Omidubicel, an investigational enriched umbilical cord blood product being developed by Gamida Cell for transplantation in patients with blood cancers, appears to have some advantages over standard umbilical cord blood.

The results come from a global phase 3 trial (NCT02730299) presented at the annual meeting of the European Society for Blood and Bone Marrow Transplantation.

“Transplantation with omidubicel, compared to standard cord blood transplantation, results in faster hematopoietic recovery, fewer infections, and fewer days in hospital,” said coinvestigator Guillermo F. Sanz, MD, PhD, from the Hospital Universitari i Politècnic la Fe in Valencia, Spain.

“Omidubicel should be considered as the new standard of care for patients eligible for umbilical cord blood transplantation,” Dr. Sanz concluded.

Zachariah DeFilipp, MD, from Mass General Cancer Center in Boston, a hematopoietic stem cell transplantation specialist who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that “omidubicel significantly improves the engraftment after transplant, as compared to standard cord blood transplant. For patients that lack an HLA-matched donor, this approach can help overcome the prolonged cytopenias that occur with standard cord blood transplants in adults.”

Gamida Cell plans to submit these data for approval of omidubicel by the Food and Drug Administration in the fourth quarter of 2021.

Omidubicel is also being evaluated in a phase 1/2 clinical study in patients with severe aplastic anemia (NCT03173937).
 

Expanding possibilities

Although umbilical cord blood stem cell grafts come from a readily available source and show greater tolerance across HLA barriers than other sources (such as bone marrow), the relatively low dose of stem cells in each unit results in delayed hematopoietic recovery, increased transplant-related morbidity and mortality, and longer hospitalizations, Dr. Sanz said.

Omidubicel consists of two cryopreserved fractions from a single cord blood unit. The product contains both noncultured CD133-negative cells, including T cells, and CD133-positive cells that are then expanded ex vivo for 21 days in the presence of nicotinamide.

“Nicotinamide increases stem and progenitor cells, inhibits differentiation and increases migration, bone marrow homing, and engraftment efficiency while preserving cellular functionality and phenotype,” Dr. Sanz explained during his presentation.

In an earlier phase 1/2 trial in 36 patients with high-risk hematologic malignancies, omidubicel was associated with hematopoietic engraftment lasting at least 10 years.
 

Details of phase 3 trial results

The global phase 3 trial was conducted in 125 patients (aged 13-65 years) with high-risk malignancies, including acute myeloid and lymphoblastic leukemias, myelodysplastic syndrome, chronic myeloid leukemia, lymphomas, and rare leukemias. These patients were all eligible for allogeneic stem cell transplantation but did not have matched donors.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive hematopoietic reconstitution with either omidubicel (n = 52) or standard cord blood (n = 58).

At 42 days of follow-up, the median time to neutrophil engraftment in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, the primary endpoint, was 12 days with omidubicel versus 22 days with standard cord blood (P < .001).

In the as-treated population – the 108 patients who actually received omidubicel or standard cord blood – median time to engraftment was 10.0 versus 20.5 days, respectively (P < .001).

Rates of neutrophil engraftment at 42 days were 96% with omidubicel versus 89% with standard cord blood.

The secondary endpoint of time-to-platelet engraftment in the ITT population also favored omidubicel, with a cumulative day 42 incidence rate of 55%, compared with 35% with standard cord blood (P = .028).

In the as-treated population, median times to platelet engraftment were 37 days and 50 days, respectively (P = .023). The cumulative rates of platelet engraftment at 100 days of follow-up were 83% and 73%, respectively.

The incidence of grade 2 or 3 bacterial or invasive fungal infections by day 100 in the ITT population was 37% among patients who received omidubicel, compared with 57% for patients who received standard cord blood (P = .027). Viral infections occurred in 10% versus 26% of patients, respectively.

The incidence of acute graft versus host disease at day 100 was similar between treatment groups, and there was no significant difference at 1 year.

Relapse and nonrelapse mortality rates, as well as disease-free and overall survival rates also did not differ between groups.

In the first 100 days post transplant, patients who received omidubicel were alive and out of the hospital for a median of 60.5 days, compared with 48 days for patients who received standard cord blood (P = .005).

The study was funded by Gamida Cell. Dr. Sanz reported receiving research funding from the company and several others, and consulting fees, honoraria, speakers bureau activity, and travel expenses from other companies. Dr. DeFilipp reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Omidubicel, an investigational enriched umbilical cord blood product being developed by Gamida Cell for transplantation in patients with blood cancers, appears to have some advantages over standard umbilical cord blood.

The results come from a global phase 3 trial (NCT02730299) presented at the annual meeting of the European Society for Blood and Bone Marrow Transplantation.

“Transplantation with omidubicel, compared to standard cord blood transplantation, results in faster hematopoietic recovery, fewer infections, and fewer days in hospital,” said coinvestigator Guillermo F. Sanz, MD, PhD, from the Hospital Universitari i Politècnic la Fe in Valencia, Spain.

“Omidubicel should be considered as the new standard of care for patients eligible for umbilical cord blood transplantation,” Dr. Sanz concluded.

Zachariah DeFilipp, MD, from Mass General Cancer Center in Boston, a hematopoietic stem cell transplantation specialist who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that “omidubicel significantly improves the engraftment after transplant, as compared to standard cord blood transplant. For patients that lack an HLA-matched donor, this approach can help overcome the prolonged cytopenias that occur with standard cord blood transplants in adults.”

Gamida Cell plans to submit these data for approval of omidubicel by the Food and Drug Administration in the fourth quarter of 2021.

Omidubicel is also being evaluated in a phase 1/2 clinical study in patients with severe aplastic anemia (NCT03173937).
 

Expanding possibilities

Although umbilical cord blood stem cell grafts come from a readily available source and show greater tolerance across HLA barriers than other sources (such as bone marrow), the relatively low dose of stem cells in each unit results in delayed hematopoietic recovery, increased transplant-related morbidity and mortality, and longer hospitalizations, Dr. Sanz said.

Omidubicel consists of two cryopreserved fractions from a single cord blood unit. The product contains both noncultured CD133-negative cells, including T cells, and CD133-positive cells that are then expanded ex vivo for 21 days in the presence of nicotinamide.

“Nicotinamide increases stem and progenitor cells, inhibits differentiation and increases migration, bone marrow homing, and engraftment efficiency while preserving cellular functionality and phenotype,” Dr. Sanz explained during his presentation.

In an earlier phase 1/2 trial in 36 patients with high-risk hematologic malignancies, omidubicel was associated with hematopoietic engraftment lasting at least 10 years.
 

Details of phase 3 trial results

The global phase 3 trial was conducted in 125 patients (aged 13-65 years) with high-risk malignancies, including acute myeloid and lymphoblastic leukemias, myelodysplastic syndrome, chronic myeloid leukemia, lymphomas, and rare leukemias. These patients were all eligible for allogeneic stem cell transplantation but did not have matched donors.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive hematopoietic reconstitution with either omidubicel (n = 52) or standard cord blood (n = 58).

At 42 days of follow-up, the median time to neutrophil engraftment in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, the primary endpoint, was 12 days with omidubicel versus 22 days with standard cord blood (P < .001).

In the as-treated population – the 108 patients who actually received omidubicel or standard cord blood – median time to engraftment was 10.0 versus 20.5 days, respectively (P < .001).

Rates of neutrophil engraftment at 42 days were 96% with omidubicel versus 89% with standard cord blood.

The secondary endpoint of time-to-platelet engraftment in the ITT population also favored omidubicel, with a cumulative day 42 incidence rate of 55%, compared with 35% with standard cord blood (P = .028).

In the as-treated population, median times to platelet engraftment were 37 days and 50 days, respectively (P = .023). The cumulative rates of platelet engraftment at 100 days of follow-up were 83% and 73%, respectively.

The incidence of grade 2 or 3 bacterial or invasive fungal infections by day 100 in the ITT population was 37% among patients who received omidubicel, compared with 57% for patients who received standard cord blood (P = .027). Viral infections occurred in 10% versus 26% of patients, respectively.

The incidence of acute graft versus host disease at day 100 was similar between treatment groups, and there was no significant difference at 1 year.

Relapse and nonrelapse mortality rates, as well as disease-free and overall survival rates also did not differ between groups.

In the first 100 days post transplant, patients who received omidubicel were alive and out of the hospital for a median of 60.5 days, compared with 48 days for patients who received standard cord blood (P = .005).

The study was funded by Gamida Cell. Dr. Sanz reported receiving research funding from the company and several others, and consulting fees, honoraria, speakers bureau activity, and travel expenses from other companies. Dr. DeFilipp reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Omidubicel, an investigational enriched umbilical cord blood product being developed by Gamida Cell for transplantation in patients with blood cancers, appears to have some advantages over standard umbilical cord blood.

The results come from a global phase 3 trial (NCT02730299) presented at the annual meeting of the European Society for Blood and Bone Marrow Transplantation.

“Transplantation with omidubicel, compared to standard cord blood transplantation, results in faster hematopoietic recovery, fewer infections, and fewer days in hospital,” said coinvestigator Guillermo F. Sanz, MD, PhD, from the Hospital Universitari i Politècnic la Fe in Valencia, Spain.

“Omidubicel should be considered as the new standard of care for patients eligible for umbilical cord blood transplantation,” Dr. Sanz concluded.

Zachariah DeFilipp, MD, from Mass General Cancer Center in Boston, a hematopoietic stem cell transplantation specialist who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that “omidubicel significantly improves the engraftment after transplant, as compared to standard cord blood transplant. For patients that lack an HLA-matched donor, this approach can help overcome the prolonged cytopenias that occur with standard cord blood transplants in adults.”

Gamida Cell plans to submit these data for approval of omidubicel by the Food and Drug Administration in the fourth quarter of 2021.

Omidubicel is also being evaluated in a phase 1/2 clinical study in patients with severe aplastic anemia (NCT03173937).
 

Expanding possibilities

Although umbilical cord blood stem cell grafts come from a readily available source and show greater tolerance across HLA barriers than other sources (such as bone marrow), the relatively low dose of stem cells in each unit results in delayed hematopoietic recovery, increased transplant-related morbidity and mortality, and longer hospitalizations, Dr. Sanz said.

Omidubicel consists of two cryopreserved fractions from a single cord blood unit. The product contains both noncultured CD133-negative cells, including T cells, and CD133-positive cells that are then expanded ex vivo for 21 days in the presence of nicotinamide.

“Nicotinamide increases stem and progenitor cells, inhibits differentiation and increases migration, bone marrow homing, and engraftment efficiency while preserving cellular functionality and phenotype,” Dr. Sanz explained during his presentation.

In an earlier phase 1/2 trial in 36 patients with high-risk hematologic malignancies, omidubicel was associated with hematopoietic engraftment lasting at least 10 years.
 

Details of phase 3 trial results

The global phase 3 trial was conducted in 125 patients (aged 13-65 years) with high-risk malignancies, including acute myeloid and lymphoblastic leukemias, myelodysplastic syndrome, chronic myeloid leukemia, lymphomas, and rare leukemias. These patients were all eligible for allogeneic stem cell transplantation but did not have matched donors.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive hematopoietic reconstitution with either omidubicel (n = 52) or standard cord blood (n = 58).

At 42 days of follow-up, the median time to neutrophil engraftment in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, the primary endpoint, was 12 days with omidubicel versus 22 days with standard cord blood (P < .001).

In the as-treated population – the 108 patients who actually received omidubicel or standard cord blood – median time to engraftment was 10.0 versus 20.5 days, respectively (P < .001).

Rates of neutrophil engraftment at 42 days were 96% with omidubicel versus 89% with standard cord blood.

The secondary endpoint of time-to-platelet engraftment in the ITT population also favored omidubicel, with a cumulative day 42 incidence rate of 55%, compared with 35% with standard cord blood (P = .028).

In the as-treated population, median times to platelet engraftment were 37 days and 50 days, respectively (P = .023). The cumulative rates of platelet engraftment at 100 days of follow-up were 83% and 73%, respectively.

The incidence of grade 2 or 3 bacterial or invasive fungal infections by day 100 in the ITT population was 37% among patients who received omidubicel, compared with 57% for patients who received standard cord blood (P = .027). Viral infections occurred in 10% versus 26% of patients, respectively.

The incidence of acute graft versus host disease at day 100 was similar between treatment groups, and there was no significant difference at 1 year.

Relapse and nonrelapse mortality rates, as well as disease-free and overall survival rates also did not differ between groups.

In the first 100 days post transplant, patients who received omidubicel were alive and out of the hospital for a median of 60.5 days, compared with 48 days for patients who received standard cord blood (P = .005).

The study was funded by Gamida Cell. Dr. Sanz reported receiving research funding from the company and several others, and consulting fees, honoraria, speakers bureau activity, and travel expenses from other companies. Dr. DeFilipp reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study has found that older men with high levels of abdominal aortic calcification (AAC) and a prevalent vertebral fracture – both of which can be assessed via lateral spine radiographs – are at increased risk of hip, clinical vertebral, and major osteoporotic fractures.

“The results of this study and others suggest that it may be appropriate to expand lateral spine imaging to include those with a significant pre-test probability of higher AAC being present,” wrote John T. Schousboe, MD, of the Park Nicollet Clinic and HealthPartners Institute in Bloomington, Minn. The study was published in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

To determine the impact of prevalent vertebral fractures and AAC on fracture risk, the researchers assessed the lateral spine radiographs of 5,365 men who were enrolled in the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) study. All participants were 65 years or older, community dwelling, able to walk without assistance, and without bilateral hip arthroplasties. They split patients’ 24-point AAC (ACC-24) scores at the baseline visit into four levels: 0-1, 2-4, 5-8, and greater than 9. Self-reports of fractures were solicited from the cohort every 4 months.

Of all participants, 7.6% (n = 407) had a prevalent vertebral fracture at baseline. They were, on average, 1.5 years older than participants without a fracture; they were also more likely to be white and to have a prior nonspine fracture, along with having a lower femoral neck BMD (0.718 g/cm², compared with 0.787 g/cm²; P < .001). In addition, significantly more men with a prevalent vertebral fracture had an AAC score greater than 9 (27% vs. 21.2%).

After an average follow-up period of 12.4 years (standard deviation, 5.2), 634 men had a major osteoporotic fracture, 283 had a hip fracture, 206 had a clinical vertebral fracture, and 2,626 died without having any of the three. After adjustment for risk factors such as age, prior nonspine fracture, and prevalent vertebral fracture, men with higher AAC-24 scores had a higher risk of major osteoporotic fracture, compared with men who had scores of 0-1: a hazard ratio of 1.38 (95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.73; P < .001) for scores 2-4, a HR of 1.45 (95% CI, 1.14-1.84; P < .001) for scores 5-8, and a HR of 1.65 (95% CI, 1.29-2.10; P < .001) for scores greater than 9.

