similar study in Turkey¹⁷ reported 73.7% of psoriasis patients achieved a 75% or more improvement from baseline with an average of 42 treatments, which may reflect underlying differences in regional skin type. Of note, the scatter chart (Figure 3) shows that several patients in the present study’s analysis are listed as not clear, but many of those patients had low treatment numbers below the mean time to clearance. Thus, the present study’s response rate may have been underestimated.

In the general population, studies show that psoriasis treated with standardized phototherapy protocols typically clears with an average of 20.6 treatments.²¹ The levels of clearance were similar in our study’s older population, but more treatments were required to achieve those results, with an average of 10 more treatments needed (an additional 3.3 weeks). Similar results were found in this sample for dermatitis and mycosis fungoides, indicating comparable clearance rates and levels but a need for more treatments to achieve similar results compared to the general population.

Additionally, in the current study more patients experienced grade 1 (mild) erythema (46%) and grade 2 erythema (25%) at some point in their treatment compared with the United Kingdom¹⁶ (1.89%) and Turkey¹⁷ (35%) studies, though these side effects did not impact the clearance rate. Interestingly, the current study’s scatter chart (Figure 3) illustrates that this side effect did not seem to increase with aging in this population. If anything, the erythema response was more prevalent in the median or younger patients in the sample. Erythema may have been due to the frequent use of photosensitizing medications in older adults in the United States, some of which typically get discontinued in patients 75 years and older (eg, statins). Other potential causes might include the use of phototype vs minimal erythema dose–driven protocols, the standard utilization of protocols originally designed for psoriasis vs other condition-specific protocols, missed treatments leading to increased sensitivity, or possibly shielding mishaps (eg, not wearing a prescribed face shield). Given the number of potential causes and the possibility of overlapping factors, careful analysis is important. With NB-UVB phototherapy, near-erythemogenic doses are optimal to achieve effective treatments, but this delicate balance may be more problematic for older adults. Future studies are needed to fully determine the factors at play for this population. In the interim, it is important for phototherapy-trained nurses to consider this risk carefully in the older population. They must follow the prescribed protocols that guide them to query patients about their responses to the prior treatment (eg, erythema, tenderness, itching), photosensitizing medications, missed treatments, and placement of shielding, and then adjust the treatment dosing accordingly.

Limitations
This study had several limitations. Although clinical outcomes were recorded prospectively, the analysis was retrospective, unblinded, and not placebo controlled. It was conducted in a single organization (Group Health [now Kaiser Permanente Washington]) but did analyze data from 4 medical centers in different cities with diverse demographics and a variety of nursing staff providing the treatments. Although the vitiligo treatment protocol likely slowed the response rate for those patients with vitiligo, the numbers were small (ie, only 3 of 52 patients), so the researchers chose to include them in the current study. The sample population was relatively small, but when these data are evaluated alongside the studies in the United Kingdom¹⁶ and Turkey,¹⁷ they show a consistent picture illustrating the effectiveness and safety of phototherapy in the older population. Further epidemiologic studies could be helpful to further describe the usefulness of this modality compared with other treatments for a variety of dermatoses in this age group. Supplementary analysis specifically examining the relationship between the number and type of photosensitizing medications, frequency of erythema, and time to clearance also could be useful.

Conclusion

Older adults with a variety of dermatoses respond well to phototherapy and should have the opportunity to use it, particularly considering the potential for increased complications and costs from other treatment modalities, such as commonly used immunosuppressive pharmaceuticals. However, the current study and the comparison studies indicate that it is important to carefully consider the slower clearance rates and the potential risk for increased erythema in this population and adjust patient education and treatment dosing accordingly.

Unfortunately, many dermatology centers do not offer phototherapy because of infrastructure limitations such as space and specially trained nursing staff. Increasing accessibility of phototherapy for older adults through home treatments may be an alternative, given its effectiveness in the general population.^22,23 In addition, home phototherapy may be worth pursuing for the older population considering the challenges they may face with transportation to the clinic setting and their increased risk for serious illness if exposed to infections such as COVID-19. The COVID-19 pandemic has brought to light the need for reliable, safe, and effective treatments that can be utilized in the safety of patients’ homes and should therefore be considered as an option for older adults. Issues such as mobility and cognitive decline could pose some complicating factors, but with the help of a well-trained family member or caregiver, home phototherapy could be a viable option that improves accessibility for older patients. Future research opportunities include further examination of the slower but ultimately equivalent response to phototherapy in the older population, the influence of photosensitizing medications on phototherapy effects, and the impact of phototherapy on utilization of immunosuppressive pharmaceuticals in older adults.

Identifying safe, effective, and affordable evidence-based dermatologic treatments for older adults can be challenging because of age-related changes in the skin, comorbidities, polypharmacy, mobility issues, and cognitive changes. Phototherapy has been shown to be an effective nonpharmacologic treatment option for multiple challenging dermatologic conditions^1-8; however, few studies have specifically examined its effectiveness in older adults. The challenge for older patients with psoriasis and dermatitis is that the conditions can be difficult to control and often require multiple treatment modalities.^9,10 Patients with psoriasis also have a higher risk for diabetes, dyslipidemia, and cardiovascular disease compared to other older patients,^11,12 which poses treatment challenges and makes nonpharmacologic treatments even more appealing.

Recent studies show that phototherapy can help decrease the use of dermatologic medications. Foerster and colleagues² found that adults with psoriasis who were treated with phototherapy significantly decreased their use of topical steroids (24.5% fewer patients required steroid creams and 31.1% fewer patients required psoriasis-specific topicals)(P<.01) while their use of non–psoriasis-specific medications did not change. Click and colleagues¹³ identified a decrease in medication costs, health care utilization, and risk for immunosuppression in patients treated with phototherapy when compared to those treated with biologics and apremilast. Methotrexate is a common dermatologic medication that is highly associated with increased risks in elderly patients because of impaired immune system function and the presence of comorbidities (eg, kidney disease, obesity, diabetes, fatty liver),¹⁴ which increase in prevalence with age. Combining phototherapy with methotrexate can substantially decrease the amount of methotrexate needed to achieve disease control,¹⁵ thereby decreasing the methotrexate-associated risks. Findings from these studies suggest that a safe, effective, cost-effective, and well-tolerated nonpharmacologic alternative, such as phototherapy, is highly desirable and should be optimized. Unfortunately, most studies that report the effectiveness of phototherapy are in younger populations.

This retrospective study aimed to (1) identify the most common dermatologic conditions treated with phototherapy in older adults, (2) examine the effectiveness and safety of phototherapy in older adults, and (3) compare the outcomes with 2 similar studies in the United Kingdom¹⁶ and Turkey.¹⁷

Methods

Design, Setting, Sample, and Statistical Analysis
The institutional review boards of Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, and the University of Washington, Seattle, approved this study. It was conducted in a large US multispecialty health care system (Group Health, Seattle, Washington [now Kaiser Permanente Washington]) serving approximately 600,000 patients, using billing records to identify all patients treated with phototherapy between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2015, all who received narrowband UVB (NB-UVB) phototherapy. All adults 65 years and older who received phototherapy treatment during the 12-month study period were included. Patients were included regardless of comorbidities and other dermatologic treatments to maintain as much uniformity as possible between the present study and 2 prior studies examining phototherapy in older adult populations in the United Kingdom¹⁶ and Turkey.¹⁷ Demographic and clinical factors were presented using frequencies (percentages) or means and medians as appropriate. Comparisons of dermatologic conditions and clearance levels used a Fisher exact test. The number of phototherapy treatments to clearance and total number of treatments were compared between groups of patients using independent sample t tests.

Phototherapy Protocol
All patients received treatments administered by specially trained phototherapy nurses using a Daavlin UV Series (The Daavlin Company) or an Ultralite unit (Ultralite Enterprises, Inc), both with 48 lamps. All phototherapy nurses had been previously trained to provide treatments based on standardized protocols (Table 1) and to determine the patient’s level of disease clearance using a high to low clearance scale (Table 2). Daavlin’s treatment protocols were built into the software that accompanied the units and were developed based on the American Academy of Dermatology guidelines. The starting dose for an individual patient was determined based on the estimated minimal erythema dose for each phototype. If the patient was using photosensitizing medications, then the protocol guided the nurse to start the patient at a lower dose appropriate for their phototype. Patients with vitiligo were treated with the same starting and escalation doses as patients with Fitzpatrick phototype I because of the assumption that their vitiliginous skin had an increased risk for photosensitivity. A more recent review of the evidence has indicated that this assumption was overly conservative,¹⁸ and Kaiser Permanente Washington’s vitiligo protocol has been adjusted.

Results

Patients
Billing records identified 229 total patients who received phototherapy in 2015, of whom 52 (22.7%) were at least 65 years old. The median age was 70 years (range, 65–91 years). Twenty-nine (56%) were men and 35 (67%) had previously received phototherapy treatments.

Dermatologic Conditions Treated With Phototherapy
Our primary aim was to identify the most common dermatologic conditions treated with phototherapy in older adults. Psoriasis and dermatitis were the most common conditions treated in the sample (50% [26/52] and 21% [11/52], respectively), with mycosis fungoides being the third most common (10% [5/52]) and vitiligo tied with prurigo nodularis as fourth most common (6% [3/52])(Figure 1).

Effectiveness and Safety of Phototherapy
Our secondary aim was to examine the effectiveness and safety of phototherapy in older adults. Phototherapy was effective in this population, with 50 of 52 patients (96%) achieving a high or medium level of clearance. The degree of clearance for each of the dermatologic conditions is shown in Figure 2. Psoriasis and dermatitis achieved high clearance rates in 81% (21/26) and 82% (9/11) of patients, respectively. Overall, conditions did not have significant differences in clearances rates (Fisher exact test, P=.10). On average, it took patients 33 treatments to achieve medium or high rates of clearance. Psoriasis cleared more quickly, with an average of 30.4 treatments vs 36.1 treatments for other conditions, but the difference was not significant (t test, P=.26). Patients received an average of 98 total phototherapy treatments; the median number of treatments was 81 due to many being on maintenance therapy over several months. There was no relationship between a history of treatment with phototherapy and the total number of treatments needed to achieve clearance (t test, P=.40), but interestingly, those who had a history of phototherapy took approximately 5 more treatments to achieve clearance. The present study found that a slightly larger number of men were being treated for psoriasis (15 men vs 11 women), but there was no significant difference in response rate based on gender.

Comment

Our study found that 94% of patients with psoriasis achieved clearance with an average of 30.4 treatments, which is comparable to the reported 91% response rate with an average of 30 treatments in the United Kingdom.¹⁶ The other similar study in Turkey¹⁷ reported 73.7% of psoriasis patients achieved a 75% or more improvement from baseline with an average of 42 treatments, which may reflect underlying differences in regional skin type. Of note, the scatter chart (Figure 3) shows that several patients in the present study’s analysis are listed as not clear, but many of those patients had low treatment numbers below the mean time to clearance. Thus, the present study’s response rate may have been underestimated.

In the general population, studies show that psoriasis treated with standardized phototherapy protocols typically clears with an average of 20.6 treatments.²¹ The levels of clearance were similar in our study’s older population, but more treatments were required to achieve those results, with an average of 10 more treatments needed (an additional 3.3 weeks). Similar results were found in this sample for dermatitis and mycosis fungoides, indicating comparable clearance rates and levels but a need for more treatments to achieve similar results compared to the general population.

Additionally, in the current study more patients experienced grade 1 (mild) erythema (46%) and grade 2 erythema (25%) at some point in their treatment compared with the United Kingdom¹⁶ (1.89%) and Turkey¹⁷ (35%) studies, though these side effects did not impact the clearance rate. Interestingly, the current study’s scatter chart (Figure 3) illustrates that this side effect did not seem to increase with aging in this population. If anything, the erythema response was more prevalent in the median or younger patients in the sample. Erythema may have been due to the frequent use of photosensitizing medications in older adults in the United States, some of which typically get discontinued in patients 75 years and older (eg, statins). Other potential causes might include the use of phototype vs minimal erythema dose–driven protocols, the standard utilization of protocols originally designed for psoriasis vs other condition-specific protocols, missed treatments leading to increased sensitivity, or possibly shielding mishaps (eg, not wearing a prescribed face shield). Given the number of potential causes and the possibility of overlapping factors, careful analysis is important. With NB-UVB phototherapy, near-erythemogenic doses are optimal to achieve effective treatments, but this delicate balance may be more problematic for older adults. Future studies are needed to fully determine the factors at play for this population. In the interim, it is important for phototherapy-trained nurses to consider this risk carefully in the older population. They must follow the prescribed protocols that guide them to query patients about their responses to the prior treatment (eg, erythema, tenderness, itching), photosensitizing medications, missed treatments, and placement of shielding, and then adjust the treatment dosing accordingly.

Limitations
This study had several limitations. Although clinical outcomes were recorded prospectively, the analysis was retrospective, unblinded, and not placebo controlled. It was conducted in a single organization (Group Health [now Kaiser Permanente Washington]) but did analyze data from 4 medical centers in different cities with diverse demographics and a variety of nursing staff providing the treatments. Although the vitiligo treatment protocol likely slowed the response rate for those patients with vitiligo, the numbers were small (ie, only 3 of 52 patients), so the researchers chose to include them in the current study. The sample population was relatively small, but when these data are evaluated alongside the studies in the United Kingdom¹⁶ and Turkey,¹⁷ they show a consistent picture illustrating the effectiveness and safety of phototherapy in the older population. Further epidemiologic studies could be helpful to further describe the usefulness of this modality compared with other treatments for a variety of dermatoses in this age group. Supplementary analysis specifically examining the relationship between the number and type of photosensitizing medications, frequency of erythema, and time to clearance also could be useful.

Conclusion

Older adults with a variety of dermatoses respond well to phototherapy and should have the opportunity to use it, particularly considering the potential for increased complications and costs from other treatment modalities, such as commonly used immunosuppressive pharmaceuticals. However, the current study and the comparison studies indicate that it is important to carefully consider the slower clearance rates and the potential risk for increased erythema in this population and adjust patient education and treatment dosing accordingly.

Unfortunately, many dermatology centers do not offer phototherapy because of infrastructure limitations such as space and specially trained nursing staff. Increasing accessibility of phototherapy for older adults through home treatments may be an alternative, given its effectiveness in the general population.^22,23 In addition, home phototherapy may be worth pursuing for the older population considering the challenges they may face with transportation to the clinic setting and their increased risk for serious illness if exposed to infections such as COVID-19. The COVID-19 pandemic has brought to light the need for reliable, safe, and effective treatments that can be utilized in the safety of patients’ homes and should therefore be considered as an option for older adults. Issues such as mobility and cognitive decline could pose some complicating factors, but with the help of a well-trained family member or caregiver, home phototherapy could be a viable option that improves accessibility for older patients. Future research opportunities include further examination of the slower but ultimately equivalent response to phototherapy in the older population, the influence of photosensitizing medications on phototherapy effects, and the impact of phototherapy on utilization of immunosuppressive pharmaceuticals in older adults.

Identifying safe, effective, and affordable evidence-based dermatologic treatments for older adults can be challenging because of age-related changes in the skin, comorbidities, polypharmacy, mobility issues, and cognitive changes. Phototherapy has been shown to be an effective nonpharmacologic treatment option for multiple challenging dermatologic conditions^1-8; however, few studies have specifically examined its effectiveness in older adults. The challenge for older patients with psoriasis and dermatitis is that the conditions can be difficult to control and often require multiple treatment modalities.^9,10 Patients with psoriasis also have a higher risk for diabetes, dyslipidemia, and cardiovascular disease compared to other older patients,^11,12 which poses treatment challenges and makes nonpharmacologic treatments even more appealing.

Recent studies show that phototherapy can help decrease the use of dermatologic medications. Foerster and colleagues² found that adults with psoriasis who were treated with phototherapy significantly decreased their use of topical steroids (24.5% fewer patients required steroid creams and 31.1% fewer patients required psoriasis-specific topicals)(P<.01) while their use of non–psoriasis-specific medications did not change. Click and colleagues¹³ identified a decrease in medication costs, health care utilization, and risk for immunosuppression in patients treated with phototherapy when compared to those treated with biologics and apremilast. Methotrexate is a common dermatologic medication that is highly associated with increased risks in elderly patients because of impaired immune system function and the presence of comorbidities (eg, kidney disease, obesity, diabetes, fatty liver),¹⁴ which increase in prevalence with age. Combining phototherapy with methotrexate can substantially decrease the amount of methotrexate needed to achieve disease control,¹⁵ thereby decreasing the methotrexate-associated risks. Findings from these studies suggest that a safe, effective, cost-effective, and well-tolerated nonpharmacologic alternative, such as phototherapy, is highly desirable and should be optimized. Unfortunately, most studies that report the effectiveness of phototherapy are in younger populations.

This retrospective study aimed to (1) identify the most common dermatologic conditions treated with phototherapy in older adults, (2) examine the effectiveness and safety of phototherapy in older adults, and (3) compare the outcomes with 2 similar studies in the United Kingdom¹⁶ and Turkey.¹⁷

Methods

Design, Setting, Sample, and Statistical Analysis
The institutional review boards of Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, and the University of Washington, Seattle, approved this study. It was conducted in a large US multispecialty health care system (Group Health, Seattle, Washington [now Kaiser Permanente Washington]) serving approximately 600,000 patients, using billing records to identify all patients treated with phototherapy between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2015, all who received narrowband UVB (NB-UVB) phototherapy. All adults 65 years and older who received phototherapy treatment during the 12-month study period were included. Patients were included regardless of comorbidities and other dermatologic treatments to maintain as much uniformity as possible between the present study and 2 prior studies examining phototherapy in older adult populations in the United Kingdom¹⁶ and Turkey.¹⁷ Demographic and clinical factors were presented using frequencies (percentages) or means and medians as appropriate. Comparisons of dermatologic conditions and clearance levels used a Fisher exact test. The number of phototherapy treatments to clearance and total number of treatments were compared between groups of patients using independent sample t tests.

Phototherapy Protocol
All patients received treatments administered by specially trained phototherapy nurses using a Daavlin UV Series (The Daavlin Company) or an Ultralite unit (Ultralite Enterprises, Inc), both with 48 lamps. All phototherapy nurses had been previously trained to provide treatments based on standardized protocols (Table 1) and to determine the patient’s level of disease clearance using a high to low clearance scale (Table 2). Daavlin’s treatment protocols were built into the software that accompanied the units and were developed based on the American Academy of Dermatology guidelines. The starting dose for an individual patient was determined based on the estimated minimal erythema dose for each phototype. If the patient was using photosensitizing medications, then the protocol guided the nurse to start the patient at a lower dose appropriate for their phototype. Patients with vitiligo were treated with the same starting and escalation doses as patients with Fitzpatrick phototype I because of the assumption that their vitiliginous skin had an increased risk for photosensitivity. A more recent review of the evidence has indicated that this assumption was overly conservative,¹⁸ and Kaiser Permanente Washington’s vitiligo protocol has been adjusted.

Results

Patients
Billing records identified 229 total patients who received phototherapy in 2015, of whom 52 (22.7%) were at least 65 years old. The median age was 70 years (range, 65–91 years). Twenty-nine (56%) were men and 35 (67%) had previously received phototherapy treatments.

Dermatologic Conditions Treated With Phototherapy
Our primary aim was to identify the most common dermatologic conditions treated with phototherapy in older adults. Psoriasis and dermatitis were the most common conditions treated in the sample (50% [26/52] and 21% [11/52], respectively), with mycosis fungoides being the third most common (10% [5/52]) and vitiligo tied with prurigo nodularis as fourth most common (6% [3/52])(Figure 1).

Effectiveness and Safety of Phototherapy
Our secondary aim was to examine the effectiveness and safety of phototherapy in older adults. Phototherapy was effective in this population, with 50 of 52 patients (96%) achieving a high or medium level of clearance. The degree of clearance for each of the dermatologic conditions is shown in Figure 2. Psoriasis and dermatitis achieved high clearance rates in 81% (21/26) and 82% (9/11) of patients, respectively. Overall, conditions did not have significant differences in clearances rates (Fisher exact test, P=.10). On average, it took patients 33 treatments to achieve medium or high rates of clearance. Psoriasis cleared more quickly, with an average of 30.4 treatments vs 36.1 treatments for other conditions, but the difference was not significant (t test, P=.26). Patients received an average of 98 total phototherapy treatments; the median number of treatments was 81 due to many being on maintenance therapy over several months. There was no relationship between a history of treatment with phototherapy and the total number of treatments needed to achieve clearance (t test, P=.40), but interestingly, those who had a history of phototherapy took approximately 5 more treatments to achieve clearance. The present study found that a slightly larger number of men were being treated for psoriasis (15 men vs 11 women), but there was no significant difference in response rate based on gender.

Comment

Our study found that 94% of patients with psoriasis achieved clearance with an average of 30.4 treatments, which is comparable to the reported 91% response rate with an average of 30 treatments in the United Kingdom.¹⁶ The other similar study in Turkey¹⁷ reported 73.7% of psoriasis patients achieved a 75% or more improvement from baseline with an average of 42 treatments, which may reflect underlying differences in regional skin type. Of note, the scatter chart (Figure 3) shows that several patients in the present study’s analysis are listed as not clear, but many of those patients had low treatment numbers below the mean time to clearance. Thus, the present study’s response rate may have been underestimated.

In the general population, studies show that psoriasis treated with standardized phototherapy protocols typically clears with an average of 20.6 treatments.²¹ The levels of clearance were similar in our study’s older population, but more treatments were required to achieve those results, with an average of 10 more treatments needed (an additional 3.3 weeks). Similar results were found in this sample for dermatitis and mycosis fungoides, indicating comparable clearance rates and levels but a need for more treatments to achieve similar results compared to the general population.

