Approximately one third of pregnant individuals with syphilis were inadequately treated or not treated for syphilis despite receiving timely prenatal care, based on data from nearly 1500 patients.

Although congenital syphilis is preventable with treatment before or early in pregnancy, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show a doubling of syphilis rates in the United States between 2018 and 2021 wrote Ayzsa Tannis, MPH, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and colleagues.

To better understand factors contributing to inadequate syphilis treatment during pregnancy, the researchers examined data from 1476 individuals with syphilis during pregnancy. The study population came from six jurisdictions that participated in the Surveillance for Emerging Threats to Pregnant People and Infants Network, and sources included case investigations, medical records, and links between laboratory data and vital records.

The researchers characterized the status of syphilis during pregnancy as adequate, inadequate, or not treated based on the CDC’s Sexually Transmitted Infections Treatment Guidelines, 2021. Prenatal care was defined as timely (at least 30 days prior to pregnancy outcome), nontimely (less than 30 days before pregnancy outcome), and no prenatal care. The findings were published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Of the 1476 individuals studied, 855 (57.9%) were adequately treated for syphilis and 621 (42.1%) were inadequately or not treated.

Overall, 82% of the study population received timely prenatal care. However, 32.1% of those who received timely prenatal care were inadequately treated, including 14.8% who received no syphilis treatment. Individuals with nontimely or no prenatal care were significantly more likely to receive inadequate or no treatment for syphilis than those who received timely care (risk ratio, 2.50 and 2.73, respectively).

The findings were consistent with previous studies of missed opportunities for prevention and treatment, the researchers noted. Factors behind nontimely treatment (less than 30 days before pregnancy outcome) may include intermittent shortages of benzathine penicillin G, the standard treatment for syphilis, as well as the lack of time and administrative support for clinicians to communicate with patients and health departments, and to expedite treatment, the researchers wrote.

The results were limited by several factors including the use of data from six US jurisdictions that may not generalize to other areas, the variations in reporting years for the different jurisdictions, and variation in mandates for syphilis screening during pregnancy, the researchers noted.

More research is needed to improve syphilis testing itself, and to develop more treatment options, the researchers concluded. Partnerships among public health, patient advocacy groups, prenatal care clinicians, and other clinicians outside the prenatal care setting also are needed for effective intervention in pregnant individuals with syphilis, they said.

The study was carried out as part of the regular work of the CDC, supported by the Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Prevention and Control of Emerging Infectious Diseases Cooperative Agreement and through contractual mechanisms including the Local Health Department Initiative to Chickasaw Health Consulting. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Approximately one third of pregnant individuals with syphilis were inadequately treated or not treated for syphilis despite receiving timely prenatal care, based on data from nearly 1500 patients.

Although congenital syphilis is preventable with treatment before or early in pregnancy, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show a doubling of syphilis rates in the United States between 2018 and 2021 wrote Ayzsa Tannis, MPH, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and colleagues.

To better understand factors contributing to inadequate syphilis treatment during pregnancy, the researchers examined data from 1476 individuals with syphilis during pregnancy. The study population came from six jurisdictions that participated in the Surveillance for Emerging Threats to Pregnant People and Infants Network, and sources included case investigations, medical records, and links between laboratory data and vital records.

The researchers characterized the status of syphilis during pregnancy as adequate, inadequate, or not treated based on the CDC’s Sexually Transmitted Infections Treatment Guidelines, 2021. Prenatal care was defined as timely (at least 30 days prior to pregnancy outcome), nontimely (less than 30 days before pregnancy outcome), and no prenatal care. The findings were published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Of the 1476 individuals studied, 855 (57.9%) were adequately treated for syphilis and 621 (42.1%) were inadequately or not treated.

Overall, 82% of the study population received timely prenatal care. However, 32.1% of those who received timely prenatal care were inadequately treated, including 14.8% who received no syphilis treatment. Individuals with nontimely or no prenatal care were significantly more likely to receive inadequate or no treatment for syphilis than those who received timely care (risk ratio, 2.50 and 2.73, respectively).

The findings were consistent with previous studies of missed opportunities for prevention and treatment, the researchers noted. Factors behind nontimely treatment (less than 30 days before pregnancy outcome) may include intermittent shortages of benzathine penicillin G, the standard treatment for syphilis, as well as the lack of time and administrative support for clinicians to communicate with patients and health departments, and to expedite treatment, the researchers wrote.