Similar findings were reported regarding risk of hip fractures: a HR of 1.54 (95% CI, 1.07-2.20; P < .001) for men with AAC-24 scores 2-4, a HR of 1.40 (95% CI, 0.96-2.06; P < .001) for scores 5-8, and a HR of 2.17 (95% CI, 1.50-3.13; P < .001) for scores greater than 9. AAC-24 score severity was not associated with a higher risk of clinical vertebral fractures.

After adjustment for risk factors and AAC-24 score, men with prevalent vertebral fractures had an increased risk of all three fracture outcomes, compared with men without any fractures at baseline: a HR of 1.56 (95% CI, 1.12-2.16; P < .001) for hip fracture, a HR of 1.85 (95% CI, 1.48-2.31; P < .001) for major osteoporotic fracture, and a HR of 2.76 (95% CI, 1.94-3.91; P < .001) for clinical vertebral fracture.

Adjusting for competing mortality produced similar results: men with higher levels of AAC had increased risk of major osteoporotic fracture and hip fracture, although AAC-24 score was not associated with higher risk of clinical vertebral fractures. Prevalent vertebral fractures were also still associated with higher risk of hip (subdistribution HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.01-2.00; P = .004), major osteoporotic fracture (SHR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.36-2.14; P < .001), and clinical vertebral fracture (SHR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.72-3.52; P < .001).

Fracture risk assessment proves to be “a nice proof of concept”

“It’s well known that prevalent fractures predict future fractures,” said Thomas M. Link, MD, PhD, chief of the musculoskeletal imaging section in the department of radiology and biomedical imaging at the University of California, San Francisco, in an interview. “The new finding is that aortic calcifications combined with prevalent fractures perform better in predicting major osteoporotic fractures. Traditionally on radiographs, we note that patients who have more calcifications in vessels have less density or calcium in the bone, so this is a nice proof of concept.”

“While the study shows excellent reproducibility, it is not clear how the AAC-24 score was validated,” he added. “Theoretically, abdominal CT could be used for this.”

Along with validation of the AAC-24 score on lateral spine radiographs, he expressed a desire that future research would be “clearer regarding how this would potentially impact patient management. Prevalent fractures already are an indication to treat patients with osteoporosis-specific drugs. How would the results of this study impact management beyond that?”

The authors acknowledged their study’s other potential limitations, including limits in their ability to estimate absolute and relative hip fracture risk in men with low AAC scores but a prevalent vertebral fracture. In addition, they noted that their cohort was “mostly white, healthy, community-dwelling older men” and therefore may not be generalizable to other populations.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, including grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the NIH Roadmap for Medical Research. One author reported being supported by a National Heart Foundation of Australia Future Leader Fellowship. The others disclosed no potential conflicts of interest.

A new study has found that older men with high levels of abdominal aortic calcification (AAC) and a prevalent vertebral fracture – both of which can be assessed via lateral spine radiographs – are at increased risk of hip, clinical vertebral, and major osteoporotic fractures.

“The results of this study and others suggest that it may be appropriate to expand lateral spine imaging to include those with a significant pre-test probability of higher AAC being present,” wrote John T. Schousboe, MD, of the Park Nicollet Clinic and HealthPartners Institute in Bloomington, Minn. The study was published in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

To determine the impact of prevalent vertebral fractures and AAC on fracture risk, the researchers assessed the lateral spine radiographs of 5,365 men who were enrolled in the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) study. All participants were 65 years or older, community dwelling, able to walk without assistance, and without bilateral hip arthroplasties. They split patients’ 24-point AAC (ACC-24) scores at the baseline visit into four levels: 0-1, 2-4, 5-8, and greater than 9. Self-reports of fractures were solicited from the cohort every 4 months.

Of all participants, 7.6% (n = 407) had a prevalent vertebral fracture at baseline. They were, on average, 1.5 years older than participants without a fracture; they were also more likely to be white and to have a prior nonspine fracture, along with having a lower femoral neck BMD (0.718 g/cm², compared with 0.787 g/cm²; P < .001). In addition, significantly more men with a prevalent vertebral fracture had an AAC score greater than 9 (27% vs. 21.2%).

After an average follow-up period of 12.4 years (standard deviation, 5.2), 634 men had a major osteoporotic fracture, 283 had a hip fracture, 206 had a clinical vertebral fracture, and 2,626 died without having any of the three. After adjustment for risk factors such as age, prior nonspine fracture, and prevalent vertebral fracture, men with higher AAC-24 scores had a higher risk of major osteoporotic fracture, compared with men who had scores of 0-1: a hazard ratio of 1.38 (95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.73; P < .001) for scores 2-4, a HR of 1.45 (95% CI, 1.14-1.84; P < .001) for scores 5-8, and a HR of 1.65 (95% CI, 1.29-2.10; P < .001) for scores greater than 9.

Similar findings were reported regarding risk of hip fractures: a HR of 1.54 (95% CI, 1.07-2.20; P < .001) for men with AAC-24 scores 2-4, a HR of 1.40 (95% CI, 0.96-2.06; P < .001) for scores 5-8, and a HR of 2.17 (95% CI, 1.50-3.13; P < .001) for scores greater than 9. AAC-24 score severity was not associated with a higher risk of clinical vertebral fractures.

After adjustment for risk factors and AAC-24 score, men with prevalent vertebral fractures had an increased risk of all three fracture outcomes, compared with men without any fractures at baseline: a HR of 1.56 (95% CI, 1.12-2.16; P < .001) for hip fracture, a HR of 1.85 (95% CI, 1.48-2.31; P < .001) for major osteoporotic fracture, and a HR of 2.76 (95% CI, 1.94-3.91; P < .001) for clinical vertebral fracture.

Adjusting for competing mortality produced similar results: men with higher levels of AAC had increased risk of major osteoporotic fracture and hip fracture, although AAC-24 score was not associated with higher risk of clinical vertebral fractures. Prevalent vertebral fractures were also still associated with higher risk of hip (subdistribution HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.01-2.00; P = .004), major osteoporotic fracture (SHR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.36-2.14; P < .001), and clinical vertebral fracture (SHR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.72-3.52; P < .001).

Fracture risk assessment proves to be “a nice proof of concept”

“It’s well known that prevalent fractures predict future fractures,” said Thomas M. Link, MD, PhD, chief of the musculoskeletal imaging section in the department of radiology and biomedical imaging at the University of California, San Francisco, in an interview. “The new finding is that aortic calcifications combined with prevalent fractures perform better in predicting major osteoporotic fractures. Traditionally on radiographs, we note that patients who have more calcifications in vessels have less density or calcium in the bone, so this is a nice proof of concept.”

“While the study shows excellent reproducibility, it is not clear how the AAC-24 score was validated,” he added. “Theoretically, abdominal CT could be used for this.”

Along with validation of the AAC-24 score on lateral spine radiographs, he expressed a desire that future research would be “clearer regarding how this would potentially impact patient management. Prevalent fractures already are an indication to treat patients with osteoporosis-specific drugs. How would the results of this study impact management beyond that?”

The authors acknowledged their study’s other potential limitations, including limits in their ability to estimate absolute and relative hip fracture risk in men with low AAC scores but a prevalent vertebral fracture. In addition, they noted that their cohort was “mostly white, healthy, community-dwelling older men” and therefore may not be generalizable to other populations.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, including grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the NIH Roadmap for Medical Research. One author reported being supported by a National Heart Foundation of Australia Future Leader Fellowship. The others disclosed no potential conflicts of interest.

A new study has found that older men with high levels of abdominal aortic calcification (AAC) and a prevalent vertebral fracture – both of which can be assessed via lateral spine radiographs – are at increased risk of hip, clinical vertebral, and major osteoporotic fractures.

“The results of this study and others suggest that it may be appropriate to expand lateral spine imaging to include those with a significant pre-test probability of higher AAC being present,” wrote John T. Schousboe, MD, of the Park Nicollet Clinic and HealthPartners Institute in Bloomington, Minn. The study was published in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

To determine the impact of prevalent vertebral fractures and AAC on fracture risk, the researchers assessed the lateral spine radiographs of 5,365 men who were enrolled in the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) study. All participants were 65 years or older, community dwelling, able to walk without assistance, and without bilateral hip arthroplasties. They split patients’ 24-point AAC (ACC-24) scores at the baseline visit into four levels: 0-1, 2-4, 5-8, and greater than 9. Self-reports of fractures were solicited from the cohort every 4 months.

Of all participants, 7.6% (n = 407) had a prevalent vertebral fracture at baseline. They were, on average, 1.5 years older than participants without a fracture; they were also more likely to be white and to have a prior nonspine fracture, along with having a lower femoral neck BMD (0.718 g/cm², compared with 0.787 g/cm²; P < .001). In addition, significantly more men with a prevalent vertebral fracture had an AAC score greater than 9 (27% vs. 21.2%).

After an average follow-up period of 12.4 years (standard deviation, 5.2), 634 men had a major osteoporotic fracture, 283 had a hip fracture, 206 had a clinical vertebral fracture, and 2,626 died without having any of the three. After adjustment for risk factors such as age, prior nonspine fracture, and prevalent vertebral fracture, men with higher AAC-24 scores had a higher risk of major osteoporotic fracture, compared with men who had scores of 0-1: a hazard ratio of 1.38 (95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.73; P < .001) for scores 2-4, a HR of 1.45 (95% CI, 1.14-1.84; P < .001) for scores 5-8, and a HR of 1.65 (95% CI, 1.29-2.10; P < .001) for scores greater than 9.

Similar findings were reported regarding risk of hip fractures: a HR of 1.54 (95% CI, 1.07-2.20; P < .001) for men with AAC-24 scores 2-4, a HR of 1.40 (95% CI, 0.96-2.06; P < .001) for scores 5-8, and a HR of 2.17 (95% CI, 1.50-3.13; P < .001) for scores greater than 9. AAC-24 score severity was not associated with a higher risk of clinical vertebral fractures.

After adjustment for risk factors and AAC-24 score, men with prevalent vertebral fractures had an increased risk of all three fracture outcomes, compared with men without any fractures at baseline: a HR of 1.56 (95% CI, 1.12-2.16; P < .001) for hip fracture, a HR of 1.85 (95% CI, 1.48-2.31; P < .001) for major osteoporotic fracture, and a HR of 2.76 (95% CI, 1.94-3.91; P < .001) for clinical vertebral fracture.

Adjusting for competing mortality produced similar results: men with higher levels of AAC had increased risk of major osteoporotic fracture and hip fracture, although AAC-24 score was not associated with higher risk of clinical vertebral fractures. Prevalent vertebral fractures were also still associated with higher risk of hip (subdistribution HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.01-2.00; P = .004), major osteoporotic fracture (SHR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.36-2.14; P < .001), and clinical vertebral fracture (SHR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.72-3.52; P < .001).

Fracture risk assessment proves to be “a nice proof of concept”

“It’s well known that prevalent fractures predict future fractures,” said Thomas M. Link, MD, PhD, chief of the musculoskeletal imaging section in the department of radiology and biomedical imaging at the University of California, San Francisco, in an interview. “The new finding is that aortic calcifications combined with prevalent fractures perform better in predicting major osteoporotic fractures. Traditionally on radiographs, we note that patients who have more calcifications in vessels have less density or calcium in the bone, so this is a nice proof of concept.”

“While the study shows excellent reproducibility, it is not clear how the AAC-24 score was validated,” he added. “Theoretically, abdominal CT could be used for this.”

Along with validation of the AAC-24 score on lateral spine radiographs, he expressed a desire that future research would be “clearer regarding how this would potentially impact patient management. Prevalent fractures already are an indication to treat patients with osteoporosis-specific drugs. How would the results of this study impact management beyond that?”

The authors acknowledged their study’s other potential limitations, including limits in their ability to estimate absolute and relative hip fracture risk in men with low AAC scores but a prevalent vertebral fracture. In addition, they noted that their cohort was “mostly white, healthy, community-dwelling older men” and therefore may not be generalizable to other populations.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, including grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the NIH Roadmap for Medical Research. One author reported being supported by a National Heart Foundation of Australia Future Leader Fellowship. The others disclosed no potential conflicts of interest.

Background: Acute cholangitis (AC) in its most severe form is associated with a high mortality rate. Most patients respond to medical management involving intravenous hydration and antibiotics, though a sizable portion require biliary drainage. Current guidelines advocate for urgent drainage depending on the severity of AC, though do not specify optimal timing. Existing literature is conflicting on when ERCP should ideally be done for AC.

The studies included in the analysis were observational studies, so no causal relationship can be established. Only two of the nine studies reported outcome differences stratified by severity of presentation. Etiology of the AC was inconsistently reported amongst studies.

Bottom line: Emergent ERCP appears to be associated with reduced mortality and LOS in patients presenting with AC, though larger randomized controlled trials are needed to better delineate the optimal timing for biliary drainage in these patients.

Citation: Iqbal U et al. Emergent versus urgent ERCP in acute cholangitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointes Endosc. 2019 Oct 16. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.09.040.

Dr. Babbel is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Background: Acute cholangitis (AC) in its most severe form is associated with a high mortality rate. Most patients respond to medical management involving intravenous hydration and antibiotics, though a sizable portion require biliary drainage. Current guidelines advocate for urgent drainage depending on the severity of AC, though do not specify optimal timing. Existing literature is conflicting on when ERCP should ideally be done for AC.

The studies included in the analysis were observational studies, so no causal relationship can be established. Only two of the nine studies reported outcome differences stratified by severity of presentation. Etiology of the AC was inconsistently reported amongst studies.

Bottom line: Emergent ERCP appears to be associated with reduced mortality and LOS in patients presenting with AC, though larger randomized controlled trials are needed to better delineate the optimal timing for biliary drainage in these patients.

Citation: Iqbal U et al. Emergent versus urgent ERCP in acute cholangitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointes Endosc. 2019 Oct 16. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.09.040.

Dr. Babbel is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Background: Acute cholangitis (AC) in its most severe form is associated with a high mortality rate. Most patients respond to medical management involving intravenous hydration and antibiotics, though a sizable portion require biliary drainage. Current guidelines advocate for urgent drainage depending on the severity of AC, though do not specify optimal timing. Existing literature is conflicting on when ERCP should ideally be done for AC.

The studies included in the analysis were observational studies, so no causal relationship can be established. Only two of the nine studies reported outcome differences stratified by severity of presentation. Etiology of the AC was inconsistently reported amongst studies.

Bottom line: Emergent ERCP appears to be associated with reduced mortality and LOS in patients presenting with AC, though larger randomized controlled trials are needed to better delineate the optimal timing for biliary drainage in these patients.

Citation: Iqbal U et al. Emergent versus urgent ERCP in acute cholangitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointes Endosc. 2019 Oct 16. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.09.040.

Dr. Babbel is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Family physician Mitchell A. Kaminski, MD, MBA, was still awash in feelings of joy and relief at recently being vaccinated against COVID-19 when a patient’s comments stopped him cold. The patient, a middle-aged man with several comorbidities had just declined the pneumonia vaccine – and he added, without prompting, that he wouldn’t be getting the COVID vaccine either. This patient had heard getting vaccinated could kill him.