Additionally, in the current study more patients experienced grade 1 (mild) erythema (46%) and grade 2 erythema (25%) at some point in their treatment compared with the United Kingdom¹⁶ (1.89%) and Turkey¹⁷ (35%) studies, though these side effects did not impact the clearance rate. Interestingly, the current study’s scatter chart (Figure 3) illustrates that this side effect did not seem to increase with aging in this population. If anything, the erythema response was more prevalent in the median or younger patients in the sample. Erythema may have been due to the frequent use of photosensitizing medications in older adults in the United States, some of which typically get discontinued in patients 75 years and older (eg, statins). Other potential causes might include the use of phototype vs minimal erythema dose–driven protocols, the standard utilization of protocols originally designed for psoriasis vs other condition-specific protocols, missed treatments leading to increased sensitivity, or possibly shielding mishaps (eg, not wearing a prescribed face shield). Given the number of potential causes and the possibility of overlapping factors, careful analysis is important. With NB-UVB phototherapy, near-erythemogenic doses are optimal to achieve effective treatments, but this delicate balance may be more problematic for older adults. Future studies are needed to fully determine the factors at play for this population. In the interim, it is important for phototherapy-trained nurses to consider this risk carefully in the older population. They must follow the prescribed protocols that guide them to query patients about their responses to the prior treatment (eg, erythema, tenderness, itching), photosensitizing medications, missed treatments, and placement of shielding, and then adjust the treatment dosing accordingly.

Limitations
This study had several limitations. Although clinical outcomes were recorded prospectively, the analysis was retrospective, unblinded, and not placebo controlled. It was conducted in a single organization (Group Health [now Kaiser Permanente Washington]) but did analyze data from 4 medical centers in different cities with diverse demographics and a variety of nursing staff providing the treatments. Although the vitiligo treatment protocol likely slowed the response rate for those patients with vitiligo, the numbers were small (ie, only 3 of 52 patients), so the researchers chose to include them in the current study. The sample population was relatively small, but when these data are evaluated alongside the studies in the United Kingdom¹⁶ and Turkey,¹⁷ they show a consistent picture illustrating the effectiveness and safety of phototherapy in the older population. Further epidemiologic studies could be helpful to further describe the usefulness of this modality compared with other treatments for a variety of dermatoses in this age group. Supplementary analysis specifically examining the relationship between the number and type of photosensitizing medications, frequency of erythema, and time to clearance also could be useful.

Conclusion

Older adults with a variety of dermatoses respond well to phototherapy and should have the opportunity to use it, particularly considering the potential for increased complications and costs from other treatment modalities, such as commonly used immunosuppressive pharmaceuticals. However, the current study and the comparison studies indicate that it is important to carefully consider the slower clearance rates and the potential risk for increased erythema in this population and adjust patient education and treatment dosing accordingly.

Unfortunately, many dermatology centers do not offer phototherapy because of infrastructure limitations such as space and specially trained nursing staff. Increasing accessibility of phototherapy for older adults through home treatments may be an alternative, given its effectiveness in the general population.^22,23 In addition, home phototherapy may be worth pursuing for the older population considering the challenges they may face with transportation to the clinic setting and their increased risk for serious illness if exposed to infections such as COVID-19. The COVID-19 pandemic has brought to light the need for reliable, safe, and effective treatments that can be utilized in the safety of patients’ homes and should therefore be considered as an option for older adults. Issues such as mobility and cognitive decline could pose some complicating factors, but with the help of a well-trained family member or caregiver, home phototherapy could be a viable option that improves accessibility for older patients. Future research opportunities include further examination of the slower but ultimately equivalent response to phototherapy in the older population, the influence of photosensitizing medications on phototherapy effects, and the impact of phototherapy on utilization of immunosuppressive pharmaceuticals in older adults.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) once again is recommending that some Americans wear masks indoors. The agency has called for masks in K-12 school settings and in areas of the United States experiencing high or substantial SARS-CoV-2 transmission, even for the fully vaccinated.

The move reverses a controversial announcement the agency made in May 2021 that fully vaccinated Americans could skip wearing a mask in most settings.

Unlike the increasing vaccination rates and decreasing case numbers reported in May, however, some regions of the United States are now reporting large jumps in COVID-19 case numbers. And the Delta variant as well as new evidence of transmission from breakthrough cases are largely driving these changes.

“Today we have new science related to the [D]elta variant that requires us to update the guidance on what you can do when you are fully vaccinated,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, said during a media briefing July 27.

New evidence has emerged on breakthrough-case transmission risk, for example. “Information on the [D]elta variant from several states and other countries indicates that in rare cases, some people infected with the [D]elta variant after vaccination may be contagious and spread virus to others,” Dr. Walensky said, adding that the viral loads appear to be about the same in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.

“This new science is worrisome,” she said.

Even though unvaccinated people represent the vast majority of cases of transmission, Dr. Walensky said, “we thought it was important for [vaccinated] people to understand they have the potential to transmit the virus to others.”

As a result, in addition to continuing to strongly encourage everyone to get vaccinated, the CDC recommends that fully vaccinated people wear masks in public indoor settings to help prevent the spread of the Delta variant in areas with substantial or high transmission, Dr. Walensky said. “This includes schools.”
 

Masks in schools

The CDC is now recommending universal indoor masking for all teachers, staff, students, and visitors to K-12 schools, regardless of vaccination status. Their goal is to optimize safety and allow children to return to full-time in-person learning in the fall.

The CDC tracks substantial and high transmission rates through the agency’s COVID Data Tracker site. Substantial transmission means between 50 and 100 cases per 100,000 people reported over 7 days and high means more than 100 cases per 100,000 people.

The B.1.617.2, or Delta, variant is believed to be responsible for COVID-19 cases increasing more than 300% nationally from June 19 to July 23, 2021.
 

“A prudent move”

“I think it’s a prudent move. Given the dominance of the [D]elta variant and the caseloads that we are seeing rising in many locations across the United States, including in my backyard here in San Francisco,” Joe DeRisi, PhD, copresident of the Chan Zuckerberg Biohub and professor of biochemistry and biophysics at the University of California San Francisco, said in an interview.

Dr. DeRisi said he was not surprised that vaccinated people with breakthrough infections could be capable of transmitting the virus. He added that clinical testing done by the Biohub and UCSF produced a lot of data on viral load levels, “and they cover an enormous range.”

What was unexpected to him was the rapid rise of the dominant variant. “The rise of the [D]elta strain is astonishing. It’s happened so fast,” he said.
 

“I know it’s difficult”

Reacting to the news, Colleen Kraft, MD, said, “One of the things that we’re learning is that if we’re going to have low vaccine uptake or we have a number of people that can’t be vaccinated yet, such as children, that we really need to go back to stopping transmission, which involves mask wearing.”

“I know that it’s very difficult and people feel like we’re sliding backward,” Dr. Kraft said during a media briefing sponsored by Emory University held shortly after the CDC announcement.

She added that the CDC updated guidance seems appropriate. “I don’t think any of us really want to be in this position or want to go back to masking but…we’re finding ourselves in the same place we were a year ago, in July 2020.

“In general we just don’t want anybody to be infected even if there’s a small chance for you to be infected and there’s a small chance for you to transmit it,” said Dr. Kraft, who’s an assistant professor in the department of pathology and associate professor in the department of medicine, division of infectious diseases at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta.
 

Breakthrough transmissions

“The good news is you’re still unlikely to get critically ill if you’re vaccinated. But what has changed with the [D]elta variant is instead of being 90% plus protected from getting the virus at all, you’re probably more in the 70% to 80% range,” James T. McDeavitt, MD, told this news organization.

“So we’re seeing breakthrough infections,” said Dr. McDeavitt, executive vice president and dean of clinical affairs at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. “We are starting to see [such people] are potentially infectious.” Even if a vaccinated person is individually much less likely to experience serious COVID-19 outcomes, “they can spread it to someone else who spreads it to someone else who is more vulnerable. It puts the more at-risk populations at further risk.”

It breaks down to individual and public health concerns. “I am fully vaccinated. I am very confident I am not going to end up in a hospital,” he said. “Now if I were unvaccinated, with the prevalence of the virus around the country, I’m probably in more danger than I’ve ever been in the course of the pandemic. The unvaccinated are really at risk right now.”
 

IDSA and AMA support mask change

The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) has released a statement supporting the new CDC recommendations. “To stay ahead of the spread of the highly transmissible Delta variant, IDSA also urges that in communities with moderate transmission rates, all individuals, even those who are vaccinated, wear masks in indoor public places,” stated IDSA President Barbara D. Alexander, MD, MHS.

“IDSA also supports CDC’s guidance recommending universal indoor masking for all teachers, staff, students, and visitors to K-12 schools, regardless of vaccination status, until vaccines are authorized and widely available to all children and vaccination rates are sufficient to control transmission.”

“Mask wearing will help reduce infections, prevent serious illnesses and death, limit strain on local hospitals and stave off the development of even more troubling variants,” she added.

The American Medical Association (AMA) also released a statement supporting the CDC’s policy changes.

“According to the CDC, emerging data indicates that vaccinated individuals infected with the Delta variant have similar viral loads as those who are unvaccinated and are capable of transmission,” AMA President Gerald E. Harmon, MD said in the statement.

“However, the science remains clear, the authorized vaccines remain safe and effective in preventing severe complications from COVID-19, including hospitalization and death,” he stated. “We strongly support the updated recommendations, which call for universal masking in areas of high or substantial COVID-19 transmission and in K-12 schools, to help reduce transmission of the virus. Wearing a mask is a small but important protective measure that can help us all stay safer.”

“The highest spread of cases and [most] severe outcomes are happening in places with low vaccination rates and among unvaccinated people,” Dr. Walensky said. “With the [D]elta variant, vaccinating more Americans now is more urgent than ever.”

“This moment, and the associated suffering, illness, and death, could have been avoided with higher vaccination coverage in this country,” she said.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) once again is recommending that some Americans wear masks indoors. The agency has called for masks in K-12 school settings and in areas of the United States experiencing high or substantial SARS-CoV-2 transmission, even for the fully vaccinated.

The move reverses a controversial announcement the agency made in May 2021 that fully vaccinated Americans could skip wearing a mask in most settings.

Unlike the increasing vaccination rates and decreasing case numbers reported in May, however, some regions of the United States are now reporting large jumps in COVID-19 case numbers. And the Delta variant as well as new evidence of transmission from breakthrough cases are largely driving these changes.

“Today we have new science related to the [D]elta variant that requires us to update the guidance on what you can do when you are fully vaccinated,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, said during a media briefing July 27.

New evidence has emerged on breakthrough-case transmission risk, for example. “Information on the [D]elta variant from several states and other countries indicates that in rare cases, some people infected with the [D]elta variant after vaccination may be contagious and spread virus to others,” Dr. Walensky said, adding that the viral loads appear to be about the same in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.

“This new science is worrisome,” she said.

Even though unvaccinated people represent the vast majority of cases of transmission, Dr. Walensky said, “we thought it was important for [vaccinated] people to understand they have the potential to transmit the virus to others.”

As a result, in addition to continuing to strongly encourage everyone to get vaccinated, the CDC recommends that fully vaccinated people wear masks in public indoor settings to help prevent the spread of the Delta variant in areas with substantial or high transmission, Dr. Walensky said. “This includes schools.”
 

Masks in schools

The CDC is now recommending universal indoor masking for all teachers, staff, students, and visitors to K-12 schools, regardless of vaccination status. Their goal is to optimize safety and allow children to return to full-time in-person learning in the fall.

The CDC tracks substantial and high transmission rates through the agency’s COVID Data Tracker site. Substantial transmission means between 50 and 100 cases per 100,000 people reported over 7 days and high means more than 100 cases per 100,000 people.

The B.1.617.2, or Delta, variant is believed to be responsible for COVID-19 cases increasing more than 300% nationally from June 19 to July 23, 2021.
 

“A prudent move”

“I think it’s a prudent move. Given the dominance of the [D]elta variant and the caseloads that we are seeing rising in many locations across the United States, including in my backyard here in San Francisco,” Joe DeRisi, PhD, copresident of the Chan Zuckerberg Biohub and professor of biochemistry and biophysics at the University of California San Francisco, said in an interview.

Dr. DeRisi said he was not surprised that vaccinated people with breakthrough infections could be capable of transmitting the virus. He added that clinical testing done by the Biohub and UCSF produced a lot of data on viral load levels, “and they cover an enormous range.”

What was unexpected to him was the rapid rise of the dominant variant. “The rise of the [D]elta strain is astonishing. It’s happened so fast,” he said.
 

“I know it’s difficult”

Reacting to the news, Colleen Kraft, MD, said, “One of the things that we’re learning is that if we’re going to have low vaccine uptake or we have a number of people that can’t be vaccinated yet, such as children, that we really need to go back to stopping transmission, which involves mask wearing.”

“I know that it’s very difficult and people feel like we’re sliding backward,” Dr. Kraft said during a media briefing sponsored by Emory University held shortly after the CDC announcement.

She added that the CDC updated guidance seems appropriate. “I don’t think any of us really want to be in this position or want to go back to masking but…we’re finding ourselves in the same place we were a year ago, in July 2020.

“In general we just don’t want anybody to be infected even if there’s a small chance for you to be infected and there’s a small chance for you to transmit it,” said Dr. Kraft, who’s an assistant professor in the department of pathology and associate professor in the department of medicine, division of infectious diseases at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta.
 

Breakthrough transmissions

“The good news is you’re still unlikely to get critically ill if you’re vaccinated. But what has changed with the [D]elta variant is instead of being 90% plus protected from getting the virus at all, you’re probably more in the 70% to 80% range,” James T. McDeavitt, MD, told this news organization.

“So we’re seeing breakthrough infections,” said Dr. McDeavitt, executive vice president and dean of clinical affairs at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. “We are starting to see [such people] are potentially infectious.” Even if a vaccinated person is individually much less likely to experience serious COVID-19 outcomes, “they can spread it to someone else who spreads it to someone else who is more vulnerable. It puts the more at-risk populations at further risk.”

It breaks down to individual and public health concerns. “I am fully vaccinated. I am very confident I am not going to end up in a hospital,” he said. “Now if I were unvaccinated, with the prevalence of the virus around the country, I’m probably in more danger than I’ve ever been in the course of the pandemic. The unvaccinated are really at risk right now.”
 

IDSA and AMA support mask change

The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) has released a statement supporting the new CDC recommendations. “To stay ahead of the spread of the highly transmissible Delta variant, IDSA also urges that in communities with moderate transmission rates, all individuals, even those who are vaccinated, wear masks in indoor public places,” stated IDSA President Barbara D. Alexander, MD, MHS.

“IDSA also supports CDC’s guidance recommending universal indoor masking for all teachers, staff, students, and visitors to K-12 schools, regardless of vaccination status, until vaccines are authorized and widely available to all children and vaccination rates are sufficient to control transmission.”

“Mask wearing will help reduce infections, prevent serious illnesses and death, limit strain on local hospitals and stave off the development of even more troubling variants,” she added.

The American Medical Association (AMA) also released a statement supporting the CDC’s policy changes.

“According to the CDC, emerging data indicates that vaccinated individuals infected with the Delta variant have similar viral loads as those who are unvaccinated and are capable of transmission,” AMA President Gerald E. Harmon, MD said in the statement.

“However, the science remains clear, the authorized vaccines remain safe and effective in preventing severe complications from COVID-19, including hospitalization and death,” he stated. “We strongly support the updated recommendations, which call for universal masking in areas of high or substantial COVID-19 transmission and in K-12 schools, to help reduce transmission of the virus. Wearing a mask is a small but important protective measure that can help us all stay safer.”

“The highest spread of cases and [most] severe outcomes are happening in places with low vaccination rates and among unvaccinated people,” Dr. Walensky said. “With the [D]elta variant, vaccinating more Americans now is more urgent than ever.”

“This moment, and the associated suffering, illness, and death, could have been avoided with higher vaccination coverage in this country,” she said.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) once again is recommending that some Americans wear masks indoors. The agency has called for masks in K-12 school settings and in areas of the United States experiencing high or substantial SARS-CoV-2 transmission, even for the fully vaccinated.

The move reverses a controversial announcement the agency made in May 2021 that fully vaccinated Americans could skip wearing a mask in most settings.

Unlike the increasing vaccination rates and decreasing case numbers reported in May, however, some regions of the United States are now reporting large jumps in COVID-19 case numbers. And the Delta variant as well as new evidence of transmission from breakthrough cases are largely driving these changes.

“Today we have new science related to the [D]elta variant that requires us to update the guidance on what you can do when you are fully vaccinated,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, said during a media briefing July 27.

New evidence has emerged on breakthrough-case transmission risk, for example. “Information on the [D]elta variant from several states and other countries indicates that in rare cases, some people infected with the [D]elta variant after vaccination may be contagious and spread virus to others,” Dr. Walensky said, adding that the viral loads appear to be about the same in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.

“This new science is worrisome,” she said.

Even though unvaccinated people represent the vast majority of cases of transmission, Dr. Walensky said, “we thought it was important for [vaccinated] people to understand they have the potential to transmit the virus to others.”

As a result, in addition to continuing to strongly encourage everyone to get vaccinated, the CDC recommends that fully vaccinated people wear masks in public indoor settings to help prevent the spread of the Delta variant in areas with substantial or high transmission, Dr. Walensky said. “This includes schools.”
 

Masks in schools

The CDC is now recommending universal indoor masking for all teachers, staff, students, and visitors to K-12 schools, regardless of vaccination status. Their goal is to optimize safety and allow children to return to full-time in-person learning in the fall.

The CDC tracks substantial and high transmission rates through the agency’s COVID Data Tracker site. Substantial transmission means between 50 and 100 cases per 100,000 people reported over 7 days and high means more than 100 cases per 100,000 people.

The B.1.617.2, or Delta, variant is believed to be responsible for COVID-19 cases increasing more than 300% nationally from June 19 to July 23, 2021.
 

“A prudent move”

“I think it’s a prudent move. Given the dominance of the [D]elta variant and the caseloads that we are seeing rising in many locations across the United States, including in my backyard here in San Francisco,” Joe DeRisi, PhD, copresident of the Chan Zuckerberg Biohub and professor of biochemistry and biophysics at the University of California San Francisco, said in an interview.

Dr. DeRisi said he was not surprised that vaccinated people with breakthrough infections could be capable of transmitting the virus. He added that clinical testing done by the Biohub and UCSF produced a lot of data on viral load levels, “and they cover an enormous range.”

What was unexpected to him was the rapid rise of the dominant variant. “The rise of the [D]elta strain is astonishing. It’s happened so fast,” he said.
 

“I know it’s difficult”

Reacting to the news, Colleen Kraft, MD, said, “One of the things that we’re learning is that if we’re going to have low vaccine uptake or we have a number of people that can’t be vaccinated yet, such as children, that we really need to go back to stopping transmission, which involves mask wearing.”

“I know that it’s very difficult and people feel like we’re sliding backward,” Dr. Kraft said during a media briefing sponsored by Emory University held shortly after the CDC announcement.

She added that the CDC updated guidance seems appropriate. “I don’t think any of us really want to be in this position or want to go back to masking but…we’re finding ourselves in the same place we were a year ago, in July 2020.

“In general we just don’t want anybody to be infected even if there’s a small chance for you to be infected and there’s a small chance for you to transmit it,” said Dr. Kraft, who’s an assistant professor in the department of pathology and associate professor in the department of medicine, division of infectious diseases at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta.
 

Breakthrough transmissions

“The good news is you’re still unlikely to get critically ill if you’re vaccinated. But what has changed with the [D]elta variant is instead of being 90% plus protected from getting the virus at all, you’re probably more in the 70% to 80% range,” James T. McDeavitt, MD, told this news organization.

“So we’re seeing breakthrough infections,” said Dr. McDeavitt, executive vice president and dean of clinical affairs at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. “We are starting to see [such people] are potentially infectious.” Even if a vaccinated person is individually much less likely to experience serious COVID-19 outcomes, “they can spread it to someone else who spreads it to someone else who is more vulnerable. It puts the more at-risk populations at further risk.”

It breaks down to individual and public health concerns. “I am fully vaccinated. I am very confident I am not going to end up in a hospital,” he said. “Now if I were unvaccinated, with the prevalence of the virus around the country, I’m probably in more danger than I’ve ever been in the course of the pandemic. The unvaccinated are really at risk right now.”
 

IDSA and AMA support mask change

The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) has released a statement supporting the new CDC recommendations. “To stay ahead of the spread of the highly transmissible Delta variant, IDSA also urges that in communities with moderate transmission rates, all individuals, even those who are vaccinated, wear masks in indoor public places,” stated IDSA President Barbara D. Alexander, MD, MHS.

“IDSA also supports CDC’s guidance recommending universal indoor masking for all teachers, staff, students, and visitors to K-12 schools, regardless of vaccination status, until vaccines are authorized and widely available to all children and vaccination rates are sufficient to control transmission.”

“Mask wearing will help reduce infections, prevent serious illnesses and death, limit strain on local hospitals and stave off the development of even more troubling variants,” she added.

The American Medical Association (AMA) also released a statement supporting the CDC’s policy changes.

“According to the CDC, emerging data indicates that vaccinated individuals infected with the Delta variant have similar viral loads as those who are unvaccinated and are capable of transmission,” AMA President Gerald E. Harmon, MD said in the statement.