The results were limited by several factors including the use of data from six US jurisdictions that may not generalize to other areas, the variations in reporting years for the different jurisdictions, and variation in mandates for syphilis screening during pregnancy, the researchers noted.

More research is needed to improve syphilis testing itself, and to develop more treatment options, the researchers concluded. Partnerships among public health, patient advocacy groups, prenatal care clinicians, and other clinicians outside the prenatal care setting also are needed for effective intervention in pregnant individuals with syphilis, they said.

The study was carried out as part of the regular work of the CDC, supported by the Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Prevention and Control of Emerging Infectious Diseases Cooperative Agreement and through contractual mechanisms including the Local Health Department Initiative to Chickasaw Health Consulting. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Approximately one third of pregnant individuals with syphilis were inadequately treated or not treated for syphilis despite receiving timely prenatal care, based on data from nearly 1500 patients.

Although congenital syphilis is preventable with treatment before or early in pregnancy, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show a doubling of syphilis rates in the United States between 2018 and 2021 wrote Ayzsa Tannis, MPH, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and colleagues.

To better understand factors contributing to inadequate syphilis treatment during pregnancy, the researchers examined data from 1476 individuals with syphilis during pregnancy. The study population came from six jurisdictions that participated in the Surveillance for Emerging Threats to Pregnant People and Infants Network, and sources included case investigations, medical records, and links between laboratory data and vital records.

The researchers characterized the status of syphilis during pregnancy as adequate, inadequate, or not treated based on the CDC’s Sexually Transmitted Infections Treatment Guidelines, 2021. Prenatal care was defined as timely (at least 30 days prior to pregnancy outcome), nontimely (less than 30 days before pregnancy outcome), and no prenatal care. The findings were published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Of the 1476 individuals studied, 855 (57.9%) were adequately treated for syphilis and 621 (42.1%) were inadequately or not treated.

Overall, 82% of the study population received timely prenatal care. However, 32.1% of those who received timely prenatal care were inadequately treated, including 14.8% who received no syphilis treatment. Individuals with nontimely or no prenatal care were significantly more likely to receive inadequate or no treatment for syphilis than those who received timely care (risk ratio, 2.50 and 2.73, respectively).

The findings were consistent with previous studies of missed opportunities for prevention and treatment, the researchers noted. Factors behind nontimely treatment (less than 30 days before pregnancy outcome) may include intermittent shortages of benzathine penicillin G, the standard treatment for syphilis, as well as the lack of time and administrative support for clinicians to communicate with patients and health departments, and to expedite treatment, the researchers wrote.

The results were limited by several factors including the use of data from six US jurisdictions that may not generalize to other areas, the variations in reporting years for the different jurisdictions, and variation in mandates for syphilis screening during pregnancy, the researchers noted.

More research is needed to improve syphilis testing itself, and to develop more treatment options, the researchers concluded. Partnerships among public health, patient advocacy groups, prenatal care clinicians, and other clinicians outside the prenatal care setting also are needed for effective intervention in pregnant individuals with syphilis, they said.

The study was carried out as part of the regular work of the CDC, supported by the Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Prevention and Control of Emerging Infectious Diseases Cooperative Agreement and through contractual mechanisms including the Local Health Department Initiative to Chickasaw Health Consulting. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted Tuesday to ban noncompete agreements, possibly making it easier for doctors to switch employers without having to leave their communities and patients behind. But business groups have vowed to challenge the decision in court.

The proposed final rule passed on a 3-2 vote, with the dissenting commissioners disputing the FTC’s authority to broadly ban noncompetes.

Tensions around noncompetes have been building for years. In 2021, President Biden issued an executive order supporting measures to improve economic competition, in which he urged the FTC to consider its rulemaking authority to address noncompete clauses that unfairly limit workers’ mobility. In January 2023, per that directive, the agency proposed ending the restrictive covenants.

While the FTC estimates that the final rule will reduce healthcare costs by up to $194 billion over the next decade and increase worker earnings by $300 million annually, the ruling faces legal hurdles.