Dr. Kaminski countered with medical facts, including that the very rare side effects hadn’t killed anyone in the United States but COVID was killing thousands of people every day. “Well then, I’ll just risk getting COVID,” Dr. Kaminski recalled the patient saying. Conversation over.

That experience caused Dr. Kaminski, who is program director for population health at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, to rethink the way he talks to patients who are uncertain or skeptical about getting a COVID-19 vaccine. Now, if he saw that patient who seemed fearful of dying from a vaccination, Dr. Kaminski said he would be more curious.

Instead of outright contradicting the beliefs of a patient who is reluctant to get vaccinated, Dr. Kaminski now gently asks about the reasons for their discomfort and offers information about the vaccines. But mostly, he listens.

©Sean Warren/iStockphoto.com

Conversations between physicians and patients about the risks that come with getting a COVID-19 vaccine are becoming more common in general as eligibility for immunizations expands. Physicians are using a variety of methods to communicate about the safety and importance of getting vaccinated that they think will lead to more of their patients getting a COVID-19 vaccine.

About 80% of Americans say that they are most likely to turn to doctors, nurses and other health professionals for help in deciding whether to get the COVID vaccine, according to research by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
 

Getting beyond the distrust

While patients often feel a strong connection with their health providers, distrust in the medical establishment still exists, especially among some populations. The Kaiser Family Foundation reported that a third of Black respondents are taking a “wait-and-see” approach, while 23% said they will get it only if it’s required – or not at all.

Distrust persists from historical racist events in medicine, such as the infamous Tuskegee experiments in which treatment was withheld from Black men with syphilis. But physicians shouldn’t assume that all Black patients have the same reasons for vaccine hesitancy, said Krys Foster, MD, MPH, a family physician at Thomas Jefferson University.

“In my experience caring for patients who are uncertain or have concerns about receiving the vaccine, I’ve learned that many are just seeking more information, or even my approval to say that it is safe to proceed given their medical history,” she said.

Sources such as the COVID Racial Data Tracker have found that Black Americans have a higher COVID death rate than other racial or ethnic groups, making vaccination even more vital. Yet fear of the vaccine could be triggered by misinformation that can be found in various places online, Dr. Foster said.

To encourage people to get vaccinated and dispel false information, Dr. Foster takes time to discuss how safe it is to get a COVID-19 vaccine and the vaccines’ side effects, then quickly pivots to discussing how to get vaccinated.

It can be difficult for some people to find appointments or access testing sites. The failure to get the vaccine shouldn’t automatically be attributed to “hesitancy,” she said. “The onus is on the medical community to help fix the health injustices inflicted on communities of color by providing equitable information and access and stop placing blame on them for having the ‘wrong’ vaccine attitude.”
 

Give your testimonial

Jamie Loehr, MD, of Cayuga Family Medicine in Ithaca, N.Y., said he has always had a higher-than-average number of patients who refused or delayed their children’s vaccines. He does not kick them out of his practice but politely continues to educate them about the vaccines.

When patients ask Dr. Loehr if he trusts the vaccine, he responds with confidence: “I not only believe in it, I got it and I recommend it to anyone who can possibly get it.”

He was surprised recently when a mother who has expressed reluctance to vaccinate her young children came for a checkup and told him she had already received a COVID vaccine. “She made the decision on her own that this was important enough that she wanted to get it,” he said.
 

Health care worker hesitancy

Some health care workers’ unease about being at the front of the line for vaccines may be another source of vaccine hesitancy among members of the general population that physicians need to address. In a survey of almost 3,500 health care workers conducted in October and November 2020 and published in January 2021 in Vaccines, only about a third (36%) said they would get the vaccine as soon as it became available. By mid- to late-February, 54% of health care workers reported having been vaccinated and another 10% planned to get the vaccine as soon as possible, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor.

Resolving doubts about the vaccines requires a thoughtful approach toward health care colleagues, said Eileen Barrett, MD, MPH, an internist and hospitalist who was a coauthor of the Vaccines paper and who serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. “We should meet people where they are and do our best to hear their concerns, listening thoughtfully without condescension. Validate how important their role is in endorsing vaccination and also validate asking questions.”

There’s power in the strong personal testimonial of physicians and other health care workers – not just to influence patients, but as a model for fellow health professionals, as well, noted Dr. Barrett, who cares for COVID-19 patients and is associate professor in the division of hospital medicine, department of internal medicine, at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
 

‘Do it for your loved ones’

The Reagan-Udall Foundation, a nonprofit organization created by Congress to support the Food and Drug Administration, tested some messaging with focus groups. Participants responded favorably to this statement about why the vaccines were developed so quickly: “Vaccine development moved faster than normal because everyone’s making it their highest priority.”

People did not feel motivated to get the vaccine out of a sense of civic duty, said Susan Winckler, RPh, Esq, who is CEO of the foundation. But they did think the following was a good reason to get vaccinated: “By getting a vaccine, I could protect my children, my parents, and other loved ones.”

Physicians also can work with community influencers, such as faith leaders, to build confidence in vaccines. That’s part of the strategy of Roll Up Your Sleeves, a campaign spearheaded by agilon health, a company that partners with physician practices to develop value-based care for Medicare Advantage patients.

For example, Wilmington Health in North Carolina answered questions about the vaccines in Facebook Live events and created a Spanish-language video to boost vaccine confidence in the Latinx community. Additionally, PriMED Physicians in Dayton, Ohio, reached out to Black churches to provide a vaccine-awareness video and a PriMED doctor participated in a webinar sponsored by the Nigerian Women Cultural Organization to help dispel myths about COVID-19 and the vaccines.

“This is a way to deepen our relationship with our patients,” said Ben Kornitzer, MD, chief medical officer of agilon. “It’s helping to walk them through this door where on one side is the pandemic and social isolation and on the other side is a return to their life and loved ones.”

The messages provided by primary care physicians can be powerful and affirming, said Ms. Winckler.

“The path forward is to make a space for people to ask questions,” she continued, noting that the Reagan-Udall Foundation provides charts that show how the timeline for vaccine development was compressed without skipping any steps.

Strategies and background information on how to reinforce confidence in COVID-19 vaccines are also available on a page of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s website.

None of the experts interviewed reported any relevant conflicts of interest. The Reagan-Udall Foundation has received sponsorships from Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca and has had a safety surveillance contract with Pfizer.

Family physician Mitchell A. Kaminski, MD, MBA, was still awash in feelings of joy and relief at recently being vaccinated against COVID-19 when a patient’s comments stopped him cold. The patient, a middle-aged man with several comorbidities had just declined the pneumonia vaccine – and he added, without prompting, that he wouldn’t be getting the COVID vaccine either. This patient had heard getting vaccinated could kill him.

Dr. Kaminski countered with medical facts, including that the very rare side effects hadn’t killed anyone in the United States but COVID was killing thousands of people every day. “Well then, I’ll just risk getting COVID,” Dr. Kaminski recalled the patient saying. Conversation over.

That experience caused Dr. Kaminski, who is program director for population health at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, to rethink the way he talks to patients who are uncertain or skeptical about getting a COVID-19 vaccine. Now, if he saw that patient who seemed fearful of dying from a vaccination, Dr. Kaminski said he would be more curious.

Instead of outright contradicting the beliefs of a patient who is reluctant to get vaccinated, Dr. Kaminski now gently asks about the reasons for their discomfort and offers information about the vaccines. But mostly, he listens.

©Sean Warren/iStockphoto.com

Conversations between physicians and patients about the risks that come with getting a COVID-19 vaccine are becoming more common in general as eligibility for immunizations expands. Physicians are using a variety of methods to communicate about the safety and importance of getting vaccinated that they think will lead to more of their patients getting a COVID-19 vaccine.

About 80% of Americans say that they are most likely to turn to doctors, nurses and other health professionals for help in deciding whether to get the COVID vaccine, according to research by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
 

Getting beyond the distrust

While patients often feel a strong connection with their health providers, distrust in the medical establishment still exists, especially among some populations. The Kaiser Family Foundation reported that a third of Black respondents are taking a “wait-and-see” approach, while 23% said they will get it only if it’s required – or not at all.

Distrust persists from historical racist events in medicine, such as the infamous Tuskegee experiments in which treatment was withheld from Black men with syphilis. But physicians shouldn’t assume that all Black patients have the same reasons for vaccine hesitancy, said Krys Foster, MD, MPH, a family physician at Thomas Jefferson University.

“In my experience caring for patients who are uncertain or have concerns about receiving the vaccine, I’ve learned that many are just seeking more information, or even my approval to say that it is safe to proceed given their medical history,” she said.

Sources such as the COVID Racial Data Tracker have found that Black Americans have a higher COVID death rate than other racial or ethnic groups, making vaccination even more vital. Yet fear of the vaccine could be triggered by misinformation that can be found in various places online, Dr. Foster said.

To encourage people to get vaccinated and dispel false information, Dr. Foster takes time to discuss how safe it is to get a COVID-19 vaccine and the vaccines’ side effects, then quickly pivots to discussing how to get vaccinated.

It can be difficult for some people to find appointments or access testing sites. The failure to get the vaccine shouldn’t automatically be attributed to “hesitancy,” she said. “The onus is on the medical community to help fix the health injustices inflicted on communities of color by providing equitable information and access and stop placing blame on them for having the ‘wrong’ vaccine attitude.”
 

Give your testimonial

Jamie Loehr, MD, of Cayuga Family Medicine in Ithaca, N.Y., said he has always had a higher-than-average number of patients who refused or delayed their children’s vaccines. He does not kick them out of his practice but politely continues to educate them about the vaccines.

When patients ask Dr. Loehr if he trusts the vaccine, he responds with confidence: “I not only believe in it, I got it and I recommend it to anyone who can possibly get it.”

He was surprised recently when a mother who has expressed reluctance to vaccinate her young children came for a checkup and told him she had already received a COVID vaccine. “She made the decision on her own that this was important enough that she wanted to get it,” he said.
 

Health care worker hesitancy

Some health care workers’ unease about being at the front of the line for vaccines may be another source of vaccine hesitancy among members of the general population that physicians need to address. In a survey of almost 3,500 health care workers conducted in October and November 2020 and published in January 2021 in Vaccines, only about a third (36%) said they would get the vaccine as soon as it became available. By mid- to late-February, 54% of health care workers reported having been vaccinated and another 10% planned to get the vaccine as soon as possible, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor.

Resolving doubts about the vaccines requires a thoughtful approach toward health care colleagues, said Eileen Barrett, MD, MPH, an internist and hospitalist who was a coauthor of the Vaccines paper and who serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. “We should meet people where they are and do our best to hear their concerns, listening thoughtfully without condescension. Validate how important their role is in endorsing vaccination and also validate asking questions.”

There’s power in the strong personal testimonial of physicians and other health care workers – not just to influence patients, but as a model for fellow health professionals, as well, noted Dr. Barrett, who cares for COVID-19 patients and is associate professor in the division of hospital medicine, department of internal medicine, at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
 

‘Do it for your loved ones’

The Reagan-Udall Foundation, a nonprofit organization created by Congress to support the Food and Drug Administration, tested some messaging with focus groups. Participants responded favorably to this statement about why the vaccines were developed so quickly: “Vaccine development moved faster than normal because everyone’s making it their highest priority.”

People did not feel motivated to get the vaccine out of a sense of civic duty, said Susan Winckler, RPh, Esq, who is CEO of the foundation. But they did think the following was a good reason to get vaccinated: “By getting a vaccine, I could protect my children, my parents, and other loved ones.”

Physicians also can work with community influencers, such as faith leaders, to build confidence in vaccines. That’s part of the strategy of Roll Up Your Sleeves, a campaign spearheaded by agilon health, a company that partners with physician practices to develop value-based care for Medicare Advantage patients.

For example, Wilmington Health in North Carolina answered questions about the vaccines in Facebook Live events and created a Spanish-language video to boost vaccine confidence in the Latinx community. Additionally, PriMED Physicians in Dayton, Ohio, reached out to Black churches to provide a vaccine-awareness video and a PriMED doctor participated in a webinar sponsored by the Nigerian Women Cultural Organization to help dispel myths about COVID-19 and the vaccines.

“This is a way to deepen our relationship with our patients,” said Ben Kornitzer, MD, chief medical officer of agilon. “It’s helping to walk them through this door where on one side is the pandemic and social isolation and on the other side is a return to their life and loved ones.”

The messages provided by primary care physicians can be powerful and affirming, said Ms. Winckler.

“The path forward is to make a space for people to ask questions,” she continued, noting that the Reagan-Udall Foundation provides charts that show how the timeline for vaccine development was compressed without skipping any steps.

Strategies and background information on how to reinforce confidence in COVID-19 vaccines are also available on a page of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s website.

None of the experts interviewed reported any relevant conflicts of interest. The Reagan-Udall Foundation has received sponsorships from Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca and has had a safety surveillance contract with Pfizer.

Family physician Mitchell A. Kaminski, MD, MBA, was still awash in feelings of joy and relief at recently being vaccinated against COVID-19 when a patient’s comments stopped him cold. The patient, a middle-aged man with several comorbidities had just declined the pneumonia vaccine – and he added, without prompting, that he wouldn’t be getting the COVID vaccine either. This patient had heard getting vaccinated could kill him.

Dr. Kaminski countered with medical facts, including that the very rare side effects hadn’t killed anyone in the United States but COVID was killing thousands of people every day. “Well then, I’ll just risk getting COVID,” Dr. Kaminski recalled the patient saying. Conversation over.

That experience caused Dr. Kaminski, who is program director for population health at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, to rethink the way he talks to patients who are uncertain or skeptical about getting a COVID-19 vaccine. Now, if he saw that patient who seemed fearful of dying from a vaccination, Dr. Kaminski said he would be more curious.

Instead of outright contradicting the beliefs of a patient who is reluctant to get vaccinated, Dr. Kaminski now gently asks about the reasons for their discomfort and offers information about the vaccines. But mostly, he listens.

©Sean Warren/iStockphoto.com

Conversations between physicians and patients about the risks that come with getting a COVID-19 vaccine are becoming more common in general as eligibility for immunizations expands. Physicians are using a variety of methods to communicate about the safety and importance of getting vaccinated that they think will lead to more of their patients getting a COVID-19 vaccine.

About 80% of Americans say that they are most likely to turn to doctors, nurses and other health professionals for help in deciding whether to get the COVID vaccine, according to research by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
 

Getting beyond the distrust

While patients often feel a strong connection with their health providers, distrust in the medical establishment still exists, especially among some populations. The Kaiser Family Foundation reported that a third of Black respondents are taking a “wait-and-see” approach, while 23% said they will get it only if it’s required – or not at all.