“However, the science remains clear, the authorized vaccines remain safe and effective in preventing severe complications from COVID-19, including hospitalization and death,” he stated. “We strongly support the updated recommendations, which call for universal masking in areas of high or substantial COVID-19 transmission and in K-12 schools, to help reduce transmission of the virus. Wearing a mask is a small but important protective measure that can help us all stay safer.”

“The highest spread of cases and [most] severe outcomes are happening in places with low vaccination rates and among unvaccinated people,” Dr. Walensky said. “With the [D]elta variant, vaccinating more Americans now is more urgent than ever.”

“This moment, and the associated suffering, illness, and death, could have been avoided with higher vaccination coverage in this country,” she said.

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

Population-based hospital payments provide incentives to reduce unnecessary healthcare use and a mechanism to finance population health investments. For hospitals, these payments provide stable revenue and flexibility in exchange for increased financial risk. The COVID-19 pandemic significantly reduced fee-for-service revenues, which has spurred provider interest in population-based payments, particularly from cash-strapped rural hospitals.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recently announced the launch of the Community Health Access and Rural Transformation (CHART) Model to test whether up-front, population-based payments improve access to high-quality care in rural communities and protect the financial stability of rural providers. This model follows the ongoing Pennsylvania Rural Health Model (PARHM), which offers similar payments to Pennsylvania’s rural hospitals. Prospective population-based hospital reimbursement appears to have helped Maryland’s hospitals survive the financial stress of the COVID-19 pandemic,¹ and it is likely that the PARHM did the same for rural hospitals in Pennsylvania. Both the PARHM and the CHART Model place quality measurement and improvement at the core of payment reform, and for good reason. Capitation generates incentives for care stinting; linking prospective payments to quality measurement helps to ensure accountability. However, measuring the quality of rural healthcare is challenging. Rural health is different: Hospital size, payment mechanisms, and community health priorities are all distinct from those of metropolitan areas, which is why CMS exempts Critical Access Hospitals from Medicare’s core quality programs. Rural quality reporting programs could be established that address the unique aspects of rural healthcare.

As designers (JEF, DTL) of, and an advisor (ALS) for, a proposed pay-for-performance (P4P) program for the PARHM,² we identified three central challenges in constructing and implementing P4P programs for rural hospitals, along with potential solutions. We hope that the lessons we learned can inform similar policy efforts.

First, many rural hospitals serve as stewards of community health resources. While metropolitan hospital systems can make targeted investments in population health, assigning accountability for health outcomes is challenging in cities where geographically overlapping provider systems compete for patients. In contrast, a rural hospital system with few or no competing providers is more naturally accountable for community health outcomes, especially if it owns most ambulatory clinics in its community. P4P programs could therefore reward rural hospitals for improving healthcare quality or health outcomes within their catchment areas. Like an accountable care organization (ACO), a rural hospital or hospital-based health system could be held accountable for appropriate screening for, and treatment of, uncontrolled hypertension, diabetes, or asthma, even without a network of community-based primary care providers that ACOs usually possess. Participants in the CHART Model’s Community Transformation Track, for example, select three community-level population health measures from four domains: substance use, chronic conditions, maternal health, and prevention. Accountability for community health outcomes is increasingly feasible because many larger rural hospitals have merged or been acquired.³

Second, small rural hospital patient volumes obscure the signal of true quality with statistical noise. Many common quality indicators, like risk-standardized mortality rates, are unreliable in rural settings with low patient volumes; in 2012-2013, the mean rural hospital daily census was seven inpatients.^4,5 Payers and regulators have addressed this challenge by exempting rural hospitals from quality-reporting programs or by employing statistical techniques that diminish incentives to invest in improvement. CMS, for example, uses “shrinkage” estimators that adjust a hospital’s quality score toward a program-wide average, which makes it difficult to detect and reward performance improvement.⁴ Instead, rural P4P programs should use measures that are resistant to low patient volumes, such as the Measure Application Partnership’s (MAP) Core Set of Rural-Relevant Measures.⁶ Low volume–resistant measures include process and population-health outcome measures with naturally large denominators (eg, medication reconciliation), structural measures for which sample size is irrelevant (eg, nurse staffing ratios), and qualitative assessments of hospital adherence to best practices. CMS and other measure developers should also prioritize the creation of other rural-relevant, cross-cutting, low volume–resistant measures, like avoidance of deliriogenic medications in the elderly or initiation of treatment for substance use disorders, in consultation with rural stakeholders and the MAP Rural Health Workgroup. When extensive measurement noise is inevitable, public and private policymakers should eschew downside risk in rural P4P contracts.

Third, many rural hospitals have limited resources for measurement and improvement.⁷ While many well-resourced community hospitals have dedicated quality departments, quality directors in rural hospitals often have at least one other full-time job. Well-intentioned exemptions from P4P programs have left rural hospitals with limited experience with basic data collection and reporting, a handicap compounded by redundant and misaligned payor quality reporting requirements. To engage rural hospitals in quality improvement work, payors should coordinate to make participation in rural P4P programs as easy as possible. The adoption of a locally aligned set of healthcare quality measures by all payors in a region, like the PARHM’s proposed “all-payer quality program,” could substantially reduce administrative burden and motivate rural hospitals to enhance patient care and improve community health. In the CHART Model’s Community Transformation Track, for example, all public and private participating payers in each region must report on six quality measures: inpatient and emergency department visits for ambulatory care sensitive conditions, hospital-wide all-cause unplanned readmissions, and the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Health Care survey, as well as three community-chosen measures from the domains of substance use, maternal health, and prevention.⁸ As with all P4P programs, rural P4P programs should focus on a small number of meaningful measures, such as functional and clinical outcomes, complications, and patient experience, and feature relatively large rewards for improvement.⁹ The National Quality Forum recommends that rural programs avoid downside risk, reward improvement as well as achievement, and permit virtual provider groups.¹⁰ We would add that programs in rural communities ought to pair economic rewards with social recognition and comparison, offer technical assistance and opportunities for shared learning, and account for social as well as medical risk.

Many challenges to the adoption of rural P4P programs have been targeted through multi-stakeholder collaborations like the PARHM. Careful allocation of technical assistance resources may help address barriers such as comparing the performance of heterogeneous rural hospitals that vary in characteristics like size, affiliation with large health systems, or integration of ambulatory care services, which may affect hospital measurement capabilities and performance. Quality improvement efforts could be further bolstered through direct allocation of funds to the creation of virtual shared learning platforms, and by providing performance bonuses to groups of small hospitals that elect to engage in shared reporting.

The stakes are high for designing robust quality programs for rural hospitals. Although one in five Americans rely on them for healthcare, their rate of closure has accelerated in the past decade.¹¹ CMS has made it clear that a sustainable system for financing rural health must be built around a commitment to quality measurement and improvement. While some rural provider organizations might be best served by participating in voluntary rural health networks and preexisting federal programs like the Medicare Beneficiary Quality Improvement Project, they should also have the opportunity to accept payments tied to quality, especially as growing numbers of rural hospitals are absorbed into larger healthcare systems. Adopting aligned sets of reliable and meaningful quality measures alongside population-based payments will help to create a sustainable future for rural hospitals.

We thank Mark Friedberg, MD, MPP, for his helpful comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript.

Population-based hospital payments provide incentives to reduce unnecessary healthcare use and a mechanism to finance population health investments. For hospitals, these payments provide stable revenue and flexibility in exchange for increased financial risk. The COVID-19 pandemic significantly reduced fee-for-service revenues, which has spurred provider interest in population-based payments, particularly from cash-strapped rural hospitals.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recently announced the launch of the Community Health Access and Rural Transformation (CHART) Model to test whether up-front, population-based payments improve access to high-quality care in rural communities and protect the financial stability of rural providers. This model follows the ongoing Pennsylvania Rural Health Model (PARHM), which offers similar payments to Pennsylvania’s rural hospitals. Prospective population-based hospital reimbursement appears to have helped Maryland’s hospitals survive the financial stress of the COVID-19 pandemic,¹ and it is likely that the PARHM did the same for rural hospitals in Pennsylvania. Both the PARHM and the CHART Model place quality measurement and improvement at the core of payment reform, and for good reason. Capitation generates incentives for care stinting; linking prospective payments to quality measurement helps to ensure accountability. However, measuring the quality of rural healthcare is challenging. Rural health is different: Hospital size, payment mechanisms, and community health priorities are all distinct from those of metropolitan areas, which is why CMS exempts Critical Access Hospitals from Medicare’s core quality programs. Rural quality reporting programs could be established that address the unique aspects of rural healthcare.

As designers (JEF, DTL) of, and an advisor (ALS) for, a proposed pay-for-performance (P4P) program for the PARHM,² we identified three central challenges in constructing and implementing P4P programs for rural hospitals, along with potential solutions. We hope that the lessons we learned can inform similar policy efforts.

First, many rural hospitals serve as stewards of community health resources. While metropolitan hospital systems can make targeted investments in population health, assigning accountability for health outcomes is challenging in cities where geographically overlapping provider systems compete for patients. In contrast, a rural hospital system with few or no competing providers is more naturally accountable for community health outcomes, especially if it owns most ambulatory clinics in its community. P4P programs could therefore reward rural hospitals for improving healthcare quality or health outcomes within their catchment areas. Like an accountable care organization (ACO), a rural hospital or hospital-based health system could be held accountable for appropriate screening for, and treatment of, uncontrolled hypertension, diabetes, or asthma, even without a network of community-based primary care providers that ACOs usually possess. Participants in the CHART Model’s Community Transformation Track, for example, select three community-level population health measures from four domains: substance use, chronic conditions, maternal health, and prevention. Accountability for community health outcomes is increasingly feasible because many larger rural hospitals have merged or been acquired.³

Second, small rural hospital patient volumes obscure the signal of true quality with statistical noise. Many common quality indicators, like risk-standardized mortality rates, are unreliable in rural settings with low patient volumes; in 2012-2013, the mean rural hospital daily census was seven inpatients.^4,5 Payers and regulators have addressed this challenge by exempting rural hospitals from quality-reporting programs or by employing statistical techniques that diminish incentives to invest in improvement. CMS, for example, uses “shrinkage” estimators that adjust a hospital’s quality score toward a program-wide average, which makes it difficult to detect and reward performance improvement.⁴ Instead, rural P4P programs should use measures that are resistant to low patient volumes, such as the Measure Application Partnership’s (MAP) Core Set of Rural-Relevant Measures.⁶ Low volume–resistant measures include process and population-health outcome measures with naturally large denominators (eg, medication reconciliation), structural measures for which sample size is irrelevant (eg, nurse staffing ratios), and qualitative assessments of hospital adherence to best practices. CMS and other measure developers should also prioritize the creation of other rural-relevant, cross-cutting, low volume–resistant measures, like avoidance of deliriogenic medications in the elderly or initiation of treatment for substance use disorders, in consultation with rural stakeholders and the MAP Rural Health Workgroup. When extensive measurement noise is inevitable, public and private policymakers should eschew downside risk in rural P4P contracts.

Third, many rural hospitals have limited resources for measurement and improvement.⁷ While many well-resourced community hospitals have dedicated quality departments, quality directors in rural hospitals often have at least one other full-time job. Well-intentioned exemptions from P4P programs have left rural hospitals with limited experience with basic data collection and reporting, a handicap compounded by redundant and misaligned payor quality reporting requirements. To engage rural hospitals in quality improvement work, payors should coordinate to make participation in rural P4P programs as easy as possible. The adoption of a locally aligned set of healthcare quality measures by all payors in a region, like the PARHM’s proposed “all-payer quality program,” could substantially reduce administrative burden and motivate rural hospitals to enhance patient care and improve community health. In the CHART Model’s Community Transformation Track, for example, all public and private participating payers in each region must report on six quality measures: inpatient and emergency department visits for ambulatory care sensitive conditions, hospital-wide all-cause unplanned readmissions, and the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Health Care survey, as well as three community-chosen measures from the domains of substance use, maternal health, and prevention.⁸ As with all P4P programs, rural P4P programs should focus on a small number of meaningful measures, such as functional and clinical outcomes, complications, and patient experience, and feature relatively large rewards for improvement.⁹ The National Quality Forum recommends that rural programs avoid downside risk, reward improvement as well as achievement, and permit virtual provider groups.¹⁰ We would add that programs in rural communities ought to pair economic rewards with social recognition and comparison, offer technical assistance and opportunities for shared learning, and account for social as well as medical risk.

Many challenges to the adoption of rural P4P programs have been targeted through multi-stakeholder collaborations like the PARHM. Careful allocation of technical assistance resources may help address barriers such as comparing the performance of heterogeneous rural hospitals that vary in characteristics like size, affiliation with large health systems, or integration of ambulatory care services, which may affect hospital measurement capabilities and performance. Quality improvement efforts could be further bolstered through direct allocation of funds to the creation of virtual shared learning platforms, and by providing performance bonuses to groups of small hospitals that elect to engage in shared reporting.

The stakes are high for designing robust quality programs for rural hospitals. Although one in five Americans rely on them for healthcare, their rate of closure has accelerated in the past decade.¹¹ CMS has made it clear that a sustainable system for financing rural health must be built around a commitment to quality measurement and improvement. While some rural provider organizations might be best served by participating in voluntary rural health networks and preexisting federal programs like the Medicare Beneficiary Quality Improvement Project, they should also have the opportunity to accept payments tied to quality, especially as growing numbers of rural hospitals are absorbed into larger healthcare systems. Adopting aligned sets of reliable and meaningful quality measures alongside population-based payments will help to create a sustainable future for rural hospitals.

We thank Mark Friedberg, MD, MPP, for his helpful comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript.

Population-based hospital payments provide incentives to reduce unnecessary healthcare use and a mechanism to finance population health investments. For hospitals, these payments provide stable revenue and flexibility in exchange for increased financial risk. The COVID-19 pandemic significantly reduced fee-for-service revenues, which has spurred provider interest in population-based payments, particularly from cash-strapped rural hospitals.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recently announced the launch of the Community Health Access and Rural Transformation (CHART) Model to test whether up-front, population-based payments improve access to high-quality care in rural communities and protect the financial stability of rural providers. This model follows the ongoing Pennsylvania Rural Health Model (PARHM), which offers similar payments to Pennsylvania’s rural hospitals. Prospective population-based hospital reimbursement appears to have helped Maryland’s hospitals survive the financial stress of the COVID-19 pandemic,¹ and it is likely that the PARHM did the same for rural hospitals in Pennsylvania. Both the PARHM and the CHART Model place quality measurement and improvement at the core of payment reform, and for good reason. Capitation generates incentives for care stinting; linking prospective payments to quality measurement helps to ensure accountability. However, measuring the quality of rural healthcare is challenging. Rural health is different: Hospital size, payment mechanisms, and community health priorities are all distinct from those of metropolitan areas, which is why CMS exempts Critical Access Hospitals from Medicare’s core quality programs. Rural quality reporting programs could be established that address the unique aspects of rural healthcare.

As designers (JEF, DTL) of, and an advisor (ALS) for, a proposed pay-for-performance (P4P) program for the PARHM,² we identified three central challenges in constructing and implementing P4P programs for rural hospitals, along with potential solutions. We hope that the lessons we learned can inform similar policy efforts.

First, many rural hospitals serve as stewards of community health resources. While metropolitan hospital systems can make targeted investments in population health, assigning accountability for health outcomes is challenging in cities where geographically overlapping provider systems compete for patients. In contrast, a rural hospital system with few or no competing providers is more naturally accountable for community health outcomes, especially if it owns most ambulatory clinics in its community. P4P programs could therefore reward rural hospitals for improving healthcare quality or health outcomes within their catchment areas. Like an accountable care organization (ACO), a rural hospital or hospital-based health system could be held accountable for appropriate screening for, and treatment of, uncontrolled hypertension, diabetes, or asthma, even without a network of community-based primary care providers that ACOs usually possess. Participants in the CHART Model’s Community Transformation Track, for example, select three community-level population health measures from four domains: substance use, chronic conditions, maternal health, and prevention. Accountability for community health outcomes is increasingly feasible because many larger rural hospitals have merged or been acquired.³

Second, small rural hospital patient volumes obscure the signal of true quality with statistical noise. Many common quality indicators, like risk-standardized mortality rates, are unreliable in rural settings with low patient volumes; in 2012-2013, the mean rural hospital daily census was seven inpatients.^4,5 Payers and regulators have addressed this challenge by exempting rural hospitals from quality-reporting programs or by employing statistical techniques that diminish incentives to invest in improvement. CMS, for example, uses “shrinkage” estimators that adjust a hospital’s quality score toward a program-wide average, which makes it difficult to detect and reward performance improvement.⁴ Instead, rural P4P programs should use measures that are resistant to low patient volumes, such as the Measure Application Partnership’s (MAP) Core Set of Rural-Relevant Measures.⁶ Low volume–resistant measures include process and population-health outcome measures with naturally large denominators (eg, medication reconciliation), structural measures for which sample size is irrelevant (eg, nurse staffing ratios), and qualitative assessments of hospital adherence to best practices. CMS and other measure developers should also prioritize the creation of other rural-relevant, cross-cutting, low volume–resistant measures, like avoidance of deliriogenic medications in the elderly or initiation of treatment for substance use disorders, in consultation with rural stakeholders and the MAP Rural Health Workgroup. When extensive measurement noise is inevitable, public and private policymakers should eschew downside risk in rural P4P contracts.

Third, many rural hospitals have limited resources for measurement and improvement.⁷ While many well-resourced community hospitals have dedicated quality departments, quality directors in rural hospitals often have at least one other full-time job. Well-intentioned exemptions from P4P programs have left rural hospitals with limited experience with basic data collection and reporting, a handicap compounded by redundant and misaligned payor quality reporting requirements. To engage rural hospitals in quality improvement work, payors should coordinate to make participation in rural P4P programs as easy as possible. The adoption of a locally aligned set of healthcare quality measures by all payors in a region, like the PARHM’s proposed “all-payer quality program,” could substantially reduce administrative burden and motivate rural hospitals to enhance patient care and improve community health. In the CHART Model’s Community Transformation Track, for example, all public and private participating payers in each region must report on six quality measures: inpatient and emergency department visits for ambulatory care sensitive conditions, hospital-wide all-cause unplanned readmissions, and the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Health Care survey, as well as three community-chosen measures from the domains of substance use, maternal health, and prevention.⁸ As with all P4P programs, rural P4P programs should focus on a small number of meaningful measures, such as functional and clinical outcomes, complications, and patient experience, and feature relatively large rewards for improvement.⁹ The National Quality Forum recommends that rural programs avoid downside risk, reward improvement as well as achievement, and permit virtual provider groups.¹⁰ We would add that programs in rural communities ought to pair economic rewards with social recognition and comparison, offer technical assistance and opportunities for shared learning, and account for social as well as medical risk.

Many challenges to the adoption of rural P4P programs have been targeted through multi-stakeholder collaborations like the PARHM. Careful allocation of technical assistance resources may help address barriers such as comparing the performance of heterogeneous rural hospitals that vary in characteristics like size, affiliation with large health systems, or integration of ambulatory care services, which may affect hospital measurement capabilities and performance. Quality improvement efforts could be further bolstered through direct allocation of funds to the creation of virtual shared learning platforms, and by providing performance bonuses to groups of small hospitals that elect to engage in shared reporting.

The stakes are high for designing robust quality programs for rural hospitals. Although one in five Americans rely on them for healthcare, their rate of closure has accelerated in the past decade.¹¹ CMS has made it clear that a sustainable system for financing rural health must be built around a commitment to quality measurement and improvement. While some rural provider organizations might be best served by participating in voluntary rural health networks and preexisting federal programs like the Medicare Beneficiary Quality Improvement Project, they should also have the opportunity to accept payments tied to quality, especially as growing numbers of rural hospitals are absorbed into larger healthcare systems. Adopting aligned sets of reliable and meaningful quality measures alongside population-based payments will help to create a sustainable future for rural hospitals.

We thank Mark Friedberg, MD, MPP, for his helpful comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript.

A 61-year-old man presented to the emergency department (ED) for persistent headache that began after he fell in his bathroom 4 days earlier. He described the headache as generalized and constant, rating the severity as a 5 on a scale of 0 to 10. The patient denied any associated neck pain or changes in headache quality with position change. He reported a 3-day history of nausea and four episodes of vomiting.

Headache after a fall raises concern for intracranial hemorrhage, particularly if this patient is on anticoagulant or antiplatelet medications. Subdural hematoma (SDH) would be more likely than epidural or subarachnoid hematoma (SAH) given the duration of days without progression. While nausea and vomiting are nonspecific, persistent vomiting may indicate increased intracranial pressure (eg, from an intracranial mass or SDH), particularly if provoked by positional changes. Without a history of fever or neck stiffness, meningitis is less likely unless the patient has a history of immunosuppression. Secondary causes of headache include vascular etiologies (eg, hemorrhagic cerebrovascular accident [CVA], arterial dissection, aneurysm, vasculitis), systemic causes (eg, chronic hypoxia/hypercapnia, hypertension), or medication overuse or withdrawal. In this patient, traumatic head injury with resultant postconcussive symptoms, though a diagnosis of exclusion, should also be considered. If the patient has a history of migraines, it is essential to obtain a history of typical migraine symptoms. More information regarding the mechanism of the fall is also essential to help elucidate a potential cause.

The patient had a 1-year history of recurrent loss of consciousness resulting in falls. After each fall, he quickly regained consciousness and exhibited no residual deficits or confusion. These episodes occurred suddenly when the patient was performing normal daily activities such as walking, driving, doing light chores, and standing up from a seated position. Immediately before this most recent fall, the patient stood up from a chair, walked toward the bathroom and, without any warning signs, lost consciousness. He denied dizziness, lightheadedness, nausea, or diaphoresis immediately before or after the fall. He also reported experiencing intermittent palpitations, but these did not appear to be related to the syncopal episodes. He denied experiencing chest pain, shortness of breath, or seizures.