US Chamber of Commerce president and CEO Suzanne P. Clark said in a statement that the move is a “blatant power grab” that will undermine competitive business practices, adding that the Chamber will sue to block the measure.

The FTC received more than 26,000 comments on noncompetes during the public feedback period, with about 25,000 supporting the measure, said Benjamin Cady, JD, an FTC attorney.

Mr. Cady called the feedback “compelling,” citing instances of workers who were forced to commute long distances, uproot their families, or risk expensive litigation for wanting to pursue job opportunities.

For example, a comment from a physician working in Appalachia highlights the potential real-life implications of the agreements. “With hospital systems merging, providers with aggressive noncompetes must abandon the community that they serve if they [choose] to leave their employer. Healthcare providers feel trapped in their current employment situation, leading to significant burnout that can shorten their [career] longevity.”

Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya said physicians have had their lives upended by cumbersome noncompetes, often having to move out of state to practice. “A pandemic killed a million people in this country, and there are doctors who cannot work because of a noncompete,” he said.

It’s unclear whether physicians and others who work for nonprofit healthcare groups or hospitals will be covered by the new ban. FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter acknowledged that the agency’s jurisdictional limitations mean that employees of “certain nonprofit organizations” may not benefit from the rule.

“We want to be transparent about the limitation and recognize there are workers, especially healthcare workers, who are bound by anticompetitive and unfair noncompete clauses, that our rule will struggle to reach,” she said. To cover nonprofit healthcare employees, Ms. Slaughter urged Congress to pass legislation banning noncompetes, such as the Workforce Mobility Act of 2021 and the Freedom to Compete Act of 2023.

The FTC final rule will take effect 120 days after it is published in the federal register, and new noncompete agreements will be banned as of this date. However, existing contracts for senior executives will remain in effect because these individuals are less likely to experience “acute harm” due to their ability to negotiate accordingly, said Mr. Cady.
 

States, AMA Take Aim at Noncompetes

Before the federal ban, several states had already passed legislation limiting the reach of noncompetes. According to a recent article in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 12 states prohibit noncompete clauses for physicians: Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and South Dakota.

The remaining states allow noncompetes in some form, often excluding them for employees earning below a certain threshold. For example, in Oregon, noncompete agreements may apply to employees earning more than $113,241. Most states have provisions to adjust the threshold annually. The District of Columbia permits 2-year noncompetes for “medical specialists” earning over $250,000 annually.

Indiana employers can no longer enter into noncompete agreements with primary care providers. Other specialties may be subject to the clauses, except when the physician terminates the contract for cause or when an employer terminates the contract without cause.

Rachel Marcus, MD, a cardiologist in Washington, DC, found out how limiting her employment contract’s noncompete clause was when she wanted to leave a former position. Due to the restrictions, she told this news organization that she couldn’t work locally for a competitor for 2 years. The closest location she could seek employment without violating the agreement was Baltimore, approximately 40 miles away.

Dr. Marcus ultimately moved to another position within the same organization because of the company’s reputation for being “aggressive” in their enforcement actions.

Although the American Medical Association (AMA) does not support a total ban, its House of Delegates adopted policies last year to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for physicians employed by for-profit or nonprofit hospitals, hospital systems, or staffing companies.
 

Challenges Await

The American Hospital Association, which opposed the proposed rule, called it “bad policy.” The decision “will likely be short-lived, with courts almost certain to stop it before it can do damage to hospitals’ ability to care for their patients and communities,” the association said in a statement.

To ease the transition to the new rule, the FTC also released a model language for employers to use when discussing the changes with their employees. “All employers need to do to comply with the rule is to stop enforcing existing noncompetes with workers other than senior executives and provide notice to such workers,” he said.

Dr. Marcus hopes the ban improves doctors’ lives. “Your employer is going to have to treat you better because they know that you can easily go across town to a place that has a higher salary, and your patient can go with you.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted Tuesday to ban noncompete agreements, possibly making it easier for doctors to switch employers without having to leave their communities and patients behind. But business groups have vowed to challenge the decision in court.

The proposed final rule passed on a 3-2 vote, with the dissenting commissioners disputing the FTC’s authority to broadly ban noncompetes.

Tensions around noncompetes have been building for years. In 2021, President Biden issued an executive order supporting measures to improve economic competition, in which he urged the FTC to consider its rulemaking authority to address noncompete clauses that unfairly limit workers’ mobility. In January 2023, per that directive, the agency proposed ending the restrictive covenants.