Distrust persists from historical racist events in medicine, such as the infamous Tuskegee experiments in which treatment was withheld from Black men with syphilis. But physicians shouldn’t assume that all Black patients have the same reasons for vaccine hesitancy, said Krys Foster, MD, MPH, a family physician at Thomas Jefferson University.

“In my experience caring for patients who are uncertain or have concerns about receiving the vaccine, I’ve learned that many are just seeking more information, or even my approval to say that it is safe to proceed given their medical history,” she said.

Sources such as the COVID Racial Data Tracker have found that Black Americans have a higher COVID death rate than other racial or ethnic groups, making vaccination even more vital. Yet fear of the vaccine could be triggered by misinformation that can be found in various places online, Dr. Foster said.

To encourage people to get vaccinated and dispel false information, Dr. Foster takes time to discuss how safe it is to get a COVID-19 vaccine and the vaccines’ side effects, then quickly pivots to discussing how to get vaccinated.

It can be difficult for some people to find appointments or access testing sites. The failure to get the vaccine shouldn’t automatically be attributed to “hesitancy,” she said. “The onus is on the medical community to help fix the health injustices inflicted on communities of color by providing equitable information and access and stop placing blame on them for having the ‘wrong’ vaccine attitude.”
 

Give your testimonial

Jamie Loehr, MD, of Cayuga Family Medicine in Ithaca, N.Y., said he has always had a higher-than-average number of patients who refused or delayed their children’s vaccines. He does not kick them out of his practice but politely continues to educate them about the vaccines.

When patients ask Dr. Loehr if he trusts the vaccine, he responds with confidence: “I not only believe in it, I got it and I recommend it to anyone who can possibly get it.”

He was surprised recently when a mother who has expressed reluctance to vaccinate her young children came for a checkup and told him she had already received a COVID vaccine. “She made the decision on her own that this was important enough that she wanted to get it,” he said.
 

Health care worker hesitancy

Some health care workers’ unease about being at the front of the line for vaccines may be another source of vaccine hesitancy among members of the general population that physicians need to address. In a survey of almost 3,500 health care workers conducted in October and November 2020 and published in January 2021 in Vaccines, only about a third (36%) said they would get the vaccine as soon as it became available. By mid- to late-February, 54% of health care workers reported having been vaccinated and another 10% planned to get the vaccine as soon as possible, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor.

Resolving doubts about the vaccines requires a thoughtful approach toward health care colleagues, said Eileen Barrett, MD, MPH, an internist and hospitalist who was a coauthor of the Vaccines paper and who serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. “We should meet people where they are and do our best to hear their concerns, listening thoughtfully without condescension. Validate how important their role is in endorsing vaccination and also validate asking questions.”

There’s power in the strong personal testimonial of physicians and other health care workers – not just to influence patients, but as a model for fellow health professionals, as well, noted Dr. Barrett, who cares for COVID-19 patients and is associate professor in the division of hospital medicine, department of internal medicine, at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
 

‘Do it for your loved ones’

The Reagan-Udall Foundation, a nonprofit organization created by Congress to support the Food and Drug Administration, tested some messaging with focus groups. Participants responded favorably to this statement about why the vaccines were developed so quickly: “Vaccine development moved faster than normal because everyone’s making it their highest priority.”

People did not feel motivated to get the vaccine out of a sense of civic duty, said Susan Winckler, RPh, Esq, who is CEO of the foundation. But they did think the following was a good reason to get vaccinated: “By getting a vaccine, I could protect my children, my parents, and other loved ones.”

Physicians also can work with community influencers, such as faith leaders, to build confidence in vaccines. That’s part of the strategy of Roll Up Your Sleeves, a campaign spearheaded by agilon health, a company that partners with physician practices to develop value-based care for Medicare Advantage patients.

For example, Wilmington Health in North Carolina answered questions about the vaccines in Facebook Live events and created a Spanish-language video to boost vaccine confidence in the Latinx community. Additionally, PriMED Physicians in Dayton, Ohio, reached out to Black churches to provide a vaccine-awareness video and a PriMED doctor participated in a webinar sponsored by the Nigerian Women Cultural Organization to help dispel myths about COVID-19 and the vaccines.

“This is a way to deepen our relationship with our patients,” said Ben Kornitzer, MD, chief medical officer of agilon. “It’s helping to walk them through this door where on one side is the pandemic and social isolation and on the other side is a return to their life and loved ones.”

The messages provided by primary care physicians can be powerful and affirming, said Ms. Winckler.

“The path forward is to make a space for people to ask questions,” she continued, noting that the Reagan-Udall Foundation provides charts that show how the timeline for vaccine development was compressed without skipping any steps.

Strategies and background information on how to reinforce confidence in COVID-19 vaccines are also available on a page of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s website.

None of the experts interviewed reported any relevant conflicts of interest. The Reagan-Udall Foundation has received sponsorships from Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca and has had a safety surveillance contract with Pfizer.

To the Editor:

A 65-year-old man with severe atherosclerotic disease developed multiple painful eschars on the lower abdomen, thighs, sacrum, and perineum. He initially presented with myocardial ischemia and claudication and underwent 3 cardiac catheterizations as well as stenting of the superficial femoral artery. Within 2 weeks, he developed exquisitely tender nodules on the lower abdomen, clinically presumed to be sites of enoxaparin injections. These lesions gradually expanded and ulcerated to involve the sacrum, buttock, perineum, and upper thighs (Figure 1). Two punch biopsies from ulcerated skin taken 10 days apart demonstrated necrosis of skin and subcutaneous fat without evidence of vasculitis, vasculopathy, emboli, or notable inflammation despite examination of multiple levels of all submitted tissue. A definitive cause for the ulcerations remained elusive with development of new lesions. A third incisional biopsy of a newly developed, nonulcerated, subcutaneous nodule performed 8 weeks after presentation revealed multiple cholesterol emboli (Figure 2). He was treated with warfarin and clopidogrel bisulfate as well as local wound care. The lesions slowly resolved over the next 4 to 6 months.

Cholesterol embolization syndrome occurs when disrupted atherosclerotic plaques embolize from large proximal arteries to more distal arterioles, resulting in ischemic damage to 1 or more organ systems.¹ It can occur spontaneously but often is a consequence of thrombolytic therapy, anticoagulation, and angioinvasive procedures.^2,3 Cutaneous manifestations include livedo reticularis, retiform purpura, nodules, and gangrene. Although livedo reticularis may extend from the legs to the trunk, gangrenous lesions predominantly involve the distal digits.

This case illustrates the challenge in diagnosis of cholesterol emboli, both clinically and histologically. Cutaneous lesions are morphologically variable and often occur with systemic manifestations, mimicking numerous conditions.¹ Lower extremity involvement is a well-known occurrence in cholesterol embolization (ie, blue toe syndrome); however, periumbilical and lumbosacral lesions have not been emphasized in the dermatologic or peripheral vascular literature. Our patient’s initial diagnosis was enoxaparin necrosis at abdominal injection sites; however, this unusual distribution of lesions was ultimately determined to be the consequence of cholesterol embolization from the inferior epigastric and superficial external pudendal arteries at the time of stenting of the superficial femoral artery. Proximal truncal involvement should be recognized as an atypical but important cutaneous manifestation to facilitate timely diagnosis and treatment.^4,5

Our patient’s course also highlights the potential need for multiple biopsies. Although the gold standard for diagnosis is histologic confirmation, a negative biopsy does not always exclude cholesterol emboli, and one should have a low threshold to perform additional biopsies in the appropriate clinical setting.

To the Editor:

A 65-year-old man with severe atherosclerotic disease developed multiple painful eschars on the lower abdomen, thighs, sacrum, and perineum. He initially presented with myocardial ischemia and claudication and underwent 3 cardiac catheterizations as well as stenting of the superficial femoral artery. Within 2 weeks, he developed exquisitely tender nodules on the lower abdomen, clinically presumed to be sites of enoxaparin injections. These lesions gradually expanded and ulcerated to involve the sacrum, buttock, perineum, and upper thighs (Figure 1). Two punch biopsies from ulcerated skin taken 10 days apart demonstrated necrosis of skin and subcutaneous fat without evidence of vasculitis, vasculopathy, emboli, or notable inflammation despite examination of multiple levels of all submitted tissue. A definitive cause for the ulcerations remained elusive with development of new lesions. A third incisional biopsy of a newly developed, nonulcerated, subcutaneous nodule performed 8 weeks after presentation revealed multiple cholesterol emboli (Figure 2). He was treated with warfarin and clopidogrel bisulfate as well as local wound care. The lesions slowly resolved over the next 4 to 6 months.

Cholesterol embolization syndrome occurs when disrupted atherosclerotic plaques embolize from large proximal arteries to more distal arterioles, resulting in ischemic damage to 1 or more organ systems.¹ It can occur spontaneously but often is a consequence of thrombolytic therapy, anticoagulation, and angioinvasive procedures.^2,3 Cutaneous manifestations include livedo reticularis, retiform purpura, nodules, and gangrene. Although livedo reticularis may extend from the legs to the trunk, gangrenous lesions predominantly involve the distal digits.

This case illustrates the challenge in diagnosis of cholesterol emboli, both clinically and histologically. Cutaneous lesions are morphologically variable and often occur with systemic manifestations, mimicking numerous conditions.¹ Lower extremity involvement is a well-known occurrence in cholesterol embolization (ie, blue toe syndrome); however, periumbilical and lumbosacral lesions have not been emphasized in the dermatologic or peripheral vascular literature. Our patient’s initial diagnosis was enoxaparin necrosis at abdominal injection sites; however, this unusual distribution of lesions was ultimately determined to be the consequence of cholesterol embolization from the inferior epigastric and superficial external pudendal arteries at the time of stenting of the superficial femoral artery. Proximal truncal involvement should be recognized as an atypical but important cutaneous manifestation to facilitate timely diagnosis and treatment.^4,5

Our patient’s course also highlights the potential need for multiple biopsies. Although the gold standard for diagnosis is histologic confirmation, a negative biopsy does not always exclude cholesterol emboli, and one should have a low threshold to perform additional biopsies in the appropriate clinical setting.

To the Editor:

A 65-year-old man with severe atherosclerotic disease developed multiple painful eschars on the lower abdomen, thighs, sacrum, and perineum. He initially presented with myocardial ischemia and claudication and underwent 3 cardiac catheterizations as well as stenting of the superficial femoral artery. Within 2 weeks, he developed exquisitely tender nodules on the lower abdomen, clinically presumed to be sites of enoxaparin injections. These lesions gradually expanded and ulcerated to involve the sacrum, buttock, perineum, and upper thighs (Figure 1). Two punch biopsies from ulcerated skin taken 10 days apart demonstrated necrosis of skin and subcutaneous fat without evidence of vasculitis, vasculopathy, emboli, or notable inflammation despite examination of multiple levels of all submitted tissue. A definitive cause for the ulcerations remained elusive with development of new lesions. A third incisional biopsy of a newly developed, nonulcerated, subcutaneous nodule performed 8 weeks after presentation revealed multiple cholesterol emboli (Figure 2). He was treated with warfarin and clopidogrel bisulfate as well as local wound care. The lesions slowly resolved over the next 4 to 6 months.

Cholesterol embolization syndrome occurs when disrupted atherosclerotic plaques embolize from large proximal arteries to more distal arterioles, resulting in ischemic damage to 1 or more organ systems.¹ It can occur spontaneously but often is a consequence of thrombolytic therapy, anticoagulation, and angioinvasive procedures.^2,3 Cutaneous manifestations include livedo reticularis, retiform purpura, nodules, and gangrene. Although livedo reticularis may extend from the legs to the trunk, gangrenous lesions predominantly involve the distal digits.

This case illustrates the challenge in diagnosis of cholesterol emboli, both clinically and histologically. Cutaneous lesions are morphologically variable and often occur with systemic manifestations, mimicking numerous conditions.¹ Lower extremity involvement is a well-known occurrence in cholesterol embolization (ie, blue toe syndrome); however, periumbilical and lumbosacral lesions have not been emphasized in the dermatologic or peripheral vascular literature. Our patient’s initial diagnosis was enoxaparin necrosis at abdominal injection sites; however, this unusual distribution of lesions was ultimately determined to be the consequence of cholesterol embolization from the inferior epigastric and superficial external pudendal arteries at the time of stenting of the superficial femoral artery. Proximal truncal involvement should be recognized as an atypical but important cutaneous manifestation to facilitate timely diagnosis and treatment.^4,5

Our patient’s course also highlights the potential need for multiple biopsies. Although the gold standard for diagnosis is histologic confirmation, a negative biopsy does not always exclude cholesterol emboli, and one should have a low threshold to perform additional biopsies in the appropriate clinical setting.

To the Editor:

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory disease characterized by the development of painful abscesses, fistulous tracts, and scars. It most commonly affects the apocrine gland–bearing areas of the body such as the axillary, inguinal, and anogenital regions. With a prevalence of approximately 1%, HS can lead to notable morbidity.¹ The pathogenesis is thought to be due to occlusion of terminal hair follicles that subsequently stimulates release of proinflammatory cytokines from nearby keratinocytes. The mechanism of initial occlusion is not well understood but may be due to friction or trauma. An inflammatory mechanism of disease also has been hypothesized; however, the exact cytokine profile is not known. Treatment of HS consists of several different modalities, including oral retinoids, antibiotics, antiandrogenic therapy, and surgery.^1,2 Adalimumab is a well-known biologic that has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of HS.

Adalimumab is a human monoclonal antibody against tumor necrosis factor (TNF) α and is thought to improve HS by several mechanisms. Inhibition of TNF-α and other proinflammatory cytokines found in inflammatory lesions and apocrine glands directly decreases the severity of lesion size and the frequency of recurrence.³ Adalimumab also is thought to downregulate expression of keratin 6 and prevent the hyperkeratinization seen in HS.⁴ Additionally, TNF-α inhibition decreases production of IL-1, which has been shown to cause hypercornification of follicles and perpetuate HS pathogenesis.⁵

Adalimumab is considered a safe medication with a low toxicity profile and rarely is associated with serious adverse effects. The most common adverse effects are injection-site reaction, headache, and rash. However, as with any immunosuppressant, there is an elevated incidence of opportunistic infections. Anti-TNF medications have been associated with an increased incidence of viral, bacterial, and fungal infections. We present a patient who developed Candida esophagitis 6 weeks after starting treatment with adalimumab for the treatment of HS. This case highlights the development of esophageal candidiasis as a notable adverse event.

A 41-year-old woman with a history of endometriosis, adenomyosis, polycystic ovary syndrome, interstitial cystitis, asthma, fibromyalgia, depression, and Hashimoto thyroiditis presented to our dermatology clinic with active draining lesions and sinus tracts in the perivaginal area that were consistent with HS, which initially was treated with doxycycline 100 mg twice daily. She experienced minimal improvement of the HS lesions at 2-month follow-up.