The differential diagnosis for syncope is broad; therefore, it is important to identify features that suggest an etiology requiring urgent management. In this patient, cardiac etiologies such as arrhythmia (eg, atrial fibrillation [AF], ventricular tachycardia, heart block), ischemia, heart failure, and structural heart disease (eg, valvular abnormalities, cardiomyopathies) must be considered. His complaints of intermittent palpitations could suggest arrhythmia; however, the absence of a correlation to the syncopal episodes and other associated cardiac symptoms makes arrhythmias such as AF less likely. Medication side effects provoking cardiac conduction disturbances, heart block, or hypotension should be considered. Ischemic heart disease and heart failure are possible causes despite the absence of chest pain and dyspnea. While the exertional nature of the patient’s symptoms could support cardiac etiologies, it could also be indicative of recurrent pulmonary embolism  or right ventricular dysfunction/strain, such as chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH).

Neurologic causes of syncope should also be included in the differential diagnosis. Seizure is less likely the underlying cause in this case since the patient regained consciousness quickly after each episode and reported no residual deficits, confusion, incontinence, or oral trauma. While less likely, other neurovascular causes can be considered, including transient ischemic attack (TIA), CVA, SAH, or vertebrobasilar insufficiency.

Neurocardiogenic syncope is less likely due to lack of a clear trigger or classical prodromal symptoms. Without a history of volume loss, orthostatic syncope is also unlikely. Other possibilities include adrenal insufficiency or an autonomic dysfunction resulting from diabetic neuropathy, chronic kidney disease, amyloidosis, spinal cord injury, or neurologic diseases (eg, Parkinson disease, Lewy body dementia). Thus far, the provided history is not suggestive of these etiologies. Other causes for loss of consciousness include hypoglycemia, sleep disorders (eg, narcolepsy), or psychiatric causes.

About 10 months prior to this presentation, the patient had presented to the hospital for evaluation of headache and was found to have bilateral SDH requiring burr hole evacuation. At that time, he was on anticoagulation therapy for a history of left superficial femoral vein thrombosis with negative workup for hypercoagulability. Warfarin was discontinued after the SDH was diagnosed. Regarding the patient’s social history, although he reported drinking two glasses of wine with dinner each night and smoking marijuana afterward, all syncopal events occurred during the daytime.

The history of prior SDH should raise suspicion for recurrent SDH, particularly considering the patient’s ongoing alcohol use. History of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and possible exertional syncope might suggest recurrent pulmonary embolism or CTEPH as an etiology. DVT and TIA/CVA secondary to paradoxical embolism are also possible. Depending on extent of alcohol use, intoxication and cardiomyopathy with secondary arrhythmias are possibilities.

The basic workup should focus on identifying any acute intracranial processes that may explain the patient’s presentation and evaluating for syncope. This includes a complete blood count with differential, electrolytes, hepatic panel (based on patient’s history of alcohol use), and coagulation studies. Troponins and B-type natriuretic peptide would help assess for cardiac disease, and a urine/serum drug test would be beneficial to screen for substance use. Considering the patient’s prior history of SDH, head imaging should be obtained. If the patient were to exhibit focal neurologic deficits or persistent alterations in consciousness (thereby raising the index of suspicion for TIA or CVA), perfusion/diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies should be obtained. If obtaining a brain MRI is not practical, then a computed tomography angiogram (CTA) of the head and neck should be obtained. A noncontrast head CT would be sufficient to reveal the presence of SDH. An electroencephalogram (EEG) to assess for seizure should be performed if the patient is noted to have any focal neurologic findings or complaints consistent with seizure. With possible exertional syncope, an electrocardiogram (ECG) and transthoracic echocardiogram (with bubble study to assess for patent foramen ovale) should be obtained urgently.

The patient had a history of hypertension and irritable bowel syndrome, for which he took metoprolol and duloxetine, respectively. Eight months prior to the current ED presentation, he was admitted to the hospital for a syncope workup after falling and sustaining a fractured jaw and torn rotator cuff. ECG and continuous telemetry monitoring showed normal sinus rhythm, normal intervals, and rare episodes of sinus tachycardia, but no evidence of arrhythmia. An echocardiogram demonstrated normal ejection fraction and chamber sizes; CT and MRI of the brain showed no residual SDH; and EEG monitoring showed no seizure activity. It was determined that the patient’s syncopal episodes were multifactorial; possible etiologies included episodic hypotension from irritable bowel syndrome—related diarrhea, paroxysmal arrhythmias, and ongoing substance use.

The patient was discharged home with a 14-day Holter monitor. Rare episodes of AF (total burden 0.4%) were detected, and dronedarone was prescribed for rhythm control; he remained off anticoagulation therapy due to the history of SDH. Over the next few months, cardiology, electrophysiology, and neurology consultants concluded that paroxysmal AF was the likely etiology of the patient’s syncopal episodes. The patient was considered high risk for CVA, but the risk of bleeding from syncope-related falls was too high to resume anticoagulation therapy.

One month prior to the current ED presentation, the patient underwent a left atrial appendage closure with a WATCHMAN implant to avoid long-term anticoagulation. After the procedure, he was started on warfarin with plans to permanently discontinue anticoagulation after 6 to 8 weeks of completed therapy. He had been on warfarin for 3 weeks prior the most recent fall and current ED visit.At the time of this presentation, the patient was on dronedarone, duloxetine, metoprolol, and warfarin. On exam, he was alert and in no distress. His temperature was 36.8 °C, heart rate 98 beats per minute , blood pressure (BP) 110/75 mm Hg (with no orthostatic changes), respiratory rate 18 breaths per minute, and oxygen saturation 95% on room air. He had a regular heart rate and rhythm, clear lung fields, and a benign abdominal exam. He was oriented to time, place, and person. His pupils were equal in size and reactive to light, and sensation and strength were equal bilaterally with no focal neurologic deficits. His neck was supple, and head movements did not cause any symptoms. His musculoskeletal exam was notable for right supraspinatus weakness upon abduction of arm to 90° and a positive impingement sign. ECG showed normal sinus rhythm with normal intervals. Laboratory findings were notable only for an international normalized ratio of 4.9. CT of the head did not show any pathology. The patient was admitted to the medicine floor for further evaluation.

At this point in his clinical course, the patient has had a thorough workup—one that has largely been unrevealing aside from paroxysmal AF. With his current presentation, acute intracranial causes remain on the differential, but the normal CT scan essentially excludes hemorrhage or mass. Although previous MRI studies have been negative and no focal neurologic findings have been described throughout his course, given the patient’s repeated presentations for syncope, intracranial vessel imaging should be obtained to exclude anatomical abnormalities or focal stenosis that could cause recurrent TIAs.

Seizure is also a consideration, but prior EEG and normal neurologic exam makes this less likely. While cardiac workup for syncope has been reassuring, the patient’s history of AF should continue to remain a consideration even though this is less likely the underlying cause since he is now taking dronedarone. He should be placed on telemetry upon admission. While negative orthostatic vital signs make orthostatic syncope less likely, this could be confounded by use of beta-blockers. Overall, the patient’s case remains a challenging one, with the etiology of his syncope remaining unclear at this time.

During this hospitalization, possible etiologies for recurrent syncope and falls were reviewed. The burden of verifiable AF was too low to explain the patient’s recurrent syncopal episodes. Further review of his medical record revealed that a carotid ultrasound was obtained a year earlier in the course of a previous hospitalization. The ultrasound report described patent carotid arteries and retrograde flow in the left vertebral artery consistent with ipsilateral subclavian stenosis. At the time, the ultrasound was interpreted as reassuring based on the lack of significant carotid stenosis; the findings were thought to be unrelated to the patient’s syncopal episodes. On further questioning, the patient noted that minimal exertion such as unloading a few items from the dishwasher caused left arm pain and paresthesia, accompanied by headache and lightheadedness. He also reported using his left arm more frequently following a right shoulder injury. Repeat physical exam found an inter-arm systolic BP difference (IASBPD) >40 mm Hg and left-arm claudication. CT-angiogram of the neck was obtained and showed total occlusion of the left proximal subclavian artery, patent bilateral internal carotid arteries, and retrograde flow in the left vertebral artery (Figure 1).

Subclavian steal syndrome (SSS) results from compromised flow to the distal arm or brainstem circulation due to a proximal subclavian artery occlusion or stenosis (prior to the origin of the vertebral artery).^1,2 Subclavian stenosis may cause lowered pressure in the distal subclavian artery, creating a gradient for blood flow from the contralateral vertebral artery through the basilar artery to the ipsilateral vertebral artery, ultimately supplying blood flow to the affected subclavian artery distal to the occlusion (subclavian steal phenomenon). Flow reversal in the vertebrobasilar system can result in hypoperfusion of the brainstem (ie, vertebrobasilar insufficiency), which can cause a variety of neurologic symptoms, including SSS. While atherosclerosis is the most common cause of subclavian steal, it may be due to other conditions (eg, Takayasu arteritis, thoracic outlet syndrome, congenital heart disease).

Clinically, although many patients with proximal subclavian stenosis are asymptomatic (even in cases wherein angiographic flow reversal is detected), it is critical that clinicians be familiar with common symptoms associated with the diagnosis. Symptoms may include arm claudication related to hypoperfusion of the extremity, particularly when performing activities, as was observed in this patient. Neurologic symptoms are less common but include symptoms consistent with compromised posterior circulation such as dizziness, vertigo, ataxia, diplopia, nystagmus, impaired vision (blurring of vision, hemianopia), otologic symptoms (tinnitus, hearing loss), and/or syncope (ie, “drop attacks”). The patient’s initial complaints of sudden syncope are consistent with this presentation, as are his history of headache and lightheadedness upon use of his left arm.

Diagnostically, a gradient in upper extremity BP >15 mm Hg (as seen in this patient) or findings of arterial insufficiency would suggest subclavian stenosis. Duplex ultrasound is a reliable imaging modality and can demonstrate proximal subclavian stenosis (sensitivity of 90.9% and specificity of 82.5% for predicting >70% of stenosis cases) and ipsilateral vertebral artery flow reversal.¹ Transcranial Doppler studies can be obtained to assess for basilar artery flow reversal as well. CTA/MRA can help delineate location, severity, and cause of stenosis. However, detection of vertebral or basilar artery flow reversal does not always correlate with the development of neurologic symptoms.

For patients with asymptomatic subclavian stenosis, medical management with aspirin, beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and statins should be considered given the high likelihood for other atherosclerotic disease. Management of SSS may include percutaneous/surgical intervention in combination with medical therapy, particularly for patients with severe symptomatic disease (arm claudication, posterior circulation deficits, or coronary ischemia in patients with history of coronary bypass utilizing the left internal mammary artery).

The patient was diagnosed with SSS. Cardiovascular medicine and vascular surgery services were asked to evaluate the patient for a revascularization procedure. Because the patient’s anterior circulation was intact, several specialists remained skeptical of SSS as the cause of his syncope. As such, further evaluation for arrhythmia was recommended. The patient’s arm claudication was thought to be due to SSS; however, the well-established retrograde flow via the vertebral artery made a revascularization procedure nonurgent. Moreover, continuation of warfarin was necessary in the setting of his recent left atrial appendage closure and prior history of DVT. It was determined that the risks of discontinuing anticoagulation in order to surgically treat his subclavian stenosis outweighed the benefits. In the meantime, brachial-radial index measurement and a 30-day event monitor were ordered to further assess for arrhythmias. The patient reported being overwhelmed by diagnostic testing without resolution of his syncopal episodes and missed some of his scheduled appointments. One month later, he fell again and sustained vertebral fractures at C1, C4, and L1, and a subsequent SDH requiring craniotomy with a bone flap followed by clot evacuation. The 30-day event monitor report did not reveal any arrhythmias before, during, or after multiple syncopal events that occurred in the period leading up to this fall. The patient later died in a neurology intensive care unit.

SSS often stems from atherosclerotic arterial disease that leads to stenosis or occlusion of the proximal subclavian artery, causing decreased pressure distal to the lesion. The left subclavian artery is affected more often than the right because of its acute angle of origin, which presumably causes turbulence and predisposes to atherosclerosis.³ Compromised blood flow to the arm causes exertional arm claudication and paresthesia. The compensatory retrograde flow in the ipsilateral vertebral artery causes symptoms of vertebrobasilar insufficiency such as dizziness, vertigo, and syncope (Figure 2). This conglomerate of symptoms from subclavian steal, by definition, comprises SSS. The most remarkable signs of SSS are IASBPD >20 mm Hg and, less commonly, reproducible arm claudication.

Diagnosis of SSS requires a careful correlation of clinical history, physical examination, and radiologic findings. Over 80% of patients with subclavian disease have concomitant lesions (eg, in carotid arteries) that can affect collateral circulation.⁴ While symptoms of SSS may vary depending on the adequacy of collaterals, patent anterior circulation does not, by default, prevent SSS in patients with subclavian stenosis.³ In one study, neurologic symptoms were found in 36% of individuals with subclavian stenosis and concomitant carotid atherosclerotic lesions, and in only 5% in patients without carotid lesions.⁵

A key step in diagnosis is measurement of bilateral arm BP as elevated IASBPDs are highly sensitive for subclavian steal. More than 80% of patients with IASBPD >20 mm Hg have evidence of this condition on Doppler ultrasound.³ Higher differentials in BP correlate with occurrence of symptoms (~30% of patients with IASBPD 40-50 mm Hg, and ~40% of those with IASBPD >50 mm Hg).⁶

The severity of subclavian stenosis is traditionally classified by imaging into three separate grades or stages based on the direction of blood flow in vertebral arteries. Grade I involves no retrograde flow; grade II involves cardiac cycle dependent alternating antegrade and retrograde flow; and grade III involves permanent retrograde flow (complete steal).⁷ Our patient’s care was impacted by an unsupported conventional belief that grade II SSS may involve more hemodynamic instability and produce more severe symptoms compared to permanent retrograde flow (grade III), which would result in more stability with a reset of hemodynamics in posterior circulation.⁷ This hypothesis has been disproven in the past, and our patient’s tragic outcome also demonstrates that complete steal is not harmless.⁸ Our patient had permanent retrograde flow in the left vertebral artery, and he suffered classic symptoms of SSS, with devastating consequences. Moreover, increased demand or exertion can enhance the retrograde flow even in grade III stenosis and can precipitate neurologic symptoms of SSS, including syncope. This case provides an important lesson: Management of patients with SSS should depend on the severity of symptoms, not solely on radiologic grading.

Management of SSS is often medical for atherosclerosis and hypertension, especially if symptoms are mild and infrequent. Less than 10% patients with radiologic evidence of subclavian stenosis are symptomatic, and <20% patients with symptomatic SSS require revascularization.³ Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) and stenting have become the most favored surgical approach rather than extra-anatomic revascularization techniques.⁷ Both endovascular interventions and open revascularization carry an excellent success rate with low morbidity. Patients undergoing PTA have a combined rate of 3.6% for CVA and death⁹ and a 5-year primary patency rate¹⁰ of 82%. Bypass surgery appears similarly well tolerated, with low perioperative CVA/mortality, and a 10-year primary patency rate of 92%.¹¹ For patients with SSS and coexisting disease in the anterior circulation, carotid endarterectomy is prioritized over subclavian revascularization as repair of the anterior circulation often resolves symptoms of SSS.¹²

In our patient, SSS presented with classic vertebrobasilar and brachial symptoms, but several features of his presentation made the diagnosis a challenge. First, his history suggested several potential causes of syncope, including arrhythmia, orthostatic hypotension, and substance use. Second, he reported arm paresthesia and claudication only when specifically prompted and after a targeted history was obtained. Third, there were no consistent triggers for his syncopal episodes. The patient noted that he lost consciousness when walking, driving, doing light chores, and arising from a seated position. These atypical triggers of syncope were not consistent with any of the illnesses considered during the initial workup, and therefore resulted in a broad differential, delaying the targeted workup for SSS. The wisdom of parsimony may also have played an unintended role: In clinical practice, common things are common, and explanation of most or all symptoms with a known diagnosis is often correct rather than addition of uncommon disorders.

Unfortunately, this patient kept falling through the cracks. Several providers believed that AF and alcohol use were the likely causes of his syncope. This assumption enabled a less than rigorous appraisal of the critical ultrasound report. If SSS had been on the differential, assessing the patient for the associated signs and symptoms might have led to an earlier diagnosis.

• SSS should be included in the differential diagnosis of patients with syncope, especially when common diagnoses have been ruled out.
• Incidentally detected retrograde vertebral flow on ultrasound should never be dismissed, and the patients should be assessed for signs and symptoms of subclavian steal.
• A difference in inter-arm systolic blood pressure >20 mm Hg is highly suggestive of subclavian stenosis.
• SSS has excellent prognosis with appropriate medical treatment or revascularization.

A 61-year-old man presented to the emergency department (ED) for persistent headache that began after he fell in his bathroom 4 days earlier. He described the headache as generalized and constant, rating the severity as a 5 on a scale of 0 to 10. The patient denied any associated neck pain or changes in headache quality with position change. He reported a 3-day history of nausea and four episodes of vomiting.

Headache after a fall raises concern for intracranial hemorrhage, particularly if this patient is on anticoagulant or antiplatelet medications. Subdural hematoma (SDH) would be more likely than epidural or subarachnoid hematoma (SAH) given the duration of days without progression. While nausea and vomiting are nonspecific, persistent vomiting may indicate increased intracranial pressure (eg, from an intracranial mass or SDH), particularly if provoked by positional changes. Without a history of fever or neck stiffness, meningitis is less likely unless the patient has a history of immunosuppression. Secondary causes of headache include vascular etiologies (eg, hemorrhagic cerebrovascular accident [CVA], arterial dissection, aneurysm, vasculitis), systemic causes (eg, chronic hypoxia/hypercapnia, hypertension), or medication overuse or withdrawal. In this patient, traumatic head injury with resultant postconcussive symptoms, though a diagnosis of exclusion, should also be considered. If the patient has a history of migraines, it is essential to obtain a history of typical migraine symptoms. More information regarding the mechanism of the fall is also essential to help elucidate a potential cause.

The patient had a 1-year history of recurrent loss of consciousness resulting in falls. After each fall, he quickly regained consciousness and exhibited no residual deficits or confusion. These episodes occurred suddenly when the patient was performing normal daily activities such as walking, driving, doing light chores, and standing up from a seated position. Immediately before this most recent fall, the patient stood up from a chair, walked toward the bathroom and, without any warning signs, lost consciousness. He denied dizziness, lightheadedness, nausea, or diaphoresis immediately before or after the fall. He also reported experiencing intermittent palpitations, but these did not appear to be related to the syncopal episodes. He denied experiencing chest pain, shortness of breath, or seizures.

The differential diagnosis for syncope is broad; therefore, it is important to identify features that suggest an etiology requiring urgent management. In this patient, cardiac etiologies such as arrhythmia (eg, atrial fibrillation [AF], ventricular tachycardia, heart block), ischemia, heart failure, and structural heart disease (eg, valvular abnormalities, cardiomyopathies) must be considered. His complaints of intermittent palpitations could suggest arrhythmia; however, the absence of a correlation to the syncopal episodes and other associated cardiac symptoms makes arrhythmias such as AF less likely. Medication side effects provoking cardiac conduction disturbances, heart block, or hypotension should be considered. Ischemic heart disease and heart failure are possible causes despite the absence of chest pain and dyspnea. While the exertional nature of the patient’s symptoms could support cardiac etiologies, it could also be indicative of recurrent pulmonary embolism  or right ventricular dysfunction/strain, such as chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH).

Neurologic causes of syncope should also be included in the differential diagnosis. Seizure is less likely the underlying cause in this case since the patient regained consciousness quickly after each episode and reported no residual deficits, confusion, incontinence, or oral trauma. While less likely, other neurovascular causes can be considered, including transient ischemic attack (TIA), CVA, SAH, or vertebrobasilar insufficiency.

Neurocardiogenic syncope is less likely due to lack of a clear trigger or classical prodromal symptoms. Without a history of volume loss, orthostatic syncope is also unlikely. Other possibilities include adrenal insufficiency or an autonomic dysfunction resulting from diabetic neuropathy, chronic kidney disease, amyloidosis, spinal cord injury, or neurologic diseases (eg, Parkinson disease, Lewy body dementia). Thus far, the provided history is not suggestive of these etiologies. Other causes for loss of consciousness include hypoglycemia, sleep disorders (eg, narcolepsy), or psychiatric causes.

About 10 months prior to this presentation, the patient had presented to the hospital for evaluation of headache and was found to have bilateral SDH requiring burr hole evacuation. At that time, he was on anticoagulation therapy for a history of left superficial femoral vein thrombosis with negative workup for hypercoagulability. Warfarin was discontinued after the SDH was diagnosed. Regarding the patient’s social history, although he reported drinking two glasses of wine with dinner each night and smoking marijuana afterward, all syncopal events occurred during the daytime.

The history of prior SDH should raise suspicion for recurrent SDH, particularly considering the patient’s ongoing alcohol use. History of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and possible exertional syncope might suggest recurrent pulmonary embolism or CTEPH as an etiology. DVT and TIA/CVA secondary to paradoxical embolism are also possible. Depending on extent of alcohol use, intoxication and cardiomyopathy with secondary arrhythmias are possibilities.