While the FTC estimates that the final rule will reduce healthcare costs by up to $194 billion over the next decade and increase worker earnings by $300 million annually, the ruling faces legal hurdles.

US Chamber of Commerce president and CEO Suzanne P. Clark said in a statement that the move is a “blatant power grab” that will undermine competitive business practices, adding that the Chamber will sue to block the measure.

The FTC received more than 26,000 comments on noncompetes during the public feedback period, with about 25,000 supporting the measure, said Benjamin Cady, JD, an FTC attorney.

Mr. Cady called the feedback “compelling,” citing instances of workers who were forced to commute long distances, uproot their families, or risk expensive litigation for wanting to pursue job opportunities.

For example, a comment from a physician working in Appalachia highlights the potential real-life implications of the agreements. “With hospital systems merging, providers with aggressive noncompetes must abandon the community that they serve if they [choose] to leave their employer. Healthcare providers feel trapped in their current employment situation, leading to significant burnout that can shorten their [career] longevity.”

Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya said physicians have had their lives upended by cumbersome noncompetes, often having to move out of state to practice. “A pandemic killed a million people in this country, and there are doctors who cannot work because of a noncompete,” he said.

It’s unclear whether physicians and others who work for nonprofit healthcare groups or hospitals will be covered by the new ban. FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter acknowledged that the agency’s jurisdictional limitations mean that employees of “certain nonprofit organizations” may not benefit from the rule.

“We want to be transparent about the limitation and recognize there are workers, especially healthcare workers, who are bound by anticompetitive and unfair noncompete clauses, that our rule will struggle to reach,” she said. To cover nonprofit healthcare employees, Ms. Slaughter urged Congress to pass legislation banning noncompetes, such as the Workforce Mobility Act of 2021 and the Freedom to Compete Act of 2023.

The FTC final rule will take effect 120 days after it is published in the federal register, and new noncompete agreements will be banned as of this date. However, existing contracts for senior executives will remain in effect because these individuals are less likely to experience “acute harm” due to their ability to negotiate accordingly, said Mr. Cady.
 

States, AMA Take Aim at Noncompetes

Before the federal ban, several states had already passed legislation limiting the reach of noncompetes. According to a recent article in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 12 states prohibit noncompete clauses for physicians: Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and South Dakota.

The remaining states allow noncompetes in some form, often excluding them for employees earning below a certain threshold. For example, in Oregon, noncompete agreements may apply to employees earning more than $113,241. Most states have provisions to adjust the threshold annually. The District of Columbia permits 2-year noncompetes for “medical specialists” earning over $250,000 annually.

Indiana employers can no longer enter into noncompete agreements with primary care providers. Other specialties may be subject to the clauses, except when the physician terminates the contract for cause or when an employer terminates the contract without cause.

Rachel Marcus, MD, a cardiologist in Washington, DC, found out how limiting her employment contract’s noncompete clause was when she wanted to leave a former position. Due to the restrictions, she told this news organization that she couldn’t work locally for a competitor for 2 years. The closest location she could seek employment without violating the agreement was Baltimore, approximately 40 miles away.

Dr. Marcus ultimately moved to another position within the same organization because of the company’s reputation for being “aggressive” in their enforcement actions.

Although the American Medical Association (AMA) does not support a total ban, its House of Delegates adopted policies last year to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for physicians employed by for-profit or nonprofit hospitals, hospital systems, or staffing companies.
 

Challenges Await

The American Hospital Association, which opposed the proposed rule, called it “bad policy.” The decision “will likely be short-lived, with courts almost certain to stop it before it can do damage to hospitals’ ability to care for their patients and communities,” the association said in a statement.

To ease the transition to the new rule, the FTC also released a model language for employers to use when discussing the changes with their employees. “All employers need to do to comply with the rule is to stop enforcing existing noncompetes with workers other than senior executives and provide notice to such workers,” he said.

Dr. Marcus hopes the ban improves doctors’ lives. “Your employer is going to have to treat you better because they know that you can easily go across town to a place that has a higher salary, and your patient can go with you.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted Tuesday to ban noncompete agreements, possibly making it easier for doctors to switch employers without having to leave their communities and patients behind. But business groups have vowed to challenge the decision in court.