Due to disease severity, adalimumab was started. The patient received a loading dose of 4 injections totaling 160 mg and 80 mg on day 15, followed by a maintenance dose of 40 mg/0.4 mL weekly. The patient reported substantial improvement of pain, and complete resolution of active lesions was noted on physical examination after 4 weeks of treatment with adalimumab.

Six weeks after adalimumab was started, the patient developed severe dysphagia. She was evaluated by a gastroenterologist and underwent endoscopy (Figure), which led to a diagnosis of esophageal candidiasis. Adalimumab was discontinued immediately thereafter. The patient started treatment with nystatin oral rinse 4 times daily and oral fluconazole 200 mg daily. The candidiasis resolved within 2 weeks; however, she experienced recurrence of HS with draining lesions in the perivaginal area approximately 8 weeks after discontinuation of adalimumab. The patient requested to restart adalimumab treatment despite the recent history of esophagitis. Adalimumab 40 mg/0.4 mL weekly was restarted along with oral fluconazole 200 mg twice weekly and nystatin oral rinse 4 times daily. This regimen resulted in complete resolution of HS symptoms within 6 weeks with no recurrence of esophageal candidiasis during 6 months of follow-up.

Patients receiving adalimumab for dermatologic or other conditions should be closely monitored for opportunistic infections. Although immunomodulatory medications offer promising therapeutic benefits in patients with HS, larger studies regarding treatment with anti-TNF agents in HS are warranted to prevent complications from treatment and promote long-term efficacy and safety.

To the Editor:

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory disease characterized by the development of painful abscesses, fistulous tracts, and scars. It most commonly affects the apocrine gland–bearing areas of the body such as the axillary, inguinal, and anogenital regions. With a prevalence of approximately 1%, HS can lead to notable morbidity.¹ The pathogenesis is thought to be due to occlusion of terminal hair follicles that subsequently stimulates release of proinflammatory cytokines from nearby keratinocytes. The mechanism of initial occlusion is not well understood but may be due to friction or trauma. An inflammatory mechanism of disease also has been hypothesized; however, the exact cytokine profile is not known. Treatment of HS consists of several different modalities, including oral retinoids, antibiotics, antiandrogenic therapy, and surgery.^1,2 Adalimumab is a well-known biologic that has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of HS.

Adalimumab is a human monoclonal antibody against tumor necrosis factor (TNF) α and is thought to improve HS by several mechanisms. Inhibition of TNF-α and other proinflammatory cytokines found in inflammatory lesions and apocrine glands directly decreases the severity of lesion size and the frequency of recurrence.³ Adalimumab also is thought to downregulate expression of keratin 6 and prevent the hyperkeratinization seen in HS.⁴ Additionally, TNF-α inhibition decreases production of IL-1, which has been shown to cause hypercornification of follicles and perpetuate HS pathogenesis.⁵

Adalimumab is considered a safe medication with a low toxicity profile and rarely is associated with serious adverse effects. The most common adverse effects are injection-site reaction, headache, and rash. However, as with any immunosuppressant, there is an elevated incidence of opportunistic infections. Anti-TNF medications have been associated with an increased incidence of viral, bacterial, and fungal infections. We present a patient who developed Candida esophagitis 6 weeks after starting treatment with adalimumab for the treatment of HS. This case highlights the development of esophageal candidiasis as a notable adverse event.

A 41-year-old woman with a history of endometriosis, adenomyosis, polycystic ovary syndrome, interstitial cystitis, asthma, fibromyalgia, depression, and Hashimoto thyroiditis presented to our dermatology clinic with active draining lesions and sinus tracts in the perivaginal area that were consistent with HS, which initially was treated with doxycycline 100 mg twice daily. She experienced minimal improvement of the HS lesions at 2-month follow-up.

Due to disease severity, adalimumab was started. The patient received a loading dose of 4 injections totaling 160 mg and 80 mg on day 15, followed by a maintenance dose of 40 mg/0.4 mL weekly. The patient reported substantial improvement of pain, and complete resolution of active lesions was noted on physical examination after 4 weeks of treatment with adalimumab.

Six weeks after adalimumab was started, the patient developed severe dysphagia. She was evaluated by a gastroenterologist and underwent endoscopy (Figure), which led to a diagnosis of esophageal candidiasis. Adalimumab was discontinued immediately thereafter. The patient started treatment with nystatin oral rinse 4 times daily and oral fluconazole 200 mg daily. The candidiasis resolved within 2 weeks; however, she experienced recurrence of HS with draining lesions in the perivaginal area approximately 8 weeks after discontinuation of adalimumab. The patient requested to restart adalimumab treatment despite the recent history of esophagitis. Adalimumab 40 mg/0.4 mL weekly was restarted along with oral fluconazole 200 mg twice weekly and nystatin oral rinse 4 times daily. This regimen resulted in complete resolution of HS symptoms within 6 weeks with no recurrence of esophageal candidiasis during 6 months of follow-up.

Patients receiving adalimumab for dermatologic or other conditions should be closely monitored for opportunistic infections. Although immunomodulatory medications offer promising therapeutic benefits in patients with HS, larger studies regarding treatment with anti-TNF agents in HS are warranted to prevent complications from treatment and promote long-term efficacy and safety.

To the Editor:

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory disease characterized by the development of painful abscesses, fistulous tracts, and scars. It most commonly affects the apocrine gland–bearing areas of the body such as the axillary, inguinal, and anogenital regions. With a prevalence of approximately 1%, HS can lead to notable morbidity.¹ The pathogenesis is thought to be due to occlusion of terminal hair follicles that subsequently stimulates release of proinflammatory cytokines from nearby keratinocytes. The mechanism of initial occlusion is not well understood but may be due to friction or trauma. An inflammatory mechanism of disease also has been hypothesized; however, the exact cytokine profile is not known. Treatment of HS consists of several different modalities, including oral retinoids, antibiotics, antiandrogenic therapy, and surgery.^1,2 Adalimumab is a well-known biologic that has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of HS.

Adalimumab is a human monoclonal antibody against tumor necrosis factor (TNF) α and is thought to improve HS by several mechanisms. Inhibition of TNF-α and other proinflammatory cytokines found in inflammatory lesions and apocrine glands directly decreases the severity of lesion size and the frequency of recurrence.³ Adalimumab also is thought to downregulate expression of keratin 6 and prevent the hyperkeratinization seen in HS.⁴ Additionally, TNF-α inhibition decreases production of IL-1, which has been shown to cause hypercornification of follicles and perpetuate HS pathogenesis.⁵

Adalimumab is considered a safe medication with a low toxicity profile and rarely is associated with serious adverse effects. The most common adverse effects are injection-site reaction, headache, and rash. However, as with any immunosuppressant, there is an elevated incidence of opportunistic infections. Anti-TNF medications have been associated with an increased incidence of viral, bacterial, and fungal infections. We present a patient who developed Candida esophagitis 6 weeks after starting treatment with adalimumab for the treatment of HS. This case highlights the development of esophageal candidiasis as a notable adverse event.

A 41-year-old woman with a history of endometriosis, adenomyosis, polycystic ovary syndrome, interstitial cystitis, asthma, fibromyalgia, depression, and Hashimoto thyroiditis presented to our dermatology clinic with active draining lesions and sinus tracts in the perivaginal area that were consistent with HS, which initially was treated with doxycycline 100 mg twice daily. She experienced minimal improvement of the HS lesions at 2-month follow-up.

Due to disease severity, adalimumab was started. The patient received a loading dose of 4 injections totaling 160 mg and 80 mg on day 15, followed by a maintenance dose of 40 mg/0.4 mL weekly. The patient reported substantial improvement of pain, and complete resolution of active lesions was noted on physical examination after 4 weeks of treatment with adalimumab.

Six weeks after adalimumab was started, the patient developed severe dysphagia. She was evaluated by a gastroenterologist and underwent endoscopy (Figure), which led to a diagnosis of esophageal candidiasis. Adalimumab was discontinued immediately thereafter. The patient started treatment with nystatin oral rinse 4 times daily and oral fluconazole 200 mg daily. The candidiasis resolved within 2 weeks; however, she experienced recurrence of HS with draining lesions in the perivaginal area approximately 8 weeks after discontinuation of adalimumab. The patient requested to restart adalimumab treatment despite the recent history of esophagitis. Adalimumab 40 mg/0.4 mL weekly was restarted along with oral fluconazole 200 mg twice weekly and nystatin oral rinse 4 times daily. This regimen resulted in complete resolution of HS symptoms within 6 weeks with no recurrence of esophageal candidiasis during 6 months of follow-up.

Patients receiving adalimumab for dermatologic or other conditions should be closely monitored for opportunistic infections. Although immunomodulatory medications offer promising therapeutic benefits in patients with HS, larger studies regarding treatment with anti-TNF agents in HS are warranted to prevent complications from treatment and promote long-term efficacy and safety.

A new survey that assessed the mental health impact of COVID-19 across the globe shows high rates of trauma and clinical mood disorders related to the pandemic.

Courtesy Dr. Tara Thigarajan

The survey, carried out by Sapien Labs, was conducted in eight English-speaking countries and included 49,000 adults. It showed that 57% of respondents experienced some COVID-19–related adversity or trauma.

Roughly one-quarter showed clinical signs of or were at risk for a mood disorder, and 40% described themselves as “succeeding or thriving.”

Those who reported the poorest mental health were young adults and individuals who experienced financial adversity or were unable to receive care for other medical conditions. Nonbinary gender and not getting enough sleep, exercise, or face-to-face socialization also increased the risk for poorer mental well-being.

“The data suggest that there will be long-term fallout from the pandemic on the mental health front,” Tara Thiagarajan, PhD, Sapien Labs founder and chief scientist, said in a press release.
 

Novel initiative

Dr. Thiagarajan said in an interview that she was running a company that provided microloans to 30,000 villages in India. The company included a research group the goal of which was to understand what predicts success in an individual and in a particular ecosystem, she said – “Why did some villages succeed and others didn’t?”

Dr. Thiagarajan and associates thought that “something big is happening in our life circumstances that causes changes in our brain and felt that we need to understand what they are and how they affect humanity. This was the impetus for founding Sapien Labs. “

The survey, which is part of the company’s Mental Health Million project, is an ongoing research initiative that makes data freely available to other researchers.

The investigators developed a “free and anonymous assessment tool,” the Mental Health Quotient (MHQ), which “encompasses a comprehensive view of our emotional, social, and cognitive function and capability,” said Dr. Thiagarajan.

The MHQ consists of 47 “elements of mental well-being.” Respondents’ MHQ scores ranged from –100 to +200. Negative scores indicate poorer mental well-being. Respondents were categorized as clinical, at risk, enduring, managing, succeeding, and thriving.

MHQ scores were computed for six “broad dimensions” of mental health: Core cognition, complex cognition, mood and outlook, drive and motivation, social self, and mind-body connection.

Participants were recruited through advertising on Google and Facebook in eight English-speaking countries – Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, South Africa, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, and India. The researchers collected demographic information, including age, education, and gender.
 

First step

The assessment was completed by 48,808 respondents between April 8 and Dec. 31, 2020.

A smaller sample of 2,000 people from the same countries who were polled by the investigators in 2019 was used as a comparator.

Taken together, the overall mental well-being score for 2020 was 8% lower than the score obtained in 2019 from the same countries, and the percentage of respondents who fell into the “clinical” category increased from 14% in 2009 to 26% in 2020.

Residents of Singapore had the highest MHQ score, followed by residents of the United States. At the other extreme, respondents from the United Kingdom and South Africa had the poorest MHQ scores.

“It is important to keep in mind that the English-speaking, Internet-enabled populace is not necessarily representative of each country as a whole,” the authors noted.
 

Youth hardest hit

The decline in mental well-being was “most pronounced” in persons of the youngest age category (18-24 years), whose average MHQ score was 29% lower than those aged at least 65 years.

Worldwide, 70% of respondents aged at least 65 years fell into the categories of “succeeding” or “thriving,” compared with just 17% of those aged 18-24 years.

“We saw a massive trend of diminishing mental well-being in younger individuals, suggesting that some societal force is at play that we need to get to the bottom of,” said Dr. Thiagarajan.

“Young people are still learning how to calibrate themselves in the world, and with age comes maturity, leading to a difference in emotional resilience,” she said.
 

Highest risk group

Mental well-being was poorest among nonbinary/third-gender respondents. Among those persons, more than 50% were classified as being at clinical risk, in comparison with males and females combined, and their MHQ scores were about 47 points lower.

Nonbinary individuals “are universally doing very poorly, relative to males or females,” said Dr. Thiagarajan. “This is a demographic at very high risk with a lot of suicidal thoughts.”

Respondents who had insufficient sleep, who lacked social interaction, and whose level of exercise was insufficient had lower MHQ scores of an “unexpected magnitude,” compared with their counterparts who had sufficient sleep, more social interaction, and more exercise (a discrepancy of 82, 66, and 46 points, respectively).

Only 3.9% of respondents reported having had COVID-19; 0.7% reported having had a severe case. Yet 57% of respondents reported that the pandemic had had negative consequences with regard to their health or their finances or social situation.

Those who were unable to get care for their other health conditions because of the pandemic (2% of all respondents) reported the worst mental well-being, followed by those who struggled for basic necessities (1.4%).

Reduced household income was associated with a 4% lower score but affected a higher percentage of people (17%). Social isolation was associated with a score of about 20 less. Higher rates of lifetime traumas and adversities were likewise associated with lower scores for mental well-being.
 

Creative, generous approach

Commenting on the survey results, Ken Duckworth, MD, clinical professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and chief medical officer of the National Alliance of Mental Illness, noted that the findings were similar to findings from studies in the United States, which showed disproportionately higher rates of mental health problems in younger individuals. Dr. Duckworth was not involved with the survey.

“The idea that this is an international phenomenon and the broad-stroke finding that younger people are suffering across nations is compelling and important for policymakers to look at,” he said.

Dr. Duckworth noted that although the findings are not “representative” of entire populations in a given country, the report is a “first step in a long journey.”

He described the report as “extremely brilliant, creative, and generous, allowing any academician to get access to the data.”

He saw it “less as a definitive report and more as a directionally informative survey that will yield great fruit over time.”

In a comment, Joshua Morganstein, MD, chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s Committee on the Psychiatric Dimensions of Disaster, said: “One of the important things a document like this highlights is the importance of understanding more where risk [for mental health disorders] is concentrated and what things have occurred or might occur that can buffer against that risk or protect us from it. We see that each nation has similar but also different challenges.”

Dr. Thiagarajan is the founder and chief scientist of Sapien Labs. Her coauthors are employees of Sapien Labs. Dr. Duckworth and Dr. Morganstein disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new survey that assessed the mental health impact of COVID-19 across the globe shows high rates of trauma and clinical mood disorders related to the pandemic.

Courtesy Dr. Tara Thigarajan

The survey, carried out by Sapien Labs, was conducted in eight English-speaking countries and included 49,000 adults. It showed that 57% of respondents experienced some COVID-19–related adversity or trauma.