The basic workup should focus on identifying any acute intracranial processes that may explain the patient’s presentation and evaluating for syncope. This includes a complete blood count with differential, electrolytes, hepatic panel (based on patient’s history of alcohol use), and coagulation studies. Troponins and B-type natriuretic peptide would help assess for cardiac disease, and a urine/serum drug test would be beneficial to screen for substance use. Considering the patient’s prior history of SDH, head imaging should be obtained. If the patient were to exhibit focal neurologic deficits or persistent alterations in consciousness (thereby raising the index of suspicion for TIA or CVA), perfusion/diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies should be obtained. If obtaining a brain MRI is not practical, then a computed tomography angiogram (CTA) of the head and neck should be obtained. A noncontrast head CT would be sufficient to reveal the presence of SDH. An electroencephalogram (EEG) to assess for seizure should be performed if the patient is noted to have any focal neurologic findings or complaints consistent with seizure. With possible exertional syncope, an electrocardiogram (ECG) and transthoracic echocardiogram (with bubble study to assess for patent foramen ovale) should be obtained urgently.

The patient had a history of hypertension and irritable bowel syndrome, for which he took metoprolol and duloxetine, respectively. Eight months prior to the current ED presentation, he was admitted to the hospital for a syncope workup after falling and sustaining a fractured jaw and torn rotator cuff. ECG and continuous telemetry monitoring showed normal sinus rhythm, normal intervals, and rare episodes of sinus tachycardia, but no evidence of arrhythmia. An echocardiogram demonstrated normal ejection fraction and chamber sizes; CT and MRI of the brain showed no residual SDH; and EEG monitoring showed no seizure activity. It was determined that the patient’s syncopal episodes were multifactorial; possible etiologies included episodic hypotension from irritable bowel syndrome—related diarrhea, paroxysmal arrhythmias, and ongoing substance use.

The patient was discharged home with a 14-day Holter monitor. Rare episodes of AF (total burden 0.4%) were detected, and dronedarone was prescribed for rhythm control; he remained off anticoagulation therapy due to the history of SDH. Over the next few months, cardiology, electrophysiology, and neurology consultants concluded that paroxysmal AF was the likely etiology of the patient’s syncopal episodes. The patient was considered high risk for CVA, but the risk of bleeding from syncope-related falls was too high to resume anticoagulation therapy.

One month prior to the current ED presentation, the patient underwent a left atrial appendage closure with a WATCHMAN implant to avoid long-term anticoagulation. After the procedure, he was started on warfarin with plans to permanently discontinue anticoagulation after 6 to 8 weeks of completed therapy. He had been on warfarin for 3 weeks prior the most recent fall and current ED visit.At the time of this presentation, the patient was on dronedarone, duloxetine, metoprolol, and warfarin. On exam, he was alert and in no distress. His temperature was 36.8 °C, heart rate 98 beats per minute , blood pressure (BP) 110/75 mm Hg (with no orthostatic changes), respiratory rate 18 breaths per minute, and oxygen saturation 95% on room air. He had a regular heart rate and rhythm, clear lung fields, and a benign abdominal exam. He was oriented to time, place, and person. His pupils were equal in size and reactive to light, and sensation and strength were equal bilaterally with no focal neurologic deficits. His neck was supple, and head movements did not cause any symptoms. His musculoskeletal exam was notable for right supraspinatus weakness upon abduction of arm to 90° and a positive impingement sign. ECG showed normal sinus rhythm with normal intervals. Laboratory findings were notable only for an international normalized ratio of 4.9. CT of the head did not show any pathology. The patient was admitted to the medicine floor for further evaluation.

At this point in his clinical course, the patient has had a thorough workup—one that has largely been unrevealing aside from paroxysmal AF. With his current presentation, acute intracranial causes remain on the differential, but the normal CT scan essentially excludes hemorrhage or mass. Although previous MRI studies have been negative and no focal neurologic findings have been described throughout his course, given the patient’s repeated presentations for syncope, intracranial vessel imaging should be obtained to exclude anatomical abnormalities or focal stenosis that could cause recurrent TIAs.

Seizure is also a consideration, but prior EEG and normal neurologic exam makes this less likely. While cardiac workup for syncope has been reassuring, the patient’s history of AF should continue to remain a consideration even though this is less likely the underlying cause since he is now taking dronedarone. He should be placed on telemetry upon admission. While negative orthostatic vital signs make orthostatic syncope less likely, this could be confounded by use of beta-blockers. Overall, the patient’s case remains a challenging one, with the etiology of his syncope remaining unclear at this time.

During this hospitalization, possible etiologies for recurrent syncope and falls were reviewed. The burden of verifiable AF was too low to explain the patient’s recurrent syncopal episodes. Further review of his medical record revealed that a carotid ultrasound was obtained a year earlier in the course of a previous hospitalization. The ultrasound report described patent carotid arteries and retrograde flow in the left vertebral artery consistent with ipsilateral subclavian stenosis. At the time, the ultrasound was interpreted as reassuring based on the lack of significant carotid stenosis; the findings were thought to be unrelated to the patient’s syncopal episodes. On further questioning, the patient noted that minimal exertion such as unloading a few items from the dishwasher caused left arm pain and paresthesia, accompanied by headache and lightheadedness. He also reported using his left arm more frequently following a right shoulder injury. Repeat physical exam found an inter-arm systolic BP difference (IASBPD) >40 mm Hg and left-arm claudication. CT-angiogram of the neck was obtained and showed total occlusion of the left proximal subclavian artery, patent bilateral internal carotid arteries, and retrograde flow in the left vertebral artery (Figure 1).

Subclavian steal syndrome (SSS) results from compromised flow to the distal arm or brainstem circulation due to a proximal subclavian artery occlusion or stenosis (prior to the origin of the vertebral artery).^1,2 Subclavian stenosis may cause lowered pressure in the distal subclavian artery, creating a gradient for blood flow from the contralateral vertebral artery through the basilar artery to the ipsilateral vertebral artery, ultimately supplying blood flow to the affected subclavian artery distal to the occlusion (subclavian steal phenomenon). Flow reversal in the vertebrobasilar system can result in hypoperfusion of the brainstem (ie, vertebrobasilar insufficiency), which can cause a variety of neurologic symptoms, including SSS. While atherosclerosis is the most common cause of subclavian steal, it may be due to other conditions (eg, Takayasu arteritis, thoracic outlet syndrome, congenital heart disease).

Clinically, although many patients with proximal subclavian stenosis are asymptomatic (even in cases wherein angiographic flow reversal is detected), it is critical that clinicians be familiar with common symptoms associated with the diagnosis. Symptoms may include arm claudication related to hypoperfusion of the extremity, particularly when performing activities, as was observed in this patient. Neurologic symptoms are less common but include symptoms consistent with compromised posterior circulation such as dizziness, vertigo, ataxia, diplopia, nystagmus, impaired vision (blurring of vision, hemianopia), otologic symptoms (tinnitus, hearing loss), and/or syncope (ie, “drop attacks”). The patient’s initial complaints of sudden syncope are consistent with this presentation, as are his history of headache and lightheadedness upon use of his left arm.

Diagnostically, a gradient in upper extremity BP >15 mm Hg (as seen in this patient) or findings of arterial insufficiency would suggest subclavian stenosis. Duplex ultrasound is a reliable imaging modality and can demonstrate proximal subclavian stenosis (sensitivity of 90.9% and specificity of 82.5% for predicting >70% of stenosis cases) and ipsilateral vertebral artery flow reversal.¹ Transcranial Doppler studies can be obtained to assess for basilar artery flow reversal as well. CTA/MRA can help delineate location, severity, and cause of stenosis. However, detection of vertebral or basilar artery flow reversal does not always correlate with the development of neurologic symptoms.

For patients with asymptomatic subclavian stenosis, medical management with aspirin, beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and statins should be considered given the high likelihood for other atherosclerotic disease. Management of SSS may include percutaneous/surgical intervention in combination with medical therapy, particularly for patients with severe symptomatic disease (arm claudication, posterior circulation deficits, or coronary ischemia in patients with history of coronary bypass utilizing the left internal mammary artery).

The patient was diagnosed with SSS. Cardiovascular medicine and vascular surgery services were asked to evaluate the patient for a revascularization procedure. Because the patient’s anterior circulation was intact, several specialists remained skeptical of SSS as the cause of his syncope. As such, further evaluation for arrhythmia was recommended. The patient’s arm claudication was thought to be due to SSS; however, the well-established retrograde flow via the vertebral artery made a revascularization procedure nonurgent. Moreover, continuation of warfarin was necessary in the setting of his recent left atrial appendage closure and prior history of DVT. It was determined that the risks of discontinuing anticoagulation in order to surgically treat his subclavian stenosis outweighed the benefits. In the meantime, brachial-radial index measurement and a 30-day event monitor were ordered to further assess for arrhythmias. The patient reported being overwhelmed by diagnostic testing without resolution of his syncopal episodes and missed some of his scheduled appointments. One month later, he fell again and sustained vertebral fractures at C1, C4, and L1, and a subsequent SDH requiring craniotomy with a bone flap followed by clot evacuation. The 30-day event monitor report did not reveal any arrhythmias before, during, or after multiple syncopal events that occurred in the period leading up to this fall. The patient later died in a neurology intensive care unit.

SSS often stems from atherosclerotic arterial disease that leads to stenosis or occlusion of the proximal subclavian artery, causing decreased pressure distal to the lesion. The left subclavian artery is affected more often than the right because of its acute angle of origin, which presumably causes turbulence and predisposes to atherosclerosis.³ Compromised blood flow to the arm causes exertional arm claudication and paresthesia. The compensatory retrograde flow in the ipsilateral vertebral artery causes symptoms of vertebrobasilar insufficiency such as dizziness, vertigo, and syncope (Figure 2). This conglomerate of symptoms from subclavian steal, by definition, comprises SSS. The most remarkable signs of SSS are IASBPD >20 mm Hg and, less commonly, reproducible arm claudication.

Diagnosis of SSS requires a careful correlation of clinical history, physical examination, and radiologic findings. Over 80% of patients with subclavian disease have concomitant lesions (eg, in carotid arteries) that can affect collateral circulation.⁴ While symptoms of SSS may vary depending on the adequacy of collaterals, patent anterior circulation does not, by default, prevent SSS in patients with subclavian stenosis.³ In one study, neurologic symptoms were found in 36% of individuals with subclavian stenosis and concomitant carotid atherosclerotic lesions, and in only 5% in patients without carotid lesions.⁵

A key step in diagnosis is measurement of bilateral arm BP as elevated IASBPDs are highly sensitive for subclavian steal. More than 80% of patients with IASBPD >20 mm Hg have evidence of this condition on Doppler ultrasound.³ Higher differentials in BP correlate with occurrence of symptoms (~30% of patients with IASBPD 40-50 mm Hg, and ~40% of those with IASBPD >50 mm Hg).⁶

The severity of subclavian stenosis is traditionally classified by imaging into three separate grades or stages based on the direction of blood flow in vertebral arteries. Grade I involves no retrograde flow; grade II involves cardiac cycle dependent alternating antegrade and retrograde flow; and grade III involves permanent retrograde flow (complete steal).⁷ Our patient’s care was impacted by an unsupported conventional belief that grade II SSS may involve more hemodynamic instability and produce more severe symptoms compared to permanent retrograde flow (grade III), which would result in more stability with a reset of hemodynamics in posterior circulation.⁷ This hypothesis has been disproven in the past, and our patient’s tragic outcome also demonstrates that complete steal is not harmless.⁸ Our patient had permanent retrograde flow in the left vertebral artery, and he suffered classic symptoms of SSS, with devastating consequences. Moreover, increased demand or exertion can enhance the retrograde flow even in grade III stenosis and can precipitate neurologic symptoms of SSS, including syncope. This case provides an important lesson: Management of patients with SSS should depend on the severity of symptoms, not solely on radiologic grading.

Management of SSS is often medical for atherosclerosis and hypertension, especially if symptoms are mild and infrequent. Less than 10% patients with radiologic evidence of subclavian stenosis are symptomatic, and <20% patients with symptomatic SSS require revascularization.³ Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) and stenting have become the most favored surgical approach rather than extra-anatomic revascularization techniques.⁷ Both endovascular interventions and open revascularization carry an excellent success rate with low morbidity. Patients undergoing PTA have a combined rate of 3.6% for CVA and death⁹ and a 5-year primary patency rate¹⁰ of 82%. Bypass surgery appears similarly well tolerated, with low perioperative CVA/mortality, and a 10-year primary patency rate of 92%.¹¹ For patients with SSS and coexisting disease in the anterior circulation, carotid endarterectomy is prioritized over subclavian revascularization as repair of the anterior circulation often resolves symptoms of SSS.¹²

In our patient, SSS presented with classic vertebrobasilar and brachial symptoms, but several features of his presentation made the diagnosis a challenge. First, his history suggested several potential causes of syncope, including arrhythmia, orthostatic hypotension, and substance use. Second, he reported arm paresthesia and claudication only when specifically prompted and after a targeted history was obtained. Third, there were no consistent triggers for his syncopal episodes. The patient noted that he lost consciousness when walking, driving, doing light chores, and arising from a seated position. These atypical triggers of syncope were not consistent with any of the illnesses considered during the initial workup, and therefore resulted in a broad differential, delaying the targeted workup for SSS. The wisdom of parsimony may also have played an unintended role: In clinical practice, common things are common, and explanation of most or all symptoms with a known diagnosis is often correct rather than addition of uncommon disorders.

Unfortunately, this patient kept falling through the cracks. Several providers believed that AF and alcohol use were the likely causes of his syncope. This assumption enabled a less than rigorous appraisal of the critical ultrasound report. If SSS had been on the differential, assessing the patient for the associated signs and symptoms might have led to an earlier diagnosis.

• SSS should be included in the differential diagnosis of patients with syncope, especially when common diagnoses have been ruled out.
• Incidentally detected retrograde vertebral flow on ultrasound should never be dismissed, and the patients should be assessed for signs and symptoms of subclavian steal.
• A difference in inter-arm systolic blood pressure >20 mm Hg is highly suggestive of subclavian stenosis.
• SSS has excellent prognosis with appropriate medical treatment or revascularization.

A 61-year-old man presented to the emergency department (ED) for persistent headache that began after he fell in his bathroom 4 days earlier. He described the headache as generalized and constant, rating the severity as a 5 on a scale of 0 to 10. The patient denied any associated neck pain or changes in headache quality with position change. He reported a 3-day history of nausea and four episodes of vomiting.

Headache after a fall raises concern for intracranial hemorrhage, particularly if this patient is on anticoagulant or antiplatelet medications. Subdural hematoma (SDH) would be more likely than epidural or subarachnoid hematoma (SAH) given the duration of days without progression. While nausea and vomiting are nonspecific, persistent vomiting may indicate increased intracranial pressure (eg, from an intracranial mass or SDH), particularly if provoked by positional changes. Without a history of fever or neck stiffness, meningitis is less likely unless the patient has a history of immunosuppression. Secondary causes of headache include vascular etiologies (eg, hemorrhagic cerebrovascular accident [CVA], arterial dissection, aneurysm, vasculitis), systemic causes (eg, chronic hypoxia/hypercapnia, hypertension), or medication overuse or withdrawal. In this patient, traumatic head injury with resultant postconcussive symptoms, though a diagnosis of exclusion, should also be considered. If the patient has a history of migraines, it is essential to obtain a history of typical migraine symptoms. More information regarding the mechanism of the fall is also essential to help elucidate a potential cause.

The patient had a 1-year history of recurrent loss of consciousness resulting in falls. After each fall, he quickly regained consciousness and exhibited no residual deficits or confusion. These episodes occurred suddenly when the patient was performing normal daily activities such as walking, driving, doing light chores, and standing up from a seated position. Immediately before this most recent fall, the patient stood up from a chair, walked toward the bathroom and, without any warning signs, lost consciousness. He denied dizziness, lightheadedness, nausea, or diaphoresis immediately before or after the fall. He also reported experiencing intermittent palpitations, but these did not appear to be related to the syncopal episodes. He denied experiencing chest pain, shortness of breath, or seizures.

The differential diagnosis for syncope is broad; therefore, it is important to identify features that suggest an etiology requiring urgent management. In this patient, cardiac etiologies such as arrhythmia (eg, atrial fibrillation [AF], ventricular tachycardia, heart block), ischemia, heart failure, and structural heart disease (eg, valvular abnormalities, cardiomyopathies) must be considered. His complaints of intermittent palpitations could suggest arrhythmia; however, the absence of a correlation to the syncopal episodes and other associated cardiac symptoms makes arrhythmias such as AF less likely. Medication side effects provoking cardiac conduction disturbances, heart block, or hypotension should be considered. Ischemic heart disease and heart failure are possible causes despite the absence of chest pain and dyspnea. While the exertional nature of the patient’s symptoms could support cardiac etiologies, it could also be indicative of recurrent pulmonary embolism  or right ventricular dysfunction/strain, such as chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH).

Neurologic causes of syncope should also be included in the differential diagnosis. Seizure is less likely the underlying cause in this case since the patient regained consciousness quickly after each episode and reported no residual deficits, confusion, incontinence, or oral trauma. While less likely, other neurovascular causes can be considered, including transient ischemic attack (TIA), CVA, SAH, or vertebrobasilar insufficiency.

Neurocardiogenic syncope is less likely due to lack of a clear trigger or classical prodromal symptoms. Without a history of volume loss, orthostatic syncope is also unlikely. Other possibilities include adrenal insufficiency or an autonomic dysfunction resulting from diabetic neuropathy, chronic kidney disease, amyloidosis, spinal cord injury, or neurologic diseases (eg, Parkinson disease, Lewy body dementia). Thus far, the provided history is not suggestive of these etiologies. Other causes for loss of consciousness include hypoglycemia, sleep disorders (eg, narcolepsy), or psychiatric causes.

About 10 months prior to this presentation, the patient had presented to the hospital for evaluation of headache and was found to have bilateral SDH requiring burr hole evacuation. At that time, he was on anticoagulation therapy for a history of left superficial femoral vein thrombosis with negative workup for hypercoagulability. Warfarin was discontinued after the SDH was diagnosed. Regarding the patient’s social history, although he reported drinking two glasses of wine with dinner each night and smoking marijuana afterward, all syncopal events occurred during the daytime.

The history of prior SDH should raise suspicion for recurrent SDH, particularly considering the patient’s ongoing alcohol use. History of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and possible exertional syncope might suggest recurrent pulmonary embolism or CTEPH as an etiology. DVT and TIA/CVA secondary to paradoxical embolism are also possible. Depending on extent of alcohol use, intoxication and cardiomyopathy with secondary arrhythmias are possibilities.

The basic workup should focus on identifying any acute intracranial processes that may explain the patient’s presentation and evaluating for syncope. This includes a complete blood count with differential, electrolytes, hepatic panel (based on patient’s history of alcohol use), and coagulation studies. Troponins and B-type natriuretic peptide would help assess for cardiac disease, and a urine/serum drug test would be beneficial to screen for substance use. Considering the patient’s prior history of SDH, head imaging should be obtained. If the patient were to exhibit focal neurologic deficits or persistent alterations in consciousness (thereby raising the index of suspicion for TIA or CVA), perfusion/diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies should be obtained. If obtaining a brain MRI is not practical, then a computed tomography angiogram (CTA) of the head and neck should be obtained. A noncontrast head CT would be sufficient to reveal the presence of SDH. An electroencephalogram (EEG) to assess for seizure should be performed if the patient is noted to have any focal neurologic findings or complaints consistent with seizure. With possible exertional syncope, an electrocardiogram (ECG) and transthoracic echocardiogram (with bubble study to assess for patent foramen ovale) should be obtained urgently.

The patient had a history of hypertension and irritable bowel syndrome, for which he took metoprolol and duloxetine, respectively. Eight months prior to the current ED presentation, he was admitted to the hospital for a syncope workup after falling and sustaining a fractured jaw and torn rotator cuff. ECG and continuous telemetry monitoring showed normal sinus rhythm, normal intervals, and rare episodes of sinus tachycardia, but no evidence of arrhythmia. An echocardiogram demonstrated normal ejection fraction and chamber sizes; CT and MRI of the brain showed no residual SDH; and EEG monitoring showed no seizure activity. It was determined that the patient’s syncopal episodes were multifactorial; possible etiologies included episodic hypotension from irritable bowel syndrome—related diarrhea, paroxysmal arrhythmias, and ongoing substance use.

The patient was discharged home with a 14-day Holter monitor. Rare episodes of AF (total burden 0.4%) were detected, and dronedarone was prescribed for rhythm control; he remained off anticoagulation therapy due to the history of SDH. Over the next few months, cardiology, electrophysiology, and neurology consultants concluded that paroxysmal AF was the likely etiology of the patient’s syncopal episodes. The patient was considered high risk for CVA, but the risk of bleeding from syncope-related falls was too high to resume anticoagulation therapy.

One month prior to the current ED presentation, the patient underwent a left atrial appendage closure with a WATCHMAN implant to avoid long-term anticoagulation. After the procedure, he was started on warfarin with plans to permanently discontinue anticoagulation after 6 to 8 weeks of completed therapy. He had been on warfarin for 3 weeks prior the most recent fall and current ED visit.At the time of this presentation, the patient was on dronedarone, duloxetine, metoprolol, and warfarin. On exam, he was alert and in no distress. His temperature was 36.8 °C, heart rate 98 beats per minute , blood pressure (BP) 110/75 mm Hg (with no orthostatic changes), respiratory rate 18 breaths per minute, and oxygen saturation 95% on room air. He had a regular heart rate and rhythm, clear lung fields, and a benign abdominal exam. He was oriented to time, place, and person. His pupils were equal in size and reactive to light, and sensation and strength were equal bilaterally with no focal neurologic deficits. His neck was supple, and head movements did not cause any symptoms. His musculoskeletal exam was notable for right supraspinatus weakness upon abduction of arm to 90° and a positive impingement sign. ECG showed normal sinus rhythm with normal intervals. Laboratory findings were notable only for an international normalized ratio of 4.9. CT of the head did not show any pathology. The patient was admitted to the medicine floor for further evaluation.