The proposed final rule passed on a 3-2 vote, with the dissenting commissioners disputing the FTC’s authority to broadly ban noncompetes.

Tensions around noncompetes have been building for years. In 2021, President Biden issued an executive order supporting measures to improve economic competition, in which he urged the FTC to consider its rulemaking authority to address noncompete clauses that unfairly limit workers’ mobility. In January 2023, per that directive, the agency proposed ending the restrictive covenants.

While the FTC estimates that the final rule will reduce healthcare costs by up to $194 billion over the next decade and increase worker earnings by $300 million annually, the ruling faces legal hurdles.

US Chamber of Commerce president and CEO Suzanne P. Clark said in a statement that the move is a “blatant power grab” that will undermine competitive business practices, adding that the Chamber will sue to block the measure.

The FTC received more than 26,000 comments on noncompetes during the public feedback period, with about 25,000 supporting the measure, said Benjamin Cady, JD, an FTC attorney.

Mr. Cady called the feedback “compelling,” citing instances of workers who were forced to commute long distances, uproot their families, or risk expensive litigation for wanting to pursue job opportunities.

For example, a comment from a physician working in Appalachia highlights the potential real-life implications of the agreements. “With hospital systems merging, providers with aggressive noncompetes must abandon the community that they serve if they [choose] to leave their employer. Healthcare providers feel trapped in their current employment situation, leading to significant burnout that can shorten their [career] longevity.”

Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya said physicians have had their lives upended by cumbersome noncompetes, often having to move out of state to practice. “A pandemic killed a million people in this country, and there are doctors who cannot work because of a noncompete,” he said.

It’s unclear whether physicians and others who work for nonprofit healthcare groups or hospitals will be covered by the new ban. FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter acknowledged that the agency’s jurisdictional limitations mean that employees of “certain nonprofit organizations” may not benefit from the rule.

“We want to be transparent about the limitation and recognize there are workers, especially healthcare workers, who are bound by anticompetitive and unfair noncompete clauses, that our rule will struggle to reach,” she said. To cover nonprofit healthcare employees, Ms. Slaughter urged Congress to pass legislation banning noncompetes, such as the Workforce Mobility Act of 2021 and the Freedom to Compete Act of 2023.

The FTC final rule will take effect 120 days after it is published in the federal register, and new noncompete agreements will be banned as of this date. However, existing contracts for senior executives will remain in effect because these individuals are less likely to experience “acute harm” due to their ability to negotiate accordingly, said Mr. Cady.
 

States, AMA Take Aim at Noncompetes

Before the federal ban, several states had already passed legislation limiting the reach of noncompetes. According to a recent article in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 12 states prohibit noncompete clauses for physicians: Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and South Dakota.

The remaining states allow noncompetes in some form, often excluding them for employees earning below a certain threshold. For example, in Oregon, noncompete agreements may apply to employees earning more than $113,241. Most states have provisions to adjust the threshold annually. The District of Columbia permits 2-year noncompetes for “medical specialists” earning over $250,000 annually.

Indiana employers can no longer enter into noncompete agreements with primary care providers. Other specialties may be subject to the clauses, except when the physician terminates the contract for cause or when an employer terminates the contract without cause.

Rachel Marcus, MD, a cardiologist in Washington, DC, found out how limiting her employment contract’s noncompete clause was when she wanted to leave a former position. Due to the restrictions, she told this news organization that she couldn’t work locally for a competitor for 2 years. The closest location she could seek employment without violating the agreement was Baltimore, approximately 40 miles away.

Dr. Marcus ultimately moved to another position within the same organization because of the company’s reputation for being “aggressive” in their enforcement actions.

Although the American Medical Association (AMA) does not support a total ban, its House of Delegates adopted policies last year to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for physicians employed by for-profit or nonprofit hospitals, hospital systems, or staffing companies.
 

Challenges Await

The American Hospital Association, which opposed the proposed rule, called it “bad policy.” The decision “will likely be short-lived, with courts almost certain to stop it before it can do damage to hospitals’ ability to care for their patients and communities,” the association said in a statement.