Roughly one-quarter showed clinical signs of or were at risk for a mood disorder, and 40% described themselves as “succeeding or thriving.”

Those who reported the poorest mental health were young adults and individuals who experienced financial adversity or were unable to receive care for other medical conditions. Nonbinary gender and not getting enough sleep, exercise, or face-to-face socialization also increased the risk for poorer mental well-being.

“The data suggest that there will be long-term fallout from the pandemic on the mental health front,” Tara Thiagarajan, PhD, Sapien Labs founder and chief scientist, said in a press release.
 

Novel initiative

Dr. Thiagarajan said in an interview that she was running a company that provided microloans to 30,000 villages in India. The company included a research group the goal of which was to understand what predicts success in an individual and in a particular ecosystem, she said – “Why did some villages succeed and others didn’t?”

Dr. Thiagarajan and associates thought that “something big is happening in our life circumstances that causes changes in our brain and felt that we need to understand what they are and how they affect humanity. This was the impetus for founding Sapien Labs. “

The survey, which is part of the company’s Mental Health Million project, is an ongoing research initiative that makes data freely available to other researchers.

The investigators developed a “free and anonymous assessment tool,” the Mental Health Quotient (MHQ), which “encompasses a comprehensive view of our emotional, social, and cognitive function and capability,” said Dr. Thiagarajan.

The MHQ consists of 47 “elements of mental well-being.” Respondents’ MHQ scores ranged from –100 to +200. Negative scores indicate poorer mental well-being. Respondents were categorized as clinical, at risk, enduring, managing, succeeding, and thriving.

MHQ scores were computed for six “broad dimensions” of mental health: Core cognition, complex cognition, mood and outlook, drive and motivation, social self, and mind-body connection.

Participants were recruited through advertising on Google and Facebook in eight English-speaking countries – Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, South Africa, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, and India. The researchers collected demographic information, including age, education, and gender.
 

First step

The assessment was completed by 48,808 respondents between April 8 and Dec. 31, 2020.

A smaller sample of 2,000 people from the same countries who were polled by the investigators in 2019 was used as a comparator.

Taken together, the overall mental well-being score for 2020 was 8% lower than the score obtained in 2019 from the same countries, and the percentage of respondents who fell into the “clinical” category increased from 14% in 2009 to 26% in 2020.

Residents of Singapore had the highest MHQ score, followed by residents of the United States. At the other extreme, respondents from the United Kingdom and South Africa had the poorest MHQ scores.

“It is important to keep in mind that the English-speaking, Internet-enabled populace is not necessarily representative of each country as a whole,” the authors noted.
 

Youth hardest hit

The decline in mental well-being was “most pronounced” in persons of the youngest age category (18-24 years), whose average MHQ score was 29% lower than those aged at least 65 years.

Worldwide, 70% of respondents aged at least 65 years fell into the categories of “succeeding” or “thriving,” compared with just 17% of those aged 18-24 years.

“We saw a massive trend of diminishing mental well-being in younger individuals, suggesting that some societal force is at play that we need to get to the bottom of,” said Dr. Thiagarajan.

“Young people are still learning how to calibrate themselves in the world, and with age comes maturity, leading to a difference in emotional resilience,” she said.
 

Highest risk group

Mental well-being was poorest among nonbinary/third-gender respondents. Among those persons, more than 50% were classified as being at clinical risk, in comparison with males and females combined, and their MHQ scores were about 47 points lower.

Nonbinary individuals “are universally doing very poorly, relative to males or females,” said Dr. Thiagarajan. “This is a demographic at very high risk with a lot of suicidal thoughts.”

Respondents who had insufficient sleep, who lacked social interaction, and whose level of exercise was insufficient had lower MHQ scores of an “unexpected magnitude,” compared with their counterparts who had sufficient sleep, more social interaction, and more exercise (a discrepancy of 82, 66, and 46 points, respectively).

Only 3.9% of respondents reported having had COVID-19; 0.7% reported having had a severe case. Yet 57% of respondents reported that the pandemic had had negative consequences with regard to their health or their finances or social situation.

Those who were unable to get care for their other health conditions because of the pandemic (2% of all respondents) reported the worst mental well-being, followed by those who struggled for basic necessities (1.4%).

Reduced household income was associated with a 4% lower score but affected a higher percentage of people (17%). Social isolation was associated with a score of about 20 less. Higher rates of lifetime traumas and adversities were likewise associated with lower scores for mental well-being.
 

Creative, generous approach

Commenting on the survey results, Ken Duckworth, MD, clinical professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and chief medical officer of the National Alliance of Mental Illness, noted that the findings were similar to findings from studies in the United States, which showed disproportionately higher rates of mental health problems in younger individuals. Dr. Duckworth was not involved with the survey.

“The idea that this is an international phenomenon and the broad-stroke finding that younger people are suffering across nations is compelling and important for policymakers to look at,” he said.

Dr. Duckworth noted that although the findings are not “representative” of entire populations in a given country, the report is a “first step in a long journey.”

He described the report as “extremely brilliant, creative, and generous, allowing any academician to get access to the data.”

He saw it “less as a definitive report and more as a directionally informative survey that will yield great fruit over time.”

In a comment, Joshua Morganstein, MD, chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s Committee on the Psychiatric Dimensions of Disaster, said: “One of the important things a document like this highlights is the importance of understanding more where risk [for mental health disorders] is concentrated and what things have occurred or might occur that can buffer against that risk or protect us from it. We see that each nation has similar but also different challenges.”

Dr. Thiagarajan is the founder and chief scientist of Sapien Labs. Her coauthors are employees of Sapien Labs. Dr. Duckworth and Dr. Morganstein disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new survey that assessed the mental health impact of COVID-19 across the globe shows high rates of trauma and clinical mood disorders related to the pandemic.

Courtesy Dr. Tara Thigarajan

The survey, carried out by Sapien Labs, was conducted in eight English-speaking countries and included 49,000 adults. It showed that 57% of respondents experienced some COVID-19–related adversity or trauma.

Roughly one-quarter showed clinical signs of or were at risk for a mood disorder, and 40% described themselves as “succeeding or thriving.”

Those who reported the poorest mental health were young adults and individuals who experienced financial adversity or were unable to receive care for other medical conditions. Nonbinary gender and not getting enough sleep, exercise, or face-to-face socialization also increased the risk for poorer mental well-being.

“The data suggest that there will be long-term fallout from the pandemic on the mental health front,” Tara Thiagarajan, PhD, Sapien Labs founder and chief scientist, said in a press release.
 

Novel initiative

Dr. Thiagarajan said in an interview that she was running a company that provided microloans to 30,000 villages in India. The company included a research group the goal of which was to understand what predicts success in an individual and in a particular ecosystem, she said – “Why did some villages succeed and others didn’t?”

Dr. Thiagarajan and associates thought that “something big is happening in our life circumstances that causes changes in our brain and felt that we need to understand what they are and how they affect humanity. This was the impetus for founding Sapien Labs. “

The survey, which is part of the company’s Mental Health Million project, is an ongoing research initiative that makes data freely available to other researchers.

The investigators developed a “free and anonymous assessment tool,” the Mental Health Quotient (MHQ), which “encompasses a comprehensive view of our emotional, social, and cognitive function and capability,” said Dr. Thiagarajan.

The MHQ consists of 47 “elements of mental well-being.” Respondents’ MHQ scores ranged from –100 to +200. Negative scores indicate poorer mental well-being. Respondents were categorized as clinical, at risk, enduring, managing, succeeding, and thriving.

MHQ scores were computed for six “broad dimensions” of mental health: Core cognition, complex cognition, mood and outlook, drive and motivation, social self, and mind-body connection.

Participants were recruited through advertising on Google and Facebook in eight English-speaking countries – Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, South Africa, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, and India. The researchers collected demographic information, including age, education, and gender.
 

First step

The assessment was completed by 48,808 respondents between April 8 and Dec. 31, 2020.

A smaller sample of 2,000 people from the same countries who were polled by the investigators in 2019 was used as a comparator.

Taken together, the overall mental well-being score for 2020 was 8% lower than the score obtained in 2019 from the same countries, and the percentage of respondents who fell into the “clinical” category increased from 14% in 2009 to 26% in 2020.

Residents of Singapore had the highest MHQ score, followed by residents of the United States. At the other extreme, respondents from the United Kingdom and South Africa had the poorest MHQ scores.

“It is important to keep in mind that the English-speaking, Internet-enabled populace is not necessarily representative of each country as a whole,” the authors noted.
 

Youth hardest hit

The decline in mental well-being was “most pronounced” in persons of the youngest age category (18-24 years), whose average MHQ score was 29% lower than those aged at least 65 years.

Worldwide, 70% of respondents aged at least 65 years fell into the categories of “succeeding” or “thriving,” compared with just 17% of those aged 18-24 years.

“We saw a massive trend of diminishing mental well-being in younger individuals, suggesting that some societal force is at play that we need to get to the bottom of,” said Dr. Thiagarajan.

“Young people are still learning how to calibrate themselves in the world, and with age comes maturity, leading to a difference in emotional resilience,” she said.
 

Highest risk group

Mental well-being was poorest among nonbinary/third-gender respondents. Among those persons, more than 50% were classified as being at clinical risk, in comparison with males and females combined, and their MHQ scores were about 47 points lower.

Nonbinary individuals “are universally doing very poorly, relative to males or females,” said Dr. Thiagarajan. “This is a demographic at very high risk with a lot of suicidal thoughts.”

Respondents who had insufficient sleep, who lacked social interaction, and whose level of exercise was insufficient had lower MHQ scores of an “unexpected magnitude,” compared with their counterparts who had sufficient sleep, more social interaction, and more exercise (a discrepancy of 82, 66, and 46 points, respectively).

Only 3.9% of respondents reported having had COVID-19; 0.7% reported having had a severe case. Yet 57% of respondents reported that the pandemic had had negative consequences with regard to their health or their finances or social situation.

Those who were unable to get care for their other health conditions because of the pandemic (2% of all respondents) reported the worst mental well-being, followed by those who struggled for basic necessities (1.4%).

Reduced household income was associated with a 4% lower score but affected a higher percentage of people (17%). Social isolation was associated with a score of about 20 less. Higher rates of lifetime traumas and adversities were likewise associated with lower scores for mental well-being.
 

Creative, generous approach

Commenting on the survey results, Ken Duckworth, MD, clinical professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and chief medical officer of the National Alliance of Mental Illness, noted that the findings were similar to findings from studies in the United States, which showed disproportionately higher rates of mental health problems in younger individuals. Dr. Duckworth was not involved with the survey.

“The idea that this is an international phenomenon and the broad-stroke finding that younger people are suffering across nations is compelling and important for policymakers to look at,” he said.

Dr. Duckworth noted that although the findings are not “representative” of entire populations in a given country, the report is a “first step in a long journey.”

He described the report as “extremely brilliant, creative, and generous, allowing any academician to get access to the data.”

He saw it “less as a definitive report and more as a directionally informative survey that will yield great fruit over time.”

In a comment, Joshua Morganstein, MD, chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s Committee on the Psychiatric Dimensions of Disaster, said: “One of the important things a document like this highlights is the importance of understanding more where risk [for mental health disorders] is concentrated and what things have occurred or might occur that can buffer against that risk or protect us from it. We see that each nation has similar but also different challenges.”

Dr. Thiagarajan is the founder and chief scientist of Sapien Labs. Her coauthors are employees of Sapien Labs. Dr. Duckworth and Dr. Morganstein disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Generalized pustular psoriasis of pregnancy (GPPP), formerly known as impetigo herpetiformis, is a rare dermatosis that causes maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality. It is characterized by widespread, circular, erythematous plaques with pustules at the periphery.¹ Conventional first-line treatment includes systemic corticosteroids and cyclosporine. The National Psoriasis Foundation Medical Board also has included infliximab among the first-line treatment options for GPPP.² Herein, we report a case of GPPP treated with infliximab at 30 weeks’ gestation and during the postpartum period.

Case Report

A 22-year-old woman was admitted to our inpatient clinic at 20 weeks’ gestation in her second pregnancy for evaluation of cutaneous eruptions covering the entire body. The lesions first appeared 3 to 4 days prior to her admission and dramatically progressed. She had a history of psoriasis vulgaris diagnosed during her first pregnancy 2 years prior that was treated with topical steroids throughout the pregnancy and methotrexate during lactation for a total of 11 months. She then was started on cyclosporine, which she used for 6 months due to ineffectiveness of the methotrexate, but she stopped treatment 4 months before the second pregnancy.

At the current presentation, physical examination revealed erythroderma and widespread pustules on the chest, abdomen, arms, and legs, including the intertriginous regions, that tended to coalesce and form lakes of pus over an erythematous base (Figure 1). The mucosae were normal. She exhibited a low blood pressure (85/50 mmHg) and high body temperature (102 °F [38.9 °C]). Routine laboratory examination revealed anemia and a normal leukocyte count. Her erythrocyte sedimentation rate (57 mm/h [reference range, <20 mm/h]) and C-reactive protein level (102 mg/L [reference range, <6 mg/L]) were elevated, whereas total calcium (8.11 mg/dL [reference range, 8.2–10.6 mg/dL]) and albumin (3.15 g/dL [reference range, >4.0 g/dL]) levels were low.

The patient returned to the clinic 3 weeks postpartum with a few pustules on erythematous plaques on the chest, abdomen, and back. At this time, she received a third infusion of infliximab 8 weeks after the second dose. For the past 5 years, the patient has been undergoing infliximab maintenance treatment, which she receives at the hospital every 8 weeks with excellent response. She has had no further pregnancies to date.