At this point in his clinical course, the patient has had a thorough workup—one that has largely been unrevealing aside from paroxysmal AF. With his current presentation, acute intracranial causes remain on the differential, but the normal CT scan essentially excludes hemorrhage or mass. Although previous MRI studies have been negative and no focal neurologic findings have been described throughout his course, given the patient’s repeated presentations for syncope, intracranial vessel imaging should be obtained to exclude anatomical abnormalities or focal stenosis that could cause recurrent TIAs.

Seizure is also a consideration, but prior EEG and normal neurologic exam makes this less likely. While cardiac workup for syncope has been reassuring, the patient’s history of AF should continue to remain a consideration even though this is less likely the underlying cause since he is now taking dronedarone. He should be placed on telemetry upon admission. While negative orthostatic vital signs make orthostatic syncope less likely, this could be confounded by use of beta-blockers. Overall, the patient’s case remains a challenging one, with the etiology of his syncope remaining unclear at this time.

During this hospitalization, possible etiologies for recurrent syncope and falls were reviewed. The burden of verifiable AF was too low to explain the patient’s recurrent syncopal episodes. Further review of his medical record revealed that a carotid ultrasound was obtained a year earlier in the course of a previous hospitalization. The ultrasound report described patent carotid arteries and retrograde flow in the left vertebral artery consistent with ipsilateral subclavian stenosis. At the time, the ultrasound was interpreted as reassuring based on the lack of significant carotid stenosis; the findings were thought to be unrelated to the patient’s syncopal episodes. On further questioning, the patient noted that minimal exertion such as unloading a few items from the dishwasher caused left arm pain and paresthesia, accompanied by headache and lightheadedness. He also reported using his left arm more frequently following a right shoulder injury. Repeat physical exam found an inter-arm systolic BP difference (IASBPD) >40 mm Hg and left-arm claudication. CT-angiogram of the neck was obtained and showed total occlusion of the left proximal subclavian artery, patent bilateral internal carotid arteries, and retrograde flow in the left vertebral artery (Figure 1).

Subclavian steal syndrome (SSS) results from compromised flow to the distal arm or brainstem circulation due to a proximal subclavian artery occlusion or stenosis (prior to the origin of the vertebral artery).^1,2 Subclavian stenosis may cause lowered pressure in the distal subclavian artery, creating a gradient for blood flow from the contralateral vertebral artery through the basilar artery to the ipsilateral vertebral artery, ultimately supplying blood flow to the affected subclavian artery distal to the occlusion (subclavian steal phenomenon). Flow reversal in the vertebrobasilar system can result in hypoperfusion of the brainstem (ie, vertebrobasilar insufficiency), which can cause a variety of neurologic symptoms, including SSS. While atherosclerosis is the most common cause of subclavian steal, it may be due to other conditions (eg, Takayasu arteritis, thoracic outlet syndrome, congenital heart disease).

Clinically, although many patients with proximal subclavian stenosis are asymptomatic (even in cases wherein angiographic flow reversal is detected), it is critical that clinicians be familiar with common symptoms associated with the diagnosis. Symptoms may include arm claudication related to hypoperfusion of the extremity, particularly when performing activities, as was observed in this patient. Neurologic symptoms are less common but include symptoms consistent with compromised posterior circulation such as dizziness, vertigo, ataxia, diplopia, nystagmus, impaired vision (blurring of vision, hemianopia), otologic symptoms (tinnitus, hearing loss), and/or syncope (ie, “drop attacks”). The patient’s initial complaints of sudden syncope are consistent with this presentation, as are his history of headache and lightheadedness upon use of his left arm.

Diagnostically, a gradient in upper extremity BP >15 mm Hg (as seen in this patient) or findings of arterial insufficiency would suggest subclavian stenosis. Duplex ultrasound is a reliable imaging modality and can demonstrate proximal subclavian stenosis (sensitivity of 90.9% and specificity of 82.5% for predicting >70% of stenosis cases) and ipsilateral vertebral artery flow reversal.¹ Transcranial Doppler studies can be obtained to assess for basilar artery flow reversal as well. CTA/MRA can help delineate location, severity, and cause of stenosis. However, detection of vertebral or basilar artery flow reversal does not always correlate with the development of neurologic symptoms.

For patients with asymptomatic subclavian stenosis, medical management with aspirin, beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and statins should be considered given the high likelihood for other atherosclerotic disease. Management of SSS may include percutaneous/surgical intervention in combination with medical therapy, particularly for patients with severe symptomatic disease (arm claudication, posterior circulation deficits, or coronary ischemia in patients with history of coronary bypass utilizing the left internal mammary artery).

The patient was diagnosed with SSS. Cardiovascular medicine and vascular surgery services were asked to evaluate the patient for a revascularization procedure. Because the patient’s anterior circulation was intact, several specialists remained skeptical of SSS as the cause of his syncope. As such, further evaluation for arrhythmia was recommended. The patient’s arm claudication was thought to be due to SSS; however, the well-established retrograde flow via the vertebral artery made a revascularization procedure nonurgent. Moreover, continuation of warfarin was necessary in the setting of his recent left atrial appendage closure and prior history of DVT. It was determined that the risks of discontinuing anticoagulation in order to surgically treat his subclavian stenosis outweighed the benefits. In the meantime, brachial-radial index measurement and a 30-day event monitor were ordered to further assess for arrhythmias. The patient reported being overwhelmed by diagnostic testing without resolution of his syncopal episodes and missed some of his scheduled appointments. One month later, he fell again and sustained vertebral fractures at C1, C4, and L1, and a subsequent SDH requiring craniotomy with a bone flap followed by clot evacuation. The 30-day event monitor report did not reveal any arrhythmias before, during, or after multiple syncopal events that occurred in the period leading up to this fall. The patient later died in a neurology intensive care unit.

SSS often stems from atherosclerotic arterial disease that leads to stenosis or occlusion of the proximal subclavian artery, causing decreased pressure distal to the lesion. The left subclavian artery is affected more often than the right because of its acute angle of origin, which presumably causes turbulence and predisposes to atherosclerosis.³ Compromised blood flow to the arm causes exertional arm claudication and paresthesia. The compensatory retrograde flow in the ipsilateral vertebral artery causes symptoms of vertebrobasilar insufficiency such as dizziness, vertigo, and syncope (Figure 2). This conglomerate of symptoms from subclavian steal, by definition, comprises SSS. The most remarkable signs of SSS are IASBPD >20 mm Hg and, less commonly, reproducible arm claudication.

Diagnosis of SSS requires a careful correlation of clinical history, physical examination, and radiologic findings. Over 80% of patients with subclavian disease have concomitant lesions (eg, in carotid arteries) that can affect collateral circulation.⁴ While symptoms of SSS may vary depending on the adequacy of collaterals, patent anterior circulation does not, by default, prevent SSS in patients with subclavian stenosis.³ In one study, neurologic symptoms were found in 36% of individuals with subclavian stenosis and concomitant carotid atherosclerotic lesions, and in only 5% in patients without carotid lesions.⁵

A key step in diagnosis is measurement of bilateral arm BP as elevated IASBPDs are highly sensitive for subclavian steal. More than 80% of patients with IASBPD >20 mm Hg have evidence of this condition on Doppler ultrasound.³ Higher differentials in BP correlate with occurrence of symptoms (~30% of patients with IASBPD 40-50 mm Hg, and ~40% of those with IASBPD >50 mm Hg).⁶

The severity of subclavian stenosis is traditionally classified by imaging into three separate grades or stages based on the direction of blood flow in vertebral arteries. Grade I involves no retrograde flow; grade II involves cardiac cycle dependent alternating antegrade and retrograde flow; and grade III involves permanent retrograde flow (complete steal).⁷ Our patient’s care was impacted by an unsupported conventional belief that grade II SSS may involve more hemodynamic instability and produce more severe symptoms compared to permanent retrograde flow (grade III), which would result in more stability with a reset of hemodynamics in posterior circulation.⁷ This hypothesis has been disproven in the past, and our patient’s tragic outcome also demonstrates that complete steal is not harmless.⁸ Our patient had permanent retrograde flow in the left vertebral artery, and he suffered classic symptoms of SSS, with devastating consequences. Moreover, increased demand or exertion can enhance the retrograde flow even in grade III stenosis and can precipitate neurologic symptoms of SSS, including syncope. This case provides an important lesson: Management of patients with SSS should depend on the severity of symptoms, not solely on radiologic grading.

Management of SSS is often medical for atherosclerosis and hypertension, especially if symptoms are mild and infrequent. Less than 10% patients with radiologic evidence of subclavian stenosis are symptomatic, and <20% patients with symptomatic SSS require revascularization.³ Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) and stenting have become the most favored surgical approach rather than extra-anatomic revascularization techniques.⁷ Both endovascular interventions and open revascularization carry an excellent success rate with low morbidity. Patients undergoing PTA have a combined rate of 3.6% for CVA and death⁹ and a 5-year primary patency rate¹⁰ of 82%. Bypass surgery appears similarly well tolerated, with low perioperative CVA/mortality, and a 10-year primary patency rate of 92%.¹¹ For patients with SSS and coexisting disease in the anterior circulation, carotid endarterectomy is prioritized over subclavian revascularization as repair of the anterior circulation often resolves symptoms of SSS.¹²

In our patient, SSS presented with classic vertebrobasilar and brachial symptoms, but several features of his presentation made the diagnosis a challenge. First, his history suggested several potential causes of syncope, including arrhythmia, orthostatic hypotension, and substance use. Second, he reported arm paresthesia and claudication only when specifically prompted and after a targeted history was obtained. Third, there were no consistent triggers for his syncopal episodes. The patient noted that he lost consciousness when walking, driving, doing light chores, and arising from a seated position. These atypical triggers of syncope were not consistent with any of the illnesses considered during the initial workup, and therefore resulted in a broad differential, delaying the targeted workup for SSS. The wisdom of parsimony may also have played an unintended role: In clinical practice, common things are common, and explanation of most or all symptoms with a known diagnosis is often correct rather than addition of uncommon disorders.

Unfortunately, this patient kept falling through the cracks. Several providers believed that AF and alcohol use were the likely causes of his syncope. This assumption enabled a less than rigorous appraisal of the critical ultrasound report. If SSS had been on the differential, assessing the patient for the associated signs and symptoms might have led to an earlier diagnosis.

• SSS should be included in the differential diagnosis of patients with syncope, especially when common diagnoses have been ruled out.
• Incidentally detected retrograde vertebral flow on ultrasound should never be dismissed, and the patients should be assessed for signs and symptoms of subclavian steal.
• A difference in inter-arm systolic blood pressure >20 mm Hg is highly suggestive of subclavian stenosis.
• SSS has excellent prognosis with appropriate medical treatment or revascularization.

This icon represents the patient’s case. Each paragraph that follows represents the discussant’s thoughts.

A 56-year-old-woman with a history of HIV and locally invasive ductal carcinoma recently treated with mastectomy and adjuvant doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide, now on paclitaxel, was transferred from another hospital with worsening nausea, epigastric pain, and dyspnea. She had been admitted multiple times to both this hospital and another hospital and had extensive workup over the previous 2 months for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and progressive dyspnea with orthopnea and paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea in the setting of a documented 43-lb weight loss.

The patient presents with two clusters of symptoms in the context of chemotherapy regimens following mastectomy for local breast cancer. The first cluster of nausea, epigastric pain, and weight loss indicates upper-GI dysfunction/pathology, such as gastroparesis from paclitaxel-induced autonomic neuropathy given onset of symptoms following paclitaxel chemotherapy. The pretest probability of this is fairly high; however, in light of the GI bleeding, it is prudent to evaluate for other etiologies. The absence of vomiting does not exclude gastroparesis. Other considerations would be peptic ulcer disease or, less likely, the development of a gastric malignancy. A mechanical cause of gastric outlet obstruction from her known cancer is unlikely in this patient with localized breast cancer and recently completed chemotherapy, as breast cancer is unlikely to metastasize to the stomach. Preliminary workup would consist of computed tomography (CT) scan of the abdomen and an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) to further evaluate these etiologies. The second cluster of dyspnea, paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea, and orthopnea suggests heart failure, given recent treatment with doxorubicin, and prompts consideration of anthracycline-induced cardiomyopathy. Work-up would include obtaining a transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) to look for a decrease in her ejection fraction.

Her past medical history was otherwise significant only for the events of the previous few months. Eight months earlier, she was diagnosed with grade 3 triple-negative (estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2) invasive ductal carcinoma and underwent mastectomy with negative sentinel lymph node biopsy. She completed four cycles of adjuvant doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide and most recently completed cycle three of paclitaxel chemotherapy.

Her HIV disease was controlled with an antiretroviral regimen of dolutegravir/rilpivirine. She had an undetectable viral load for 20 years (CD4, 239 cells/μL 2 weeks prior to transfer).

Her social history included a 1-pack-year smoking history. She denied alcohol or illicit drug use. Family history included pancreatic cancer in her father and endometrial cancer in her paternal grandmother. She was originally from Mexico but moved to Illinois 27 years earlier.

Work-up for her dyspnea was initiated 7 weeks earlier: noncontrast CT of the chest showed extensive diffuse interstitial thickening and ground-glass opacities bilaterally. Bronchoscopy showed no gross abnormalities, and bronchial washings were negative for bacteria, fungi, Pneumocystis jirovecii , acid-fast bacilli, and cancer. She also had a TTE, which showed an ejection fraction of 65% to 70% and was only significant for a pulmonary artery systolic pressure of 45 mm Hg . She was diagnosed with paclitaxel-induced pneumonitis and was discharged home with prednisone 50 mg daily, dapsone, pantoprazole, and 2 L oxygen via nasal cannula.

Two weeks later, she was admitted for coffee-ground emesis and epigastric pain. Her hemoglobin was 5.9 g/dL, for which she was transfused 3 units of packed red blood cells. EGD showed bleeding from diffuse duodenitis, which was treated with argon plasma coagulation. She was also found to have bilateral pulmonary emboli and lower-extremity deep venous thromboses. An inferior vena cava filter was placed, and she was discharged. One week later, she was readmitted with melena, and repeat EGD showed multiple duodenal ulcers with no active bleeding. Colonoscopy was normal. She was continued on prednisone 40 mg daily, as any attempts at tapering the dose resulted in hypotension.

At the time of transfer, she had presented to the outside hospital with worsening nausea and epigastric pain, increasing postprandial abdominal pain, ongoing weight loss, worsening dyspnea on exertion, paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea, and orthopnea. She denied symptoms of GI bleeding at that time.

Her imaging is consistent with, albeit not specific for, paclitaxel-induced acute pneumonitis. Her persistent dyspnea may be due to worsening of this pneumonitis. Given her GI bleeding and continued epigastric pain, worsening peptic ulcer disease is the likely culprit. The patient has had multiple episodes of bleeding from multiple duodenal ulcers while on proton pump inhibitors, so we should consider reasons for this progression, such as use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs); Helicobacter pylori, herpes simplex virus (HSV), Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), or cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection; Crohn disease, and antral G-cell hyperfunction, as well as lymphoproliferative disease. I would start with histopathology, urease testing, and viral cultures from biopsy specimens at EGD to help eliminate these possibilities for progression of her peptic ulcer disease. Another consideration, albeit rare for progression of peptic ulcer disease and specifically duodenal ulcers, is a gastrinoma-driven acid hypersecretion state, as in the Zollinger-Ellison syndrome. If the above studies do not reveal a cause for her continued peptic ulcer disease, I would check a fasting serum gastrin level and gastric pH to further evaluate this possibility.

Upon arrival on physical exam, her temperature was 35.4° C, heart rate 112 beats per minute, blood pressure 135/96 mm Hg, respiratory rate 34 breaths per minute, and oxygen saturation 97% on room air. She was ill- appearing and in mild respiratory distress with severe muscle wasting. Cervical and supraclavicular lymphadenopathy were not detected. Heart sounds were normal without murmurs. Her jugular venous pressure was approximately 7 cm H₂O. She had no lower-extremity edema. On lung exam, diffuse rhonchi were audible bilaterally with no crackles or wheezing. There was no accessory muscle use. No clubbing was present. Her abdomen was soft and mildly tender in the epigastrium with normal bowel sounds.

Her labs revealed a white blood cell (WBC) count of 5,050/μL (neutrophils, 3,600/μL; lymphocytes, 560/μL; eosinophils, 560/μL; hemoglobin, 8.7 g/dL; mean corpuscular volume, 89.3 fL; and platelets, 402,000/μL). Her CD4 count was 235 cells/μL. Her comprehensive metabolic panel demonstrated a sodium of 127 mmol/L; potassium, 4.0 mmol/L; albumin, 2.0 g/dL; calcium, 8.6 mg/dL; creatinine, 0.41 mg/dL; aspartate aminotransferase (AST), 11 U/L; alanine aminotransferase (ALT), 17 U/L; and serum osmolarity, 258 mOs/kg. Her lipase was 30 U/L, and lactate was 0.8 mmol/L. Urine studies showed creatinine 41 mg/dL, osmolality 503 mOs/kg, and sodium 53 mmol/L.

At this point, the patient has been diagnosed with multiple pulmonary emboli and recurrent GI bleeding from duodenal ulcers with chest imaging suggestive of taxane-induced pulmonary toxicity. She now presents with worsening dyspnea and upper-GI symptoms.

Her dyspnea may represent worsening of her taxane-induced lung disease. However, she may have developed a superimposed infection, heart failure, or further pulmonary emboli. A CT pulmonary angiogram to evaluate for infection, recurrent pulmonary emboli, and worsening of her known taxane-induced pulmonary toxicity should be performed. If the CT demonstrates new areas of consolidation suggestive of a superimposed infection, a bronchoscopy would be warranted to obtain specimens for bacterial, fungal, and viral cultures.

On exam, she is in respiratory distress, almost mildly hypothermic and tachycardic with rhonchi on auscultation. This combination of findings could reflect worsening of her pulmonary disease and/or infection on the background of her cachectic state. Her epigastric tenderness, upper-GI symptoms, and anemia have continued to cause concern for persistent duodenal ulcers. Repeat EGD is warranted to evaluate for ulcers, recent bleed stigmata, and/or complications of ulcers, such as stricture formation, obstruction, or perforation. An abdominal CT scan should be done if the EGD does not show worsening of her peptic ulcer disease or obvious complications. The CT scan is more sensitive for certain complications of peptic ulcer disease, such as perforation or proximal small bowel obstruction due to strictures.

Her anemia could represent ongoing blood loss since her last EGD or an inflammatory state due to infection. Also of concern is her use of dapsone, which can lead to hemolysis with or without glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency (G6PD), and this should be excluded.

She has hypotonic hyponatremia and apparent euvolemia with a high urine sodium and osmolality; this suggests syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion, which may be due to her ongoing pulmonary disease process.

On day 3 of her hospitalization, her abdominal pain became more diffuse and colicky, with two episodes of associated nonbloody bilious vomiting. During the next 48 hours, her abdominal pain and tenderness worsened diffusely but without rigidity or peritoneal signs. She developed mild abdominal distention. An abdominal X-ray showed moderate to large stool burden and increased bowel dilation concerning for small bowel obstruction. A nasogastric tube was placed, with initial improvement of her abdominal pain and distention. On the morning of day six of hospitalization, she had approximately 100 mL of hematemesis. She immediately became hypotensive to the 50s/20s, and roughly 400 mL of sanguineous fluid was suctioned from her nasogastric tube. She was promptly given intravenous (IV) fluids and 2 units of cross-matched packed red blood cells with normalization of her blood pressure and was transferred to the medical intensive care unit (MICU).

Later that day, she had an EGD that showed copious clots and a severely friable duodenum with duodenal narrowing. Duodenal biopsies were taken.

The duodenal ulcers have led to a complication of stricture formation and obstruction resulting in some degree of small bowel obstruction. EGD with biopsies can shed light on the etiology of these ulcers and can specifically exclude viral, fungal, protozoal, or mycobacterial infection; infiltrative diseases (lymphoma, sarcoidosis, amyloidosis); cancer; and inflammatory noninfectious diseases such as vasculitis/connective tissue disorder. Biopsy specimens should undergo light and electron microscopy (for protozoa-like Cryptosporidium); stains for fungal infections such as histoplasmosis, Candida, and Cryptococcus; and stains for mycobacterium. Immunohistochemistry and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing can identify CMV, HIV, HSV, and EBV within the duodenal tissue.

She remained on methylprednisolone 30 mg IV because of her known history of pneumonitis and concern for adrenal insufficiency in the setting of acute illness. Over the next 3 days, she remained normotensive with a stable hemoglobin and had no further episodes of hematemesis. She was transferred to the general medical floor.

One day later, she required an additional unit of cross-matched red blood cells because of a hemoglobin decrease to 6.4 g/dL. The next day, she developed acute-onset respiratory distress and was intubated for hypoxemic respiratory failure and readmitted to the MICU.