To ease the transition to the new rule, the FTC also released a model language for employers to use when discussing the changes with their employees. “All employers need to do to comply with the rule is to stop enforcing existing noncompetes with workers other than senior executives and provide notice to such workers,” he said.

Dr. Marcus hopes the ban improves doctors’ lives. “Your employer is going to have to treat you better because they know that you can easily go across town to a place that has a higher salary, and your patient can go with you.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

*The first thing Ann Garment, MD, wants all clinicians to know about buprenorphine is that [where state law permits] any prescriber with a DEA registration number “is able to prescribe buprenorphine and should be ready and willing to prescribe” the medication.

*A change in federal law means that for most providers “there is no longer any extra paperwork or training required to prescribe buprenorphine,” said Dr. Garment, clinical associate professor at New York University and chief of general internal medicine at Bellevue Hospital in New York City, during a presentation on April 19 at the American College of Physicians (ACP-IM) Internal Medicine Meeting 2024.

Dr. Garment, who specializes in opioid use disorder (OUD), described the current “third wave” of increasing opioid overdose deaths fueled by the increase of synthetic opioids in the drug supply. The third wave started in 2013 with the rise in use of fentanyl and tramadol. The 107,000 number of overdose deaths in the United States in 2021 was more than six times that in 1999, and 75% involved opioids.

“Now, more than ever,” Dr. Garment said, “opioid use disorder should be treated from the primary care setting.”
 

How to Identify OUD

Dr. Garment recommended asking a single question to screen for OUD: “How many times in the past year have you used an illegal drug or used a prescription medication for nonmedical reasons?”

If the patient says any number above zero, that should trigger suspicion of active OUD. “It’s less sensitive for picking up on people who have a prior opioid use disorder history or are only exhibiting risky opioid use that wouldn’t constitute opioid use disorder yet,” she said.

If someone screens positive, to verify OUD, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders identifies criteria for any substance abuse disorder with two general themes: Loss of control and continued use despite negative consequences.

“If you have a patient who is getting prescribed opioids and they have opioid tolerance or withdrawal, that does not mean they have opioid use disorder,” she said.
 

Medication for OUD

Medication is the top treatment for OUD, according to Dr. Garment. Psychosocial treatments can help some but not all people with OUD, she said. “It is not a requirement for a patient to engage in psychosocial treatment in order to get a medication for opioid use disorder, so please do not let that be a barrier for your patients,” she said.

Buprenorphine has advantages over other medications for OUD, including methadone and naltrexone.

Methadone must be obtained daily at a methadone clinic instead of at a local pharmacy. And escalating doses of methadone carry an increased risk for overdose and respiratory problems and potential drug-drug interactions, Dr. Garment added.

One downside with naltrexone is loss of tolerance, she said. If a patient has been using naltrexone to treat OUD and they decide to resume taking opioids, “they no longer can use the same amount of opioids that they were using before” because they have lost their tolerance and now are at a risk for overdose with their usual amount, she said. What’s more, naltrexone has not been shown to reduce overdose deaths.

Finally, she said, buprenorphine, “is an incredibly safe medication. If anyone in this room has ever prescribed coumadin or insulin, I’m going to tell you: This is much safer.”

• The drug is a partial, as opposed to full, opioid agonist, so as the dose increases, the patient experiences less withdrawal and fewer opioid cravings. As a result, they will hit a ceiling effect that avoids euphoria, respiratory depression, or overdose.
• Buprenorphine is “stickier” than other OUD medications: “If I’m taking buprenorphine and I decide to use some [oxycodone], what’s going to happen is that very little of that, if any, is going to get bound to my opioid receptors because buprenorphine is so sticky and adherent, it’s not going to let other opioids on.”
• Most buprenorphine is co-formulated with naloxone, an opioid antagonist. If a patient tries to get high from buprenorphine and tries to snort or inject it, naloxone will kick in and cancel out the buprenorphine.

Dr. Garment said she obtains urine screens ideally twice a year. If other drugs show up on the test, she said, she speaks with the patient about their drug use. “It’s never a reason to discharge someone from a practice,” she said.

Dr. Garment reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

*This story was updated on April 29, 2024.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

*The first thing Ann Garment, MD, wants all clinicians to know about buprenorphine is that [where state law permits] any prescriber with a DEA registration number “is able to prescribe buprenorphine and should be ready and willing to prescribe” the medication.