Comment

Generalized pustular psoriasis of pregnancy is a rare condition that typically occurs in the third trimester but also can start in the first and second trimesters. It may result in maternal and fetal morbidity by causing fluid and electrolyte imbalance and/or placental insufficiency, resulting in an increased risk for fetal abnormalities, stillbirth, and neonatal death.³ In subsequent pregnancies, GPPP has been observed to recur at an earlier gestational age with a more severe presentation.^1,3

Generalized pustular psoriasis of pregnancy usually involves an eruption that begins symmetrically in the intertriginous areas and spreads to the rest of the body. The lesions present as erythematous annular plaques with pustules on the periphery and desquamation in the center due to older pustules.^1,3 The mucous membranes also may be involved with erosive and exfoliative plaques, and there may be nail involvement. Patients often present with systemic symptoms such as fever, malaise, diarrhea, and vomiting.¹ Laboratory investigations may reveal neutrophilic leukocytosis, high erythrocyte sedimentation rate, hypocalcemia, and hypoalbuminemia.⁴ Cultures from blood and pustules show no bacterial growth. A skin biopsy is helpful in diagnosis, with features similar to generalized pustular psoriasis, demonstrating spongiform pustules containing neutrophils, lymphocytic and neutrophilic infiltrates in the papillary dermis, and negative direct immunofluorescence.³

The differential diagnosis of GPPP includes subcorneal pustular dermatosis, dermatitis herpetiformis, herpes gestationis, impetigo, and acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis.^1,3 Due to concerns of fetal implications, treatment options in GPPP are somewhat limited; however, the condition requires treatment because it may result in unfavorable pregnancy outcomes. Topical corticosteroids may be an option for limited disease.^5,6 Systemic corticosteroids (eg, prednisone 60–80 mg/d) were previously considered as first-line agents, although they have shown limited efficacy in our case as well as in other case reports.⁷ Their ineffectiveness and risk for flare-up after dose tapering should be kept in mind when starting GPPP patients on systemic corticosteroids. Systemic cyclosporine (2–3 mg/kg/d) may be added to increase the efficacy of systemic steroids, which was done in several cases in literature.^1,6,8 Although cyclosporine has been classified as a pregnancy category C drug, an analysis of pregnancy outcomes of 629 renal transplant patients revealed no association with adverse pregnancy outcomes compared to the general population and no increase in fetal malformations.⁹ Therefore, cyclosporine is a safe treatment option and was classified as a first-line drug for GPPP in a 2012 review by the National Psoriasis Foundation Medical Board.² Narrowband UVB also has been reported to be used for the treatment of GPPP.¹⁰ Methotrexate and retinoids have been used in cases with lesions that persisted postpartum.¹

Anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) α agents are another effective option for treatment of GPPP. Anti-TNF agents are classified as pregnancy category B due to results showing that anti-mouse TNF-α monoclonal antibodies did not cause embryotoxicity or teratogenicity in pregnant mice.¹¹ Although Carter et al¹² published a review of US Food and Drug Administration data on pregnant women receiving anti-TNF treatment and concluded that these agents were associated with the VACTERL group of malformations (vertebral defects, anal atresia, cardiac defect, tracheoesophageal fistula with esophageal atresia, cardiac defects, renal and limb anomalies), no such association was found in further studies. A 2014 study showed no difference in the rate of major malformations in infants born to women who were treated with anti-TNF drugs compared to the disease-matched group not treated with these agents and pregnant women counselled for nonteratogenic exposure.¹³ The same study detected an increase in preterm and low-birth-weight deliveries and suggested this might be caused by the increased severity of disease in patients requiring anti-TNF medication. The British Society of Rheumatology Biologics Register published data on pregnancy outcomes in 130 rheumatoid arthritis patients who had been exposed to anti-TNF agents.¹⁴ The results suggested an increased rate of spontaneous abortions in women exposed to anti-TNF treatment around the time of conception, especially in those taking these medications together with methotrexate or leflunomide; however, results also indicated that disease activity may have had an impact on the rate of spontaneous abortions in these patients. In a 2013 review of 462 women with inflammatory bowel disease who had been exposed to anti-TNF agents during pregnancy, the investigators concluded that pregnancy outcomes and the rate of congenital anomalies did not significantly differ from other inflammatory bowel disease patients not receiving anti-TNF drugs or the general population.¹⁵

In 2012, the National Board of the National Psoriasis Foundation put infliximab amongst the first-line treatment modalities for GPPP.² In one case of GPPP in which the eruption persisted after delivery, the patient was treated with infliximab 7 weeks postpartum due to failure to control the disease with prednisolone 60 mg daily and cyclosporine 7.5 mg/kg daily. Unlike our patient, this patient was only started on an infliximab regimen after delivery.¹⁶ In another case reported in 2010, the patient was started on infliximab during the postpartum period of her first pregnancy following a pustular flare of previously diagnosed plaque psoriasis (not a generalized pustular psoriasis, as in our case).¹⁷ As a good response was obtained, infliximab treatment was continued in the patient throughout her second pregnancy.

Our case is unique in that infliximab was started during pregnancy because of intractable disease leading to systemic symptoms. Our patient showed an excellent response to infliximab after a 10-week disease course with repeated flare-ups and impairment to her overall condition. Delivery occurred at 36 weeks’ gestation due to suspected intrauterine growth retardation; however, the neonate was born with a 5-minute APGAR score of 10 and required no special medical care, which suggests that the low birth weight was constitutional due to the patient’s small frame (her height was 4 ft 11 in). The breast milk of patients with inflammatory bowel disease has been detected to contain very small amounts of infliximab (101 ng/mL, about 1/200 of the therapeutic blood level).¹⁸ Considering the large molecular weight of this agent and possible proteolysis in the stomach and intestines, infliximab is unlikely to affect the neonate.¹⁵ Thus, we encouraged our patient to breastfeed her baby. A case of fatal disseminated Bacille-Calmette-Guérin infection in an infant whose mother received infliximab treatment during pregnancy has been reported.¹⁹ It has been suggested that live vaccines should be avoided in neonates exposed to anti-TNF agents at least for the first 6 months of life or until the agent is no longer detectable in their blood.¹⁵ We therefore informed our patient’s family practitioner about this data.

Conclusion

We report a case of infliximab treatment for GPPP that was continued during the postpartum period. Infliximab was an effective treatment option in our patient with no detected serious adverse events and may be considered in other cases of GPPP that are not responsive to systemic steroids. However, further studies are warranted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of infliximab treatment for GPPP and psoriasis in pregnancy.

Generalized pustular psoriasis of pregnancy (GPPP), formerly known as impetigo herpetiformis, is a rare dermatosis that causes maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality. It is characterized by widespread, circular, erythematous plaques with pustules at the periphery.¹ Conventional first-line treatment includes systemic corticosteroids and cyclosporine. The National Psoriasis Foundation Medical Board also has included infliximab among the first-line treatment options for GPPP.² Herein, we report a case of GPPP treated with infliximab at 30 weeks’ gestation and during the postpartum period.

Case Report

A 22-year-old woman was admitted to our inpatient clinic at 20 weeks’ gestation in her second pregnancy for evaluation of cutaneous eruptions covering the entire body. The lesions first appeared 3 to 4 days prior to her admission and dramatically progressed. She had a history of psoriasis vulgaris diagnosed during her first pregnancy 2 years prior that was treated with topical steroids throughout the pregnancy and methotrexate during lactation for a total of 11 months. She then was started on cyclosporine, which she used for 6 months due to ineffectiveness of the methotrexate, but she stopped treatment 4 months before the second pregnancy.

At the current presentation, physical examination revealed erythroderma and widespread pustules on the chest, abdomen, arms, and legs, including the intertriginous regions, that tended to coalesce and form lakes of pus over an erythematous base (Figure 1). The mucosae were normal. She exhibited a low blood pressure (85/50 mmHg) and high body temperature (102 °F [38.9 °C]). Routine laboratory examination revealed anemia and a normal leukocyte count. Her erythrocyte sedimentation rate (57 mm/h [reference range, <20 mm/h]) and C-reactive protein level (102 mg/L [reference range, <6 mg/L]) were elevated, whereas total calcium (8.11 mg/dL [reference range, 8.2–10.6 mg/dL]) and albumin (3.15 g/dL [reference range, >4.0 g/dL]) levels were low.

The patient returned to the clinic 3 weeks postpartum with a few pustules on erythematous plaques on the chest, abdomen, and back. At this time, she received a third infusion of infliximab 8 weeks after the second dose. For the past 5 years, the patient has been undergoing infliximab maintenance treatment, which she receives at the hospital every 8 weeks with excellent response. She has had no further pregnancies to date.

Comment

Generalized pustular psoriasis of pregnancy is a rare condition that typically occurs in the third trimester but also can start in the first and second trimesters. It may result in maternal and fetal morbidity by causing fluid and electrolyte imbalance and/or placental insufficiency, resulting in an increased risk for fetal abnormalities, stillbirth, and neonatal death.³ In subsequent pregnancies, GPPP has been observed to recur at an earlier gestational age with a more severe presentation.^1,3

Generalized pustular psoriasis of pregnancy usually involves an eruption that begins symmetrically in the intertriginous areas and spreads to the rest of the body. The lesions present as erythematous annular plaques with pustules on the periphery and desquamation in the center due to older pustules.^1,3 The mucous membranes also may be involved with erosive and exfoliative plaques, and there may be nail involvement. Patients often present with systemic symptoms such as fever, malaise, diarrhea, and vomiting.¹ Laboratory investigations may reveal neutrophilic leukocytosis, high erythrocyte sedimentation rate, hypocalcemia, and hypoalbuminemia.⁴ Cultures from blood and pustules show no bacterial growth. A skin biopsy is helpful in diagnosis, with features similar to generalized pustular psoriasis, demonstrating spongiform pustules containing neutrophils, lymphocytic and neutrophilic infiltrates in the papillary dermis, and negative direct immunofluorescence.³

The differential diagnosis of GPPP includes subcorneal pustular dermatosis, dermatitis herpetiformis, herpes gestationis, impetigo, and acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis.^1,3 Due to concerns of fetal implications, treatment options in GPPP are somewhat limited; however, the condition requires treatment because it may result in unfavorable pregnancy outcomes. Topical corticosteroids may be an option for limited disease.^5,6 Systemic corticosteroids (eg, prednisone 60–80 mg/d) were previously considered as first-line agents, although they have shown limited efficacy in our case as well as in other case reports.⁷ Their ineffectiveness and risk for flare-up after dose tapering should be kept in mind when starting GPPP patients on systemic corticosteroids. Systemic cyclosporine (2–3 mg/kg/d) may be added to increase the efficacy of systemic steroids, which was done in several cases in literature.^1,6,8 Although cyclosporine has been classified as a pregnancy category C drug, an analysis of pregnancy outcomes of 629 renal transplant patients revealed no association with adverse pregnancy outcomes compared to the general population and no increase in fetal malformations.⁹ Therefore, cyclosporine is a safe treatment option and was classified as a first-line drug for GPPP in a 2012 review by the National Psoriasis Foundation Medical Board.² Narrowband UVB also has been reported to be used for the treatment of GPPP.¹⁰ Methotrexate and retinoids have been used in cases with lesions that persisted postpartum.¹

Anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) α agents are another effective option for treatment of GPPP. Anti-TNF agents are classified as pregnancy category B due to results showing that anti-mouse TNF-α monoclonal antibodies did not cause embryotoxicity or teratogenicity in pregnant mice.¹¹ Although Carter et al¹² published a review of US Food and Drug Administration data on pregnant women receiving anti-TNF treatment and concluded that these agents were associated with the VACTERL group of malformations (vertebral defects, anal atresia, cardiac defect, tracheoesophageal fistula with esophageal atresia, cardiac defects, renal and limb anomalies), no such association was found in further studies. A 2014 study showed no difference in the rate of major malformations in infants born to women who were treated with anti-TNF drugs compared to the disease-matched group not treated with these agents and pregnant women counselled for nonteratogenic exposure.¹³ The same study detected an increase in preterm and low-birth-weight deliveries and suggested this might be caused by the increased severity of disease in patients requiring anti-TNF medication. The British Society of Rheumatology Biologics Register published data on pregnancy outcomes in 130 rheumatoid arthritis patients who had been exposed to anti-TNF agents.¹⁴ The results suggested an increased rate of spontaneous abortions in women exposed to anti-TNF treatment around the time of conception, especially in those taking these medications together with methotrexate or leflunomide; however, results also indicated that disease activity may have had an impact on the rate of spontaneous abortions in these patients. In a 2013 review of 462 women with inflammatory bowel disease who had been exposed to anti-TNF agents during pregnancy, the investigators concluded that pregnancy outcomes and the rate of congenital anomalies did not significantly differ from other inflammatory bowel disease patients not receiving anti-TNF drugs or the general population.¹⁵

In 2012, the National Board of the National Psoriasis Foundation put infliximab amongst the first-line treatment modalities for GPPP.² In one case of GPPP in which the eruption persisted after delivery, the patient was treated with infliximab 7 weeks postpartum due to failure to control the disease with prednisolone 60 mg daily and cyclosporine 7.5 mg/kg daily. Unlike our patient, this patient was only started on an infliximab regimen after delivery.¹⁶ In another case reported in 2010, the patient was started on infliximab during the postpartum period of her first pregnancy following a pustular flare of previously diagnosed plaque psoriasis (not a generalized pustular psoriasis, as in our case).¹⁷ As a good response was obtained, infliximab treatment was continued in the patient throughout her second pregnancy.

Our case is unique in that infliximab was started during pregnancy because of intractable disease leading to systemic symptoms. Our patient showed an excellent response to infliximab after a 10-week disease course with repeated flare-ups and impairment to her overall condition. Delivery occurred at 36 weeks’ gestation due to suspected intrauterine growth retardation; however, the neonate was born with a 5-minute APGAR score of 10 and required no special medical care, which suggests that the low birth weight was constitutional due to the patient’s small frame (her height was 4 ft 11 in). The breast milk of patients with inflammatory bowel disease has been detected to contain very small amounts of infliximab (101 ng/mL, about 1/200 of the therapeutic blood level).¹⁸ Considering the large molecular weight of this agent and possible proteolysis in the stomach and intestines, infliximab is unlikely to affect the neonate.¹⁵ Thus, we encouraged our patient to breastfeed her baby. A case of fatal disseminated Bacille-Calmette-Guérin infection in an infant whose mother received infliximab treatment during pregnancy has been reported.¹⁹ It has been suggested that live vaccines should be avoided in neonates exposed to anti-TNF agents at least for the first 6 months of life or until the agent is no longer detectable in their blood.¹⁵ We therefore informed our patient’s family practitioner about this data.

Conclusion

We report a case of infliximab treatment for GPPP that was continued during the postpartum period. Infliximab was an effective treatment option in our patient with no detected serious adverse events and may be considered in other cases of GPPP that are not responsive to systemic steroids. However, further studies are warranted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of infliximab treatment for GPPP and psoriasis in pregnancy.

Generalized pustular psoriasis of pregnancy (GPPP), formerly known as impetigo herpetiformis, is a rare dermatosis that causes maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality. It is characterized by widespread, circular, erythematous plaques with pustules at the periphery.¹ Conventional first-line treatment includes systemic corticosteroids and cyclosporine. The National Psoriasis Foundation Medical Board also has included infliximab among the first-line treatment options for GPPP.² Herein, we report a case of GPPP treated with infliximab at 30 weeks’ gestation and during the postpartum period.

Case Report

A 22-year-old woman was admitted to our inpatient clinic at 20 weeks’ gestation in her second pregnancy for evaluation of cutaneous eruptions covering the entire body. The lesions first appeared 3 to 4 days prior to her admission and dramatically progressed. She had a history of psoriasis vulgaris diagnosed during her first pregnancy 2 years prior that was treated with topical steroids throughout the pregnancy and methotrexate during lactation for a total of 11 months. She then was started on cyclosporine, which she used for 6 months due to ineffectiveness of the methotrexate, but she stopped treatment 4 months before the second pregnancy.