Her drop in hemoglobin may reflect ongoing bleeding from the duodenum or may be due to diffuse alveolar hemorrhage (DAH) complicating her pneumonitis. The deterioration in the patient’s respiratory status could represent worsening of her taxane pneumonitis (possibly complicated by DAH or acute respiratory distress syndrome), as fatalities have been reported despite steroid treatment. However, as stated earlier, it is prudent to exclude superimposed pulmonary infection or recurrent pulmonary embolism. Broad-spectrum antibiotics should be provided to cover hospital-acquired pneumonia. Transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI) as a cause of her respiratory distress is much less likely given onset after 24 hours from transfusion. Symptoms of TRALI almost always develop within 1 to 2 hours of starting a transfusion, with most starting within minutes. The timing of respiratory distress after 24 hours of transfusion also makes transfusion-associated circulatory overload unlikely, as this presents within 6 to 12 hours of a transfusion being completed and generally in patients receiving large transfusion volumes who have underlying cardiac or renal disease.

Her duodenal pathology revealed Strongyloides stercoralis infection (Figure 1), and she was placed on ivermectin. Steroids were continued due to concern for adrenal insufficiency in the setting of critical illness and later septic shock. Bronchoscopy was also performed, and a specimen grew S stercoralis. She developed septic shock from disseminated S stercoralis infection that required vasopressors. Her sanguineous orogastric output increased, and her abdominal distension worsened, concerning for an intra-abdominal bleed or possible duodenal perforation. As attempts were made to stabilize the patient, ultimately, she experienced cardiac arrest and died.

The patient succumbed to hyperinfection/dissemination of strongyloidiasis. Her risk factors for superinfection included chemotherapy and high-dose steroids, which led to an unchecked autoinfection.

A high index of suspicion remains the most effective overall diagnostic tool for superinfection, which carries a mortality rate of up to 85% even with treatment. Therefore, prevention is the best treatment. Asymptomatic patients with epidemiological exposure or from endemic areas should be evaluated for empiric treatment of S stercoralis prior to initiation of immunosuppressive treatment.

Strongyloides stercoralis is a helminth responsible for one of the most overlooked tropical diseases worldwide.¹ It is estimated that 370 million individuals are infected with S stercoralis globally, and prevalence in the endemic tropics and subtropics is 10% to 40%.^2,3Strongyloides stercoralis infection is characterized by typically nonspecific cutaneous, pulmonary, and GI symptoms, and chronic infection can often be asymptomatic. Once the infection is established, the entirety of the S stercoralis unique life cycle can occur inside the human host, forming a cycle of endogenous autoinfection that can keep the host chronically infected and infectious for decades (Figure 2⁴). While our patient was likely chronically infected for 27 years, cases of patients being infected for up to 75 years have been reported.⁵ Though mostly identified in societies where fecal contamination of soil and poor sanitation are common, S stercoralis should be considered among populations who have traveled to endemic areas and are immunocompromised.

Most chronic S stercoralis infections are asymptomatic, but infection can progress to the life-threatening hyperinfection phase, which has a mortality rate of approximately 85%.⁶ Hyperinfection and disseminated disease occur when there is a rapid proliferation of larvae within the pulmonary and GI tracts, but in the case of disseminated disease, may travel to the liver, brain, and kidneys.^7,8 Typically, this is caused by decreased cellular immunity, often due to preexisting conditions such as human T-cell leukemia virus type 1 (HTLV-1) or medications that allow larvae proliferation to go unchecked.^6,7 One common class of medications known to increase risk of progression to hyperinfection is corticosteroids, which are thought to both depress immunity and directly increase larvae population growth.^6,9 Our patient had been on a prolonged course of steroids for her pulmonary symptoms, with increased doses during her acute illness because of concern for adrenal insufficiency; this likely further contributed to her progression to hyperinfection syndrome. Furthermore, the patient was also immunocompromised from chemotherapy. In addition, she had HIV, which has a controversial association with S stercoralis infection. While previously an AIDS-defining illness, prevalence data indicate a significant co-infection rate between S stercoralis and HIV, but it is unlikely that HIV increases progression to hyperinfection.³

Diagnosing chronic S stercoralis infection is difficult given the lack of a widely accepted gold standard for diagnosis. Traditionally, diagnosis relied on direct visualization of larvae with stool microscopy studies. However, to obtain adequate sensitivity from this method, up to seven serial stool samples must be examined, which is impractical from patient, cost, and efficiency standpoints.¹⁰ While other stool-based techniques, such as enriching the stool sample, stool agar plate culture, or PCR-based stool analysis, improve sensitivity, all stool-based studies are limited by intermittent larvae shedding and low worm burden associated with chronic infection.¹¹ Conversely, serologic studies have higher sensitivity, but concerns exist about lower specificity due to potential cross-reactions with other helminths and the persistence of antibodies even after larvae eradication.^11,12 Patients with suspected S stercoralis infection and pulmonary infiltrates on imaging may have larvae visible on sputum cultures. A final diagnostic method is direct visualization via biopsy during endoscopy or bronchoscopy, which is typically recommended in cases where suspicion is high yet stool studies have been negative.¹³ Our patient’s diagnosis was made by duodenal biopsy after her stool study was negative for S stercoralis.

Deciding who to test is difficult given the nonspecific nature of the symptoms but critically important because of the potential for mortality if the disease progresses to hyperinfection. Diagnosis should be suspected in a patient who has spent time in an endemic area and presents with any combination of pulmonary, dermatologic, or GI symptoms. If suspicion for infection is high in a patient being assessed for solid organ transplant or high-dose steroids, prophylactic treatment with ivermectin should be considered. Given the difficulty in diagnosis, some have suggested using eosinophilia as a key diagnostic element, but this has poor predictive value, particularly if the patient is on corticosteroids.⁷ This patient did not manifest with significant eosinophilia throughout her hospitalization.

This case highlights the difficulties of S stercoralis diagnosis given the nonspecific and variable symptoms, limitations in testing, and potential for remote travel history to endemic regions. It further underscores the need for provider vigilance when starting patients on immunosuppression, even with steroids, given the potential to accelerate chronic infections that were previously buried deep in the mucosa into a lethal hyperinfectious state.

• The cycle of autoinfection by S stercoralis allows it to persist for decades even while asymptomatic. This means patients can present with infection years after travel to endemic regions.
• Because progression to hyperinfection syndrome carries a high mortality rate and is associated with immunosuppressants, particularly corticosteroids, screening patients from or who have spent time in endemic regions for chronic S stercoralis infection is recommended prior to beginning immunosuppression.
• Diagnosing chronic S stercoralis infection is difficult given the lack of a highly accurate, gold-standard test. Therefore, if suspicion for infection is high yet low-sensitivity stool studies have been negative, direct visualization with a biopsy is a diagnostic option.

Acknowledgment

The authors thank Dr Nicholas Moore, microbiologist at Rush University Medical Center, for his assistance in obtaining and preparing the histology images.

This icon represents the patient’s case. Each paragraph that follows represents the discussant’s thoughts.

A 56-year-old-woman with a history of HIV and locally invasive ductal carcinoma recently treated with mastectomy and adjuvant doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide, now on paclitaxel, was transferred from another hospital with worsening nausea, epigastric pain, and dyspnea. She had been admitted multiple times to both this hospital and another hospital and had extensive workup over the previous 2 months for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and progressive dyspnea with orthopnea and paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea in the setting of a documented 43-lb weight loss.

The patient presents with two clusters of symptoms in the context of chemotherapy regimens following mastectomy for local breast cancer. The first cluster of nausea, epigastric pain, and weight loss indicates upper-GI dysfunction/pathology, such as gastroparesis from paclitaxel-induced autonomic neuropathy given onset of symptoms following paclitaxel chemotherapy. The pretest probability of this is fairly high; however, in light of the GI bleeding, it is prudent to evaluate for other etiologies. The absence of vomiting does not exclude gastroparesis. Other considerations would be peptic ulcer disease or, less likely, the development of a gastric malignancy. A mechanical cause of gastric outlet obstruction from her known cancer is unlikely in this patient with localized breast cancer and recently completed chemotherapy, as breast cancer is unlikely to metastasize to the stomach. Preliminary workup would consist of computed tomography (CT) scan of the abdomen and an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) to further evaluate these etiologies. The second cluster of dyspnea, paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea, and orthopnea suggests heart failure, given recent treatment with doxorubicin, and prompts consideration of anthracycline-induced cardiomyopathy. Work-up would include obtaining a transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) to look for a decrease in her ejection fraction.

Her past medical history was otherwise significant only for the events of the previous few months. Eight months earlier, she was diagnosed with grade 3 triple-negative (estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2) invasive ductal carcinoma and underwent mastectomy with negative sentinel lymph node biopsy. She completed four cycles of adjuvant doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide and most recently completed cycle three of paclitaxel chemotherapy.

Her HIV disease was controlled with an antiretroviral regimen of dolutegravir/rilpivirine. She had an undetectable viral load for 20 years (CD4, 239 cells/μL 2 weeks prior to transfer).

Her social history included a 1-pack-year smoking history. She denied alcohol or illicit drug use. Family history included pancreatic cancer in her father and endometrial cancer in her paternal grandmother. She was originally from Mexico but moved to Illinois 27 years earlier.

Work-up for her dyspnea was initiated 7 weeks earlier: noncontrast CT of the chest showed extensive diffuse interstitial thickening and ground-glass opacities bilaterally. Bronchoscopy showed no gross abnormalities, and bronchial washings were negative for bacteria, fungi, Pneumocystis jirovecii , acid-fast bacilli, and cancer. She also had a TTE, which showed an ejection fraction of 65% to 70% and was only significant for a pulmonary artery systolic pressure of 45 mm Hg . She was diagnosed with paclitaxel-induced pneumonitis and was discharged home with prednisone 50 mg daily, dapsone, pantoprazole, and 2 L oxygen via nasal cannula.

Two weeks later, she was admitted for coffee-ground emesis and epigastric pain. Her hemoglobin was 5.9 g/dL, for which she was transfused 3 units of packed red blood cells. EGD showed bleeding from diffuse duodenitis, which was treated with argon plasma coagulation. She was also found to have bilateral pulmonary emboli and lower-extremity deep venous thromboses. An inferior vena cava filter was placed, and she was discharged. One week later, she was readmitted with melena, and repeat EGD showed multiple duodenal ulcers with no active bleeding. Colonoscopy was normal. She was continued on prednisone 40 mg daily, as any attempts at tapering the dose resulted in hypotension.

At the time of transfer, she had presented to the outside hospital with worsening nausea and epigastric pain, increasing postprandial abdominal pain, ongoing weight loss, worsening dyspnea on exertion, paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea, and orthopnea. She denied symptoms of GI bleeding at that time.

Her imaging is consistent with, albeit not specific for, paclitaxel-induced acute pneumonitis. Her persistent dyspnea may be due to worsening of this pneumonitis. Given her GI bleeding and continued epigastric pain, worsening peptic ulcer disease is the likely culprit. The patient has had multiple episodes of bleeding from multiple duodenal ulcers while on proton pump inhibitors, so we should consider reasons for this progression, such as use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs); Helicobacter pylori, herpes simplex virus (HSV), Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), or cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection; Crohn disease, and antral G-cell hyperfunction, as well as lymphoproliferative disease. I would start with histopathology, urease testing, and viral cultures from biopsy specimens at EGD to help eliminate these possibilities for progression of her peptic ulcer disease. Another consideration, albeit rare for progression of peptic ulcer disease and specifically duodenal ulcers, is a gastrinoma-driven acid hypersecretion state, as in the Zollinger-Ellison syndrome. If the above studies do not reveal a cause for her continued peptic ulcer disease, I would check a fasting serum gastrin level and gastric pH to further evaluate this possibility.

Upon arrival on physical exam, her temperature was 35.4° C, heart rate 112 beats per minute, blood pressure 135/96 mm Hg, respiratory rate 34 breaths per minute, and oxygen saturation 97% on room air. She was ill- appearing and in mild respiratory distress with severe muscle wasting. Cervical and supraclavicular lymphadenopathy were not detected. Heart sounds were normal without murmurs. Her jugular venous pressure was approximately 7 cm H₂O. She had no lower-extremity edema. On lung exam, diffuse rhonchi were audible bilaterally with no crackles or wheezing. There was no accessory muscle use. No clubbing was present. Her abdomen was soft and mildly tender in the epigastrium with normal bowel sounds.

Her labs revealed a white blood cell (WBC) count of 5,050/μL (neutrophils, 3,600/μL; lymphocytes, 560/μL; eosinophils, 560/μL; hemoglobin, 8.7 g/dL; mean corpuscular volume, 89.3 fL; and platelets, 402,000/μL). Her CD4 count was 235 cells/μL. Her comprehensive metabolic panel demonstrated a sodium of 127 mmol/L; potassium, 4.0 mmol/L; albumin, 2.0 g/dL; calcium, 8.6 mg/dL; creatinine, 0.41 mg/dL; aspartate aminotransferase (AST), 11 U/L; alanine aminotransferase (ALT), 17 U/L; and serum osmolarity, 258 mOs/kg. Her lipase was 30 U/L, and lactate was 0.8 mmol/L. Urine studies showed creatinine 41 mg/dL, osmolality 503 mOs/kg, and sodium 53 mmol/L.

At this point, the patient has been diagnosed with multiple pulmonary emboli and recurrent GI bleeding from duodenal ulcers with chest imaging suggestive of taxane-induced pulmonary toxicity. She now presents with worsening dyspnea and upper-GI symptoms.

Her dyspnea may represent worsening of her taxane-induced lung disease. However, she may have developed a superimposed infection, heart failure, or further pulmonary emboli. A CT pulmonary angiogram to evaluate for infection, recurrent pulmonary emboli, and worsening of her known taxane-induced pulmonary toxicity should be performed. If the CT demonstrates new areas of consolidation suggestive of a superimposed infection, a bronchoscopy would be warranted to obtain specimens for bacterial, fungal, and viral cultures.

On exam, she is in respiratory distress, almost mildly hypothermic and tachycardic with rhonchi on auscultation. This combination of findings could reflect worsening of her pulmonary disease and/or infection on the background of her cachectic state. Her epigastric tenderness, upper-GI symptoms, and anemia have continued to cause concern for persistent duodenal ulcers. Repeat EGD is warranted to evaluate for ulcers, recent bleed stigmata, and/or complications of ulcers, such as stricture formation, obstruction, or perforation. An abdominal CT scan should be done if the EGD does not show worsening of her peptic ulcer disease or obvious complications. The CT scan is more sensitive for certain complications of peptic ulcer disease, such as perforation or proximal small bowel obstruction due to strictures.

Her anemia could represent ongoing blood loss since her last EGD or an inflammatory state due to infection. Also of concern is her use of dapsone, which can lead to hemolysis with or without glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency (G6PD), and this should be excluded.

She has hypotonic hyponatremia and apparent euvolemia with a high urine sodium and osmolality; this suggests syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion, which may be due to her ongoing pulmonary disease process.

On day 3 of her hospitalization, her abdominal pain became more diffuse and colicky, with two episodes of associated nonbloody bilious vomiting. During the next 48 hours, her abdominal pain and tenderness worsened diffusely but without rigidity or peritoneal signs. She developed mild abdominal distention. An abdominal X-ray showed moderate to large stool burden and increased bowel dilation concerning for small bowel obstruction. A nasogastric tube was placed, with initial improvement of her abdominal pain and distention. On the morning of day six of hospitalization, she had approximately 100 mL of hematemesis. She immediately became hypotensive to the 50s/20s, and roughly 400 mL of sanguineous fluid was suctioned from her nasogastric tube. She was promptly given intravenous (IV) fluids and 2 units of cross-matched packed red blood cells with normalization of her blood pressure and was transferred to the medical intensive care unit (MICU).

Later that day, she had an EGD that showed copious clots and a severely friable duodenum with duodenal narrowing. Duodenal biopsies were taken.

The duodenal ulcers have led to a complication of stricture formation and obstruction resulting in some degree of small bowel obstruction. EGD with biopsies can shed light on the etiology of these ulcers and can specifically exclude viral, fungal, protozoal, or mycobacterial infection; infiltrative diseases (lymphoma, sarcoidosis, amyloidosis); cancer; and inflammatory noninfectious diseases such as vasculitis/connective tissue disorder. Biopsy specimens should undergo light and electron microscopy (for protozoa-like Cryptosporidium); stains for fungal infections such as histoplasmosis, Candida, and Cryptococcus; and stains for mycobacterium. Immunohistochemistry and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing can identify CMV, HIV, HSV, and EBV within the duodenal tissue.

She remained on methylprednisolone 30 mg IV because of her known history of pneumonitis and concern for adrenal insufficiency in the setting of acute illness. Over the next 3 days, she remained normotensive with a stable hemoglobin and had no further episodes of hematemesis. She was transferred to the general medical floor.

One day later, she required an additional unit of cross-matched red blood cells because of a hemoglobin decrease to 6.4 g/dL. The next day, she developed acute-onset respiratory distress and was intubated for hypoxemic respiratory failure and readmitted to the MICU.

Her drop in hemoglobin may reflect ongoing bleeding from the duodenum or may be due to diffuse alveolar hemorrhage (DAH) complicating her pneumonitis. The deterioration in the patient’s respiratory status could represent worsening of her taxane pneumonitis (possibly complicated by DAH or acute respiratory distress syndrome), as fatalities have been reported despite steroid treatment. However, as stated earlier, it is prudent to exclude superimposed pulmonary infection or recurrent pulmonary embolism. Broad-spectrum antibiotics should be provided to cover hospital-acquired pneumonia. Transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI) as a cause of her respiratory distress is much less likely given onset after 24 hours from transfusion. Symptoms of TRALI almost always develop within 1 to 2 hours of starting a transfusion, with most starting within minutes. The timing of respiratory distress after 24 hours of transfusion also makes transfusion-associated circulatory overload unlikely, as this presents within 6 to 12 hours of a transfusion being completed and generally in patients receiving large transfusion volumes who have underlying cardiac or renal disease.

Her duodenal pathology revealed Strongyloides stercoralis infection (Figure 1), and she was placed on ivermectin. Steroids were continued due to concern for adrenal insufficiency in the setting of critical illness and later septic shock. Bronchoscopy was also performed, and a specimen grew S stercoralis. She developed septic shock from disseminated S stercoralis infection that required vasopressors. Her sanguineous orogastric output increased, and her abdominal distension worsened, concerning for an intra-abdominal bleed or possible duodenal perforation. As attempts were made to stabilize the patient, ultimately, she experienced cardiac arrest and died.

The patient succumbed to hyperinfection/dissemination of strongyloidiasis. Her risk factors for superinfection included chemotherapy and high-dose steroids, which led to an unchecked autoinfection.

A high index of suspicion remains the most effective overall diagnostic tool for superinfection, which carries a mortality rate of up to 85% even with treatment. Therefore, prevention is the best treatment. Asymptomatic patients with epidemiological exposure or from endemic areas should be evaluated for empiric treatment of S stercoralis prior to initiation of immunosuppressive treatment.

Strongyloides stercoralis is a helminth responsible for one of the most overlooked tropical diseases worldwide.¹ It is estimated that 370 million individuals are infected with S stercoralis globally, and prevalence in the endemic tropics and subtropics is 10% to 40%.^2,3Strongyloides stercoralis infection is characterized by typically nonspecific cutaneous, pulmonary, and GI symptoms, and chronic infection can often be asymptomatic. Once the infection is established, the entirety of the S stercoralis unique life cycle can occur inside the human host, forming a cycle of endogenous autoinfection that can keep the host chronically infected and infectious for decades (Figure 2⁴). While our patient was likely chronically infected for 27 years, cases of patients being infected for up to 75 years have been reported.⁵ Though mostly identified in societies where fecal contamination of soil and poor sanitation are common, S stercoralis should be considered among populations who have traveled to endemic areas and are immunocompromised.

Most chronic S stercoralis infections are asymptomatic, but infection can progress to the life-threatening hyperinfection phase, which has a mortality rate of approximately 85%.⁶ Hyperinfection and disseminated disease occur when there is a rapid proliferation of larvae within the pulmonary and GI tracts, but in the case of disseminated disease, may travel to the liver, brain, and kidneys.^7,8 Typically, this is caused by decreased cellular immunity, often due to preexisting conditions such as human T-cell leukemia virus type 1 (HTLV-1) or medications that allow larvae proliferation to go unchecked.^6,7 One common class of medications known to increase risk of progression to hyperinfection is corticosteroids, which are thought to both depress immunity and directly increase larvae population growth.^6,9 Our patient had been on a prolonged course of steroids for her pulmonary symptoms, with increased doses during her acute illness because of concern for adrenal insufficiency; this likely further contributed to her progression to hyperinfection syndrome. Furthermore, the patient was also immunocompromised from chemotherapy. In addition, she had HIV, which has a controversial association with S stercoralis infection. While previously an AIDS-defining illness, prevalence data indicate a significant co-infection rate between S stercoralis and HIV, but it is unlikely that HIV increases progression to hyperinfection.³

Diagnosing chronic S stercoralis infection is difficult given the lack of a widely accepted gold standard for diagnosis. Traditionally, diagnosis relied on direct visualization of larvae with stool microscopy studies. However, to obtain adequate sensitivity from this method, up to seven serial stool samples must be examined, which is impractical from patient, cost, and efficiency standpoints.¹⁰ While other stool-based techniques, such as enriching the stool sample, stool agar plate culture, or PCR-based stool analysis, improve sensitivity, all stool-based studies are limited by intermittent larvae shedding and low worm burden associated with chronic infection.¹¹ Conversely, serologic studies have higher sensitivity, but concerns exist about lower specificity due to potential cross-reactions with other helminths and the persistence of antibodies even after larvae eradication.^11,12 Patients with suspected S stercoralis infection and pulmonary infiltrates on imaging may have larvae visible on sputum cultures. A final diagnostic method is direct visualization via biopsy during endoscopy or bronchoscopy, which is typically recommended in cases where suspicion is high yet stool studies have been negative.¹³ Our patient’s diagnosis was made by duodenal biopsy after her stool study was negative for S stercoralis.