At the current presentation, physical examination revealed erythroderma and widespread pustules on the chest, abdomen, arms, and legs, including the intertriginous regions, that tended to coalesce and form lakes of pus over an erythematous base (Figure 1). The mucosae were normal. She exhibited a low blood pressure (85/50 mmHg) and high body temperature (102 °F [38.9 °C]). Routine laboratory examination revealed anemia and a normal leukocyte count. Her erythrocyte sedimentation rate (57 mm/h [reference range, <20 mm/h]) and C-reactive protein level (102 mg/L [reference range, <6 mg/L]) were elevated, whereas total calcium (8.11 mg/dL [reference range, 8.2–10.6 mg/dL]) and albumin (3.15 g/dL [reference range, >4.0 g/dL]) levels were low.

The patient returned to the clinic 3 weeks postpartum with a few pustules on erythematous plaques on the chest, abdomen, and back. At this time, she received a third infusion of infliximab 8 weeks after the second dose. For the past 5 years, the patient has been undergoing infliximab maintenance treatment, which she receives at the hospital every 8 weeks with excellent response. She has had no further pregnancies to date.

Comment

Generalized pustular psoriasis of pregnancy is a rare condition that typically occurs in the third trimester but also can start in the first and second trimesters. It may result in maternal and fetal morbidity by causing fluid and electrolyte imbalance and/or placental insufficiency, resulting in an increased risk for fetal abnormalities, stillbirth, and neonatal death.³ In subsequent pregnancies, GPPP has been observed to recur at an earlier gestational age with a more severe presentation.^1,3

Generalized pustular psoriasis of pregnancy usually involves an eruption that begins symmetrically in the intertriginous areas and spreads to the rest of the body. The lesions present as erythematous annular plaques with pustules on the periphery and desquamation in the center due to older pustules.^1,3 The mucous membranes also may be involved with erosive and exfoliative plaques, and there may be nail involvement. Patients often present with systemic symptoms such as fever, malaise, diarrhea, and vomiting.¹ Laboratory investigations may reveal neutrophilic leukocytosis, high erythrocyte sedimentation rate, hypocalcemia, and hypoalbuminemia.⁴ Cultures from blood and pustules show no bacterial growth. A skin biopsy is helpful in diagnosis, with features similar to generalized pustular psoriasis, demonstrating spongiform pustules containing neutrophils, lymphocytic and neutrophilic infiltrates in the papillary dermis, and negative direct immunofluorescence.³

The differential diagnosis of GPPP includes subcorneal pustular dermatosis, dermatitis herpetiformis, herpes gestationis, impetigo, and acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis.^1,3 Due to concerns of fetal implications, treatment options in GPPP are somewhat limited; however, the condition requires treatment because it may result in unfavorable pregnancy outcomes. Topical corticosteroids may be an option for limited disease.^5,6 Systemic corticosteroids (eg, prednisone 60–80 mg/d) were previously considered as first-line agents, although they have shown limited efficacy in our case as well as in other case reports.⁷ Their ineffectiveness and risk for flare-up after dose tapering should be kept in mind when starting GPPP patients on systemic corticosteroids. Systemic cyclosporine (2–3 mg/kg/d) may be added to increase the efficacy of systemic steroids, which was done in several cases in literature.^1,6,8 Although cyclosporine has been classified as a pregnancy category C drug, an analysis of pregnancy outcomes of 629 renal transplant patients revealed no association with adverse pregnancy outcomes compared to the general population and no increase in fetal malformations.⁹ Therefore, cyclosporine is a safe treatment option and was classified as a first-line drug for GPPP in a 2012 review by the National Psoriasis Foundation Medical Board.² Narrowband UVB also has been reported to be used for the treatment of GPPP.¹⁰ Methotrexate and retinoids have been used in cases with lesions that persisted postpartum.¹

Anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) α agents are another effective option for treatment of GPPP. Anti-TNF agents are classified as pregnancy category B due to results showing that anti-mouse TNF-α monoclonal antibodies did not cause embryotoxicity or teratogenicity in pregnant mice.¹¹ Although Carter et al¹² published a review of US Food and Drug Administration data on pregnant women receiving anti-TNF treatment and concluded that these agents were associated with the VACTERL group of malformations (vertebral defects, anal atresia, cardiac defect, tracheoesophageal fistula with esophageal atresia, cardiac defects, renal and limb anomalies), no such association was found in further studies. A 2014 study showed no difference in the rate of major malformations in infants born to women who were treated with anti-TNF drugs compared to the disease-matched group not treated with these agents and pregnant women counselled for nonteratogenic exposure.¹³ The same study detected an increase in preterm and low-birth-weight deliveries and suggested this might be caused by the increased severity of disease in patients requiring anti-TNF medication. The British Society of Rheumatology Biologics Register published data on pregnancy outcomes in 130 rheumatoid arthritis patients who had been exposed to anti-TNF agents.¹⁴ The results suggested an increased rate of spontaneous abortions in women exposed to anti-TNF treatment around the time of conception, especially in those taking these medications together with methotrexate or leflunomide; however, results also indicated that disease activity may have had an impact on the rate of spontaneous abortions in these patients. In a 2013 review of 462 women with inflammatory bowel disease who had been exposed to anti-TNF agents during pregnancy, the investigators concluded that pregnancy outcomes and the rate of congenital anomalies did not significantly differ from other inflammatory bowel disease patients not receiving anti-TNF drugs or the general population.¹⁵

In 2012, the National Board of the National Psoriasis Foundation put infliximab amongst the first-line treatment modalities for GPPP.² In one case of GPPP in which the eruption persisted after delivery, the patient was treated with infliximab 7 weeks postpartum due to failure to control the disease with prednisolone 60 mg daily and cyclosporine 7.5 mg/kg daily. Unlike our patient, this patient was only started on an infliximab regimen after delivery.¹⁶ In another case reported in 2010, the patient was started on infliximab during the postpartum period of her first pregnancy following a pustular flare of previously diagnosed plaque psoriasis (not a generalized pustular psoriasis, as in our case).¹⁷ As a good response was obtained, infliximab treatment was continued in the patient throughout her second pregnancy.

Our case is unique in that infliximab was started during pregnancy because of intractable disease leading to systemic symptoms. Our patient showed an excellent response to infliximab after a 10-week disease course with repeated flare-ups and impairment to her overall condition. Delivery occurred at 36 weeks’ gestation due to suspected intrauterine growth retardation; however, the neonate was born with a 5-minute APGAR score of 10 and required no special medical care, which suggests that the low birth weight was constitutional due to the patient’s small frame (her height was 4 ft 11 in). The breast milk of patients with inflammatory bowel disease has been detected to contain very small amounts of infliximab (101 ng/mL, about 1/200 of the therapeutic blood level).¹⁸ Considering the large molecular weight of this agent and possible proteolysis in the stomach and intestines, infliximab is unlikely to affect the neonate.¹⁵ Thus, we encouraged our patient to breastfeed her baby. A case of fatal disseminated Bacille-Calmette-Guérin infection in an infant whose mother received infliximab treatment during pregnancy has been reported.¹⁹ It has been suggested that live vaccines should be avoided in neonates exposed to anti-TNF agents at least for the first 6 months of life or until the agent is no longer detectable in their blood.¹⁵ We therefore informed our patient’s family practitioner about this data.

Conclusion

We report a case of infliximab treatment for GPPP that was continued during the postpartum period. Infliximab was an effective treatment option in our patient with no detected serious adverse events and may be considered in other cases of GPPP that are not responsive to systemic steroids. However, further studies are warranted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of infliximab treatment for GPPP and psoriasis in pregnancy.

Read More

Read More

Read More

COVID-19 has filled our lives with so many challenges, and now we are faced with a new one. For some of our patients, getting a vaccine appointment feels a lot like winning the lottery.

itsmejust/Thinkstock

At first, it might have been easy to be joyful for others’ good fortune, but after weeks and now months of seeing others get vaccinated, patience can wear thin. It also creates an imbalance when one member of a “bubble” is vaccinated and others aren’t. It can be painful to be the one who continues to miss out on activities as those around resume pleasures such as seeing friends, dining out, shopping, and traveling.

So many of our patients are feeling worn down from the chronic stress and are not in the best shape to deal with another issue: the fear of missing out. Yet, vaccine envy will be with us for a few more months as we continue to progress out of the pandemic.

Here are some tips to share with patients who are feeling vaccine envy.

• Acknowledge your feelings. Sure, you want to be happy for those getting vaccinated but it does hurt to be left behind. These feelings are real and deserve space. Share them with a trusted friend or therapist. It is indeed quite upsetting to have to wait. In the United States, we are used to having speedy access to medical care. It is unfortunate that so many have to wait for such an important intervention. You have a right to be upset.
• Express your concern to the family member or friend who is vaccinated. Discuss how it could affect your relationship and activities.
• Focus on what you can control. Double down on efforts to not catch or spread COVID. Vaccines are only one very modern way out of the pandemic. Stick to the basics so you feel a sense of control over your health destiny.
• Take advantage of the remaining days or weeks of quarantine. What did you want to accomplish during your time of limited activity? Did you always want to play the piano? These last slower days or weeks might be a great time to try (over Zoom of course). Have you put off cleaning your closet and organizing your drawers? There is nothing like a deadline to kick us into gear.
• Take your best guess for when you will be vaccinated and start to plan. What do you most look forward to when you are vaccinated? Start to make those plans for late summer and fall.
• Keep things in perspective. We are ALL so fortunate that several vaccines were developed so quickly. Even if the wait is a few more weeks, an end is in sight. One year ago, we had no idea what lay ahead and the uncertainty caused so much anxiety. Now we can feel hopeful that more “normal days” will be returning soon in a predictable time frame.
• Focus on the herd. By now we know that “we are all in this together.” Although we aren’t leaving at the exact same time, mere months will separate us. The more our friends and family get vaccinated, the safer we all are.

Dr. Ritvo, a psychiatrist with more than 25 years’ experience, practices in Miami Beach. She is the author of “Bekindr – The Transformative Power of Kindness” (Hellertown, Pa.: Momosa Publishing, 2018).

COVID-19 has filled our lives with so many challenges, and now we are faced with a new one. For some of our patients, getting a vaccine appointment feels a lot like winning the lottery.

itsmejust/Thinkstock

At first, it might have been easy to be joyful for others’ good fortune, but after weeks and now months of seeing others get vaccinated, patience can wear thin. It also creates an imbalance when one member of a “bubble” is vaccinated and others aren’t. It can be painful to be the one who continues to miss out on activities as those around resume pleasures such as seeing friends, dining out, shopping, and traveling.

So many of our patients are feeling worn down from the chronic stress and are not in the best shape to deal with another issue: the fear of missing out. Yet, vaccine envy will be with us for a few more months as we continue to progress out of the pandemic.

Here are some tips to share with patients who are feeling vaccine envy.

• Acknowledge your feelings. Sure, you want to be happy for those getting vaccinated but it does hurt to be left behind. These feelings are real and deserve space. Share them with a trusted friend or therapist. It is indeed quite upsetting to have to wait. In the United States, we are used to having speedy access to medical care. It is unfortunate that so many have to wait for such an important intervention. You have a right to be upset.
• Express your concern to the family member or friend who is vaccinated. Discuss how it could affect your relationship and activities.
• Focus on what you can control. Double down on efforts to not catch or spread COVID. Vaccines are only one very modern way out of the pandemic. Stick to the basics so you feel a sense of control over your health destiny.
• Take advantage of the remaining days or weeks of quarantine. What did you want to accomplish during your time of limited activity? Did you always want to play the piano? These last slower days or weeks might be a great time to try (over Zoom of course). Have you put off cleaning your closet and organizing your drawers? There is nothing like a deadline to kick us into gear.
• Take your best guess for when you will be vaccinated and start to plan. What do you most look forward to when you are vaccinated? Start to make those plans for late summer and fall.
• Keep things in perspective. We are ALL so fortunate that several vaccines were developed so quickly. Even if the wait is a few more weeks, an end is in sight. One year ago, we had no idea what lay ahead and the uncertainty caused so much anxiety. Now we can feel hopeful that more “normal days” will be returning soon in a predictable time frame.
• Focus on the herd. By now we know that “we are all in this together.” Although we aren’t leaving at the exact same time, mere months will separate us. The more our friends and family get vaccinated, the safer we all are.

Dr. Ritvo, a psychiatrist with more than 25 years’ experience, practices in Miami Beach. She is the author of “Bekindr – The Transformative Power of Kindness” (Hellertown, Pa.: Momosa Publishing, 2018).

COVID-19 has filled our lives with so many challenges, and now we are faced with a new one. For some of our patients, getting a vaccine appointment feels a lot like winning the lottery.

itsmejust/Thinkstock

At first, it might have been easy to be joyful for others’ good fortune, but after weeks and now months of seeing others get vaccinated, patience can wear thin. It also creates an imbalance when one member of a “bubble” is vaccinated and others aren’t. It can be painful to be the one who continues to miss out on activities as those around resume pleasures such as seeing friends, dining out, shopping, and traveling.

So many of our patients are feeling worn down from the chronic stress and are not in the best shape to deal with another issue: the fear of missing out. Yet, vaccine envy will be with us for a few more months as we continue to progress out of the pandemic.

Here are some tips to share with patients who are feeling vaccine envy.

• Acknowledge your feelings. Sure, you want to be happy for those getting vaccinated but it does hurt to be left behind. These feelings are real and deserve space. Share them with a trusted friend or therapist. It is indeed quite upsetting to have to wait. In the United States, we are used to having speedy access to medical care. It is unfortunate that so many have to wait for such an important intervention. You have a right to be upset.
• Express your concern to the family member or friend who is vaccinated. Discuss how it could affect your relationship and activities.
• Focus on what you can control. Double down on efforts to not catch or spread COVID. Vaccines are only one very modern way out of the pandemic. Stick to the basics so you feel a sense of control over your health destiny.
• Take advantage of the remaining days or weeks of quarantine. What did you want to accomplish during your time of limited activity? Did you always want to play the piano? These last slower days or weeks might be a great time to try (over Zoom of course). Have you put off cleaning your closet and organizing your drawers? There is nothing like a deadline to kick us into gear.
• Take your best guess for when you will be vaccinated and start to plan. What do you most look forward to when you are vaccinated? Start to make those plans for late summer and fall.
• Keep things in perspective. We are ALL so fortunate that several vaccines were developed so quickly. Even if the wait is a few more weeks, an end is in sight. One year ago, we had no idea what lay ahead and the uncertainty caused so much anxiety. Now we can feel hopeful that more “normal days” will be returning soon in a predictable time frame.
• Focus on the herd. By now we know that “we are all in this together.” Although we aren’t leaving at the exact same time, mere months will separate us. The more our friends and family get vaccinated, the safer we all are.

Dr. Ritvo, a psychiatrist with more than 25 years’ experience, practices in Miami Beach. She is the author of “Bekindr – The Transformative Power of Kindness” (Hellertown, Pa.: Momosa Publishing, 2018).