Deciding who to test is difficult given the nonspecific nature of the symptoms but critically important because of the potential for mortality if the disease progresses to hyperinfection. Diagnosis should be suspected in a patient who has spent time in an endemic area and presents with any combination of pulmonary, dermatologic, or GI symptoms. If suspicion for infection is high in a patient being assessed for solid organ transplant or high-dose steroids, prophylactic treatment with ivermectin should be considered. Given the difficulty in diagnosis, some have suggested using eosinophilia as a key diagnostic element, but this has poor predictive value, particularly if the patient is on corticosteroids.⁷ This patient did not manifest with significant eosinophilia throughout her hospitalization.

This case highlights the difficulties of S stercoralis diagnosis given the nonspecific and variable symptoms, limitations in testing, and potential for remote travel history to endemic regions. It further underscores the need for provider vigilance when starting patients on immunosuppression, even with steroids, given the potential to accelerate chronic infections that were previously buried deep in the mucosa into a lethal hyperinfectious state.

• The cycle of autoinfection by S stercoralis allows it to persist for decades even while asymptomatic. This means patients can present with infection years after travel to endemic regions.
• Because progression to hyperinfection syndrome carries a high mortality rate and is associated with immunosuppressants, particularly corticosteroids, screening patients from or who have spent time in endemic regions for chronic S stercoralis infection is recommended prior to beginning immunosuppression.
• Diagnosing chronic S stercoralis infection is difficult given the lack of a highly accurate, gold-standard test. Therefore, if suspicion for infection is high yet low-sensitivity stool studies have been negative, direct visualization with a biopsy is a diagnostic option.

Acknowledgment

The authors thank Dr Nicholas Moore, microbiologist at Rush University Medical Center, for his assistance in obtaining and preparing the histology images.

This icon represents the patient’s case. Each paragraph that follows represents the discussant’s thoughts.

A 56-year-old-woman with a history of HIV and locally invasive ductal carcinoma recently treated with mastectomy and adjuvant doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide, now on paclitaxel, was transferred from another hospital with worsening nausea, epigastric pain, and dyspnea. She had been admitted multiple times to both this hospital and another hospital and had extensive workup over the previous 2 months for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and progressive dyspnea with orthopnea and paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea in the setting of a documented 43-lb weight loss.

The patient presents with two clusters of symptoms in the context of chemotherapy regimens following mastectomy for local breast cancer. The first cluster of nausea, epigastric pain, and weight loss indicates upper-GI dysfunction/pathology, such as gastroparesis from paclitaxel-induced autonomic neuropathy given onset of symptoms following paclitaxel chemotherapy. The pretest probability of this is fairly high; however, in light of the GI bleeding, it is prudent to evaluate for other etiologies. The absence of vomiting does not exclude gastroparesis. Other considerations would be peptic ulcer disease or, less likely, the development of a gastric malignancy. A mechanical cause of gastric outlet obstruction from her known cancer is unlikely in this patient with localized breast cancer and recently completed chemotherapy, as breast cancer is unlikely to metastasize to the stomach. Preliminary workup would consist of computed tomography (CT) scan of the abdomen and an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) to further evaluate these etiologies. The second cluster of dyspnea, paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea, and orthopnea suggests heart failure, given recent treatment with doxorubicin, and prompts consideration of anthracycline-induced cardiomyopathy. Work-up would include obtaining a transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) to look for a decrease in her ejection fraction.

Her past medical history was otherwise significant only for the events of the previous few months. Eight months earlier, she was diagnosed with grade 3 triple-negative (estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2) invasive ductal carcinoma and underwent mastectomy with negative sentinel lymph node biopsy. She completed four cycles of adjuvant doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide and most recently completed cycle three of paclitaxel chemotherapy.

Her HIV disease was controlled with an antiretroviral regimen of dolutegravir/rilpivirine. She had an undetectable viral load for 20 years (CD4, 239 cells/μL 2 weeks prior to transfer).

Her social history included a 1-pack-year smoking history. She denied alcohol or illicit drug use. Family history included pancreatic cancer in her father and endometrial cancer in her paternal grandmother. She was originally from Mexico but moved to Illinois 27 years earlier.

Work-up for her dyspnea was initiated 7 weeks earlier: noncontrast CT of the chest showed extensive diffuse interstitial thickening and ground-glass opacities bilaterally. Bronchoscopy showed no gross abnormalities, and bronchial washings were negative for bacteria, fungi, Pneumocystis jirovecii , acid-fast bacilli, and cancer. She also had a TTE, which showed an ejection fraction of 65% to 70% and was only significant for a pulmonary artery systolic pressure of 45 mm Hg . She was diagnosed with paclitaxel-induced pneumonitis and was discharged home with prednisone 50 mg daily, dapsone, pantoprazole, and 2 L oxygen via nasal cannula.

Two weeks later, she was admitted for coffee-ground emesis and epigastric pain. Her hemoglobin was 5.9 g/dL, for which she was transfused 3 units of packed red blood cells. EGD showed bleeding from diffuse duodenitis, which was treated with argon plasma coagulation. She was also found to have bilateral pulmonary emboli and lower-extremity deep venous thromboses. An inferior vena cava filter was placed, and she was discharged. One week later, she was readmitted with melena, and repeat EGD showed multiple duodenal ulcers with no active bleeding. Colonoscopy was normal. She was continued on prednisone 40 mg daily, as any attempts at tapering the dose resulted in hypotension.

At the time of transfer, she had presented to the outside hospital with worsening nausea and epigastric pain, increasing postprandial abdominal pain, ongoing weight loss, worsening dyspnea on exertion, paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea, and orthopnea. She denied symptoms of GI bleeding at that time.

Her imaging is consistent with, albeit not specific for, paclitaxel-induced acute pneumonitis. Her persistent dyspnea may be due to worsening of this pneumonitis. Given her GI bleeding and continued epigastric pain, worsening peptic ulcer disease is the likely culprit. The patient has had multiple episodes of bleeding from multiple duodenal ulcers while on proton pump inhibitors, so we should consider reasons for this progression, such as use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs); Helicobacter pylori, herpes simplex virus (HSV), Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), or cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection; Crohn disease, and antral G-cell hyperfunction, as well as lymphoproliferative disease. I would start with histopathology, urease testing, and viral cultures from biopsy specimens at EGD to help eliminate these possibilities for progression of her peptic ulcer disease. Another consideration, albeit rare for progression of peptic ulcer disease and specifically duodenal ulcers, is a gastrinoma-driven acid hypersecretion state, as in the Zollinger-Ellison syndrome. If the above studies do not reveal a cause for her continued peptic ulcer disease, I would check a fasting serum gastrin level and gastric pH to further evaluate this possibility.

Upon arrival on physical exam, her temperature was 35.4° C, heart rate 112 beats per minute, blood pressure 135/96 mm Hg, respiratory rate 34 breaths per minute, and oxygen saturation 97% on room air. She was ill- appearing and in mild respiratory distress with severe muscle wasting. Cervical and supraclavicular lymphadenopathy were not detected. Heart sounds were normal without murmurs. Her jugular venous pressure was approximately 7 cm H₂O. She had no lower-extremity edema. On lung exam, diffuse rhonchi were audible bilaterally with no crackles or wheezing. There was no accessory muscle use. No clubbing was present. Her abdomen was soft and mildly tender in the epigastrium with normal bowel sounds.

Her labs revealed a white blood cell (WBC) count of 5,050/μL (neutrophils, 3,600/μL; lymphocytes, 560/μL; eosinophils, 560/μL; hemoglobin, 8.7 g/dL; mean corpuscular volume, 89.3 fL; and platelets, 402,000/μL). Her CD4 count was 235 cells/μL. Her comprehensive metabolic panel demonstrated a sodium of 127 mmol/L; potassium, 4.0 mmol/L; albumin, 2.0 g/dL; calcium, 8.6 mg/dL; creatinine, 0.41 mg/dL; aspartate aminotransferase (AST), 11 U/L; alanine aminotransferase (ALT), 17 U/L; and serum osmolarity, 258 mOs/kg. Her lipase was 30 U/L, and lactate was 0.8 mmol/L. Urine studies showed creatinine 41 mg/dL, osmolality 503 mOs/kg, and sodium 53 mmol/L.

At this point, the patient has been diagnosed with multiple pulmonary emboli and recurrent GI bleeding from duodenal ulcers with chest imaging suggestive of taxane-induced pulmonary toxicity. She now presents with worsening dyspnea and upper-GI symptoms.

Her dyspnea may represent worsening of her taxane-induced lung disease. However, she may have developed a superimposed infection, heart failure, or further pulmonary emboli. A CT pulmonary angiogram to evaluate for infection, recurrent pulmonary emboli, and worsening of her known taxane-induced pulmonary toxicity should be performed. If the CT demonstrates new areas of consolidation suggestive of a superimposed infection, a bronchoscopy would be warranted to obtain specimens for bacterial, fungal, and viral cultures.

On exam, she is in respiratory distress, almost mildly hypothermic and tachycardic with rhonchi on auscultation. This combination of findings could reflect worsening of her pulmonary disease and/or infection on the background of her cachectic state. Her epigastric tenderness, upper-GI symptoms, and anemia have continued to cause concern for persistent duodenal ulcers. Repeat EGD is warranted to evaluate for ulcers, recent bleed stigmata, and/or complications of ulcers, such as stricture formation, obstruction, or perforation. An abdominal CT scan should be done if the EGD does not show worsening of her peptic ulcer disease or obvious complications. The CT scan is more sensitive for certain complications of peptic ulcer disease, such as perforation or proximal small bowel obstruction due to strictures.

Her anemia could represent ongoing blood loss since her last EGD or an inflammatory state due to infection. Also of concern is her use of dapsone, which can lead to hemolysis with or without glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency (G6PD), and this should be excluded.

She has hypotonic hyponatremia and apparent euvolemia with a high urine sodium and osmolality; this suggests syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion, which may be due to her ongoing pulmonary disease process.

On day 3 of her hospitalization, her abdominal pain became more diffuse and colicky, with two episodes of associated nonbloody bilious vomiting. During the next 48 hours, her abdominal pain and tenderness worsened diffusely but without rigidity or peritoneal signs. She developed mild abdominal distention. An abdominal X-ray showed moderate to large stool burden and increased bowel dilation concerning for small bowel obstruction. A nasogastric tube was placed, with initial improvement of her abdominal pain and distention. On the morning of day six of hospitalization, she had approximately 100 mL of hematemesis. She immediately became hypotensive to the 50s/20s, and roughly 400 mL of sanguineous fluid was suctioned from her nasogastric tube. She was promptly given intravenous (IV) fluids and 2 units of cross-matched packed red blood cells with normalization of her blood pressure and was transferred to the medical intensive care unit (MICU).

Later that day, she had an EGD that showed copious clots and a severely friable duodenum with duodenal narrowing. Duodenal biopsies were taken.

The duodenal ulcers have led to a complication of stricture formation and obstruction resulting in some degree of small bowel obstruction. EGD with biopsies can shed light on the etiology of these ulcers and can specifically exclude viral, fungal, protozoal, or mycobacterial infection; infiltrative diseases (lymphoma, sarcoidosis, amyloidosis); cancer; and inflammatory noninfectious diseases such as vasculitis/connective tissue disorder. Biopsy specimens should undergo light and electron microscopy (for protozoa-like Cryptosporidium); stains for fungal infections such as histoplasmosis, Candida, and Cryptococcus; and stains for mycobacterium. Immunohistochemistry and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing can identify CMV, HIV, HSV, and EBV within the duodenal tissue.

She remained on methylprednisolone 30 mg IV because of her known history of pneumonitis and concern for adrenal insufficiency in the setting of acute illness. Over the next 3 days, she remained normotensive with a stable hemoglobin and had no further episodes of hematemesis. She was transferred to the general medical floor.

One day later, she required an additional unit of cross-matched red blood cells because of a hemoglobin decrease to 6.4 g/dL. The next day, she developed acute-onset respiratory distress and was intubated for hypoxemic respiratory failure and readmitted to the MICU.

Her drop in hemoglobin may reflect ongoing bleeding from the duodenum or may be due to diffuse alveolar hemorrhage (DAH) complicating her pneumonitis. The deterioration in the patient’s respiratory status could represent worsening of her taxane pneumonitis (possibly complicated by DAH or acute respiratory distress syndrome), as fatalities have been reported despite steroid treatment. However, as stated earlier, it is prudent to exclude superimposed pulmonary infection or recurrent pulmonary embolism. Broad-spectrum antibiotics should be provided to cover hospital-acquired pneumonia. Transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI) as a cause of her respiratory distress is much less likely given onset after 24 hours from transfusion. Symptoms of TRALI almost always develop within 1 to 2 hours of starting a transfusion, with most starting within minutes. The timing of respiratory distress after 24 hours of transfusion also makes transfusion-associated circulatory overload unlikely, as this presents within 6 to 12 hours of a transfusion being completed and generally in patients receiving large transfusion volumes who have underlying cardiac or renal disease.

Her duodenal pathology revealed Strongyloides stercoralis infection (Figure 1), and she was placed on ivermectin. Steroids were continued due to concern for adrenal insufficiency in the setting of critical illness and later septic shock. Bronchoscopy was also performed, and a specimen grew S stercoralis. She developed septic shock from disseminated S stercoralis infection that required vasopressors. Her sanguineous orogastric output increased, and her abdominal distension worsened, concerning for an intra-abdominal bleed or possible duodenal perforation. As attempts were made to stabilize the patient, ultimately, she experienced cardiac arrest and died.

The patient succumbed to hyperinfection/dissemination of strongyloidiasis. Her risk factors for superinfection included chemotherapy and high-dose steroids, which led to an unchecked autoinfection.

A high index of suspicion remains the most effective overall diagnostic tool for superinfection, which carries a mortality rate of up to 85% even with treatment. Therefore, prevention is the best treatment. Asymptomatic patients with epidemiological exposure or from endemic areas should be evaluated for empiric treatment of S stercoralis prior to initiation of immunosuppressive treatment.

Strongyloides stercoralis is a helminth responsible for one of the most overlooked tropical diseases worldwide.¹ It is estimated that 370 million individuals are infected with S stercoralis globally, and prevalence in the endemic tropics and subtropics is 10% to 40%.^2,3Strongyloides stercoralis infection is characterized by typically nonspecific cutaneous, pulmonary, and GI symptoms, and chronic infection can often be asymptomatic. Once the infection is established, the entirety of the S stercoralis unique life cycle can occur inside the human host, forming a cycle of endogenous autoinfection that can keep the host chronically infected and infectious for decades (Figure 2⁴). While our patient was likely chronically infected for 27 years, cases of patients being infected for up to 75 years have been reported.⁵ Though mostly identified in societies where fecal contamination of soil and poor sanitation are common, S stercoralis should be considered among populations who have traveled to endemic areas and are immunocompromised.

Most chronic S stercoralis infections are asymptomatic, but infection can progress to the life-threatening hyperinfection phase, which has a mortality rate of approximately 85%.⁶ Hyperinfection and disseminated disease occur when there is a rapid proliferation of larvae within the pulmonary and GI tracts, but in the case of disseminated disease, may travel to the liver, brain, and kidneys.^7,8 Typically, this is caused by decreased cellular immunity, often due to preexisting conditions such as human T-cell leukemia virus type 1 (HTLV-1) or medications that allow larvae proliferation to go unchecked.^6,7 One common class of medications known to increase risk of progression to hyperinfection is corticosteroids, which are thought to both depress immunity and directly increase larvae population growth.^6,9 Our patient had been on a prolonged course of steroids for her pulmonary symptoms, with increased doses during her acute illness because of concern for adrenal insufficiency; this likely further contributed to her progression to hyperinfection syndrome. Furthermore, the patient was also immunocompromised from chemotherapy. In addition, she had HIV, which has a controversial association with S stercoralis infection. While previously an AIDS-defining illness, prevalence data indicate a significant co-infection rate between S stercoralis and HIV, but it is unlikely that HIV increases progression to hyperinfection.³

Diagnosing chronic S stercoralis infection is difficult given the lack of a widely accepted gold standard for diagnosis. Traditionally, diagnosis relied on direct visualization of larvae with stool microscopy studies. However, to obtain adequate sensitivity from this method, up to seven serial stool samples must be examined, which is impractical from patient, cost, and efficiency standpoints.¹⁰ While other stool-based techniques, such as enriching the stool sample, stool agar plate culture, or PCR-based stool analysis, improve sensitivity, all stool-based studies are limited by intermittent larvae shedding and low worm burden associated with chronic infection.¹¹ Conversely, serologic studies have higher sensitivity, but concerns exist about lower specificity due to potential cross-reactions with other helminths and the persistence of antibodies even after larvae eradication.^11,12 Patients with suspected S stercoralis infection and pulmonary infiltrates on imaging may have larvae visible on sputum cultures. A final diagnostic method is direct visualization via biopsy during endoscopy or bronchoscopy, which is typically recommended in cases where suspicion is high yet stool studies have been negative.¹³ Our patient’s diagnosis was made by duodenal biopsy after her stool study was negative for S stercoralis.

Deciding who to test is difficult given the nonspecific nature of the symptoms but critically important because of the potential for mortality if the disease progresses to hyperinfection. Diagnosis should be suspected in a patient who has spent time in an endemic area and presents with any combination of pulmonary, dermatologic, or GI symptoms. If suspicion for infection is high in a patient being assessed for solid organ transplant or high-dose steroids, prophylactic treatment with ivermectin should be considered. Given the difficulty in diagnosis, some have suggested using eosinophilia as a key diagnostic element, but this has poor predictive value, particularly if the patient is on corticosteroids.⁷ This patient did not manifest with significant eosinophilia throughout her hospitalization.

This case highlights the difficulties of S stercoralis diagnosis given the nonspecific and variable symptoms, limitations in testing, and potential for remote travel history to endemic regions. It further underscores the need for provider vigilance when starting patients on immunosuppression, even with steroids, given the potential to accelerate chronic infections that were previously buried deep in the mucosa into a lethal hyperinfectious state.

• The cycle of autoinfection by S stercoralis allows it to persist for decades even while asymptomatic. This means patients can present with infection years after travel to endemic regions.
• Because progression to hyperinfection syndrome carries a high mortality rate and is associated with immunosuppressants, particularly corticosteroids, screening patients from or who have spent time in endemic regions for chronic S stercoralis infection is recommended prior to beginning immunosuppression.
• Diagnosing chronic S stercoralis infection is difficult given the lack of a highly accurate, gold-standard test. Therefore, if suspicion for infection is high yet low-sensitivity stool studies have been negative, direct visualization with a biopsy is a diagnostic option.

Acknowledgment

The authors thank Dr Nicholas Moore, microbiologist at Rush University Medical Center, for his assistance in obtaining and preparing the histology images.

Key clinical point: The risk for dementia in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) appears to be decreasing over time even when compared with non-RA referents.

Major finding: The 10-year cumulative incidence of ADRD for incident RA in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s was 12.7%, 7.2% and 6.2%, respectively. Overall risk for ADRD was higher among patients with RA vs non-RA referents (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.04-1.81), but this gap narrowed over time, with ADRD risk being higher in patients diagnosed with RA vs referents in the 1990s (HR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.09-2.70) but not in the 2000s (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.51-1.45).

Study details: The data come from a retrospective, population-based cohort study involving 897 patients with RA diagnosed between 1980 and 2009 and matched with 885 non-RA referents.

Disclosures: This study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Disease and National Institute of Aging. No conflicts of interest were reported.

Source: Kronzer VL et al. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2021 Jun 15. doi: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2021.06.003.

Key clinical point: The risk for dementia in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) appears to be decreasing over time even when compared with non-RA referents.

Major finding: The 10-year cumulative incidence of ADRD for incident RA in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s was 12.7%, 7.2% and 6.2%, respectively. Overall risk for ADRD was higher among patients with RA vs non-RA referents (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.04-1.81), but this gap narrowed over time, with ADRD risk being higher in patients diagnosed with RA vs referents in the 1990s (HR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.09-2.70) but not in the 2000s (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.51-1.45).

Study details: The data come from a retrospective, population-based cohort study involving 897 patients with RA diagnosed between 1980 and 2009 and matched with 885 non-RA referents.

Disclosures: This study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Disease and National Institute of Aging. No conflicts of interest were reported.

Source: Kronzer VL et al. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2021 Jun 15. doi: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2021.06.003.

Key clinical point: The risk for dementia in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) appears to be decreasing over time even when compared with non-RA referents.

Major finding: The 10-year cumulative incidence of ADRD for incident RA in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s was 12.7%, 7.2% and 6.2%, respectively. Overall risk for ADRD was higher among patients with RA vs non-RA referents (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.04-1.81), but this gap narrowed over time, with ADRD risk being higher in patients diagnosed with RA vs referents in the 1990s (HR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.09-2.70) but not in the 2000s (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.51-1.45).

Study details: The data come from a retrospective, population-based cohort study involving 897 patients with RA diagnosed between 1980 and 2009 and matched with 885 non-RA referents.

Disclosures: This study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Disease and National Institute of Aging. No conflicts of interest were reported.

Source: Kronzer VL et al. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2021 Jun 15. doi: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2021.06.003.