*A change in federal law means that for most providers “there is no longer any extra paperwork or training required to prescribe buprenorphine,” said Dr. Garment, clinical associate professor at New York University and chief of general internal medicine at Bellevue Hospital in New York City, during a presentation on April 19 at the American College of Physicians (ACP-IM) Internal Medicine Meeting 2024.

Dr. Garment, who specializes in opioid use disorder (OUD), described the current “third wave” of increasing opioid overdose deaths fueled by the increase of synthetic opioids in the drug supply. The third wave started in 2013 with the rise in use of fentanyl and tramadol. The 107,000 number of overdose deaths in the United States in 2021 was more than six times that in 1999, and 75% involved opioids.

“Now, more than ever,” Dr. Garment said, “opioid use disorder should be treated from the primary care setting.”
 

How to Identify OUD

Dr. Garment recommended asking a single question to screen for OUD: “How many times in the past year have you used an illegal drug or used a prescription medication for nonmedical reasons?”

If the patient says any number above zero, that should trigger suspicion of active OUD. “It’s less sensitive for picking up on people who have a prior opioid use disorder history or are only exhibiting risky opioid use that wouldn’t constitute opioid use disorder yet,” she said.

If someone screens positive, to verify OUD, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders identifies criteria for any substance abuse disorder with two general themes: Loss of control and continued use despite negative consequences.

“If you have a patient who is getting prescribed opioids and they have opioid tolerance or withdrawal, that does not mean they have opioid use disorder,” she said.
 

Medication for OUD

Medication is the top treatment for OUD, according to Dr. Garment. Psychosocial treatments can help some but not all people with OUD, she said. “It is not a requirement for a patient to engage in psychosocial treatment in order to get a medication for opioid use disorder, so please do not let that be a barrier for your patients,” she said.

Buprenorphine has advantages over other medications for OUD, including methadone and naltrexone.

Methadone must be obtained daily at a methadone clinic instead of at a local pharmacy. And escalating doses of methadone carry an increased risk for overdose and respiratory problems and potential drug-drug interactions, Dr. Garment added.

One downside with naltrexone is loss of tolerance, she said. If a patient has been using naltrexone to treat OUD and they decide to resume taking opioids, “they no longer can use the same amount of opioids that they were using before” because they have lost their tolerance and now are at a risk for overdose with their usual amount, she said. What’s more, naltrexone has not been shown to reduce overdose deaths.

Finally, she said, buprenorphine, “is an incredibly safe medication. If anyone in this room has ever prescribed coumadin or insulin, I’m going to tell you: This is much safer.”

• The drug is a partial, as opposed to full, opioid agonist, so as the dose increases, the patient experiences less withdrawal and fewer opioid cravings. As a result, they will hit a ceiling effect that avoids euphoria, respiratory depression, or overdose.
• Buprenorphine is “stickier” than other OUD medications: “If I’m taking buprenorphine and I decide to use some [oxycodone], what’s going to happen is that very little of that, if any, is going to get bound to my opioid receptors because buprenorphine is so sticky and adherent, it’s not going to let other opioids on.”
• Most buprenorphine is co-formulated with naloxone, an opioid antagonist. If a patient tries to get high from buprenorphine and tries to snort or inject it, naloxone will kick in and cancel out the buprenorphine.

Dr. Garment said she obtains urine screens ideally twice a year. If other drugs show up on the test, she said, she speaks with the patient about their drug use. “It’s never a reason to discharge someone from a practice,” she said.

Dr. Garment reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

*This story was updated on April 29, 2024.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

*The first thing Ann Garment, MD, wants all clinicians to know about buprenorphine is that [where state law permits] any prescriber with a DEA registration number “is able to prescribe buprenorphine and should be ready and willing to prescribe” the medication.

*A change in federal law means that for most providers “there is no longer any extra paperwork or training required to prescribe buprenorphine,” said Dr. Garment, clinical associate professor at New York University and chief of general internal medicine at Bellevue Hospital in New York City, during a presentation on April 19 at the American College of Physicians (ACP-IM) Internal Medicine Meeting 2024.

Dr. Garment, who specializes in opioid use disorder (OUD), described the current “third wave” of increasing opioid overdose deaths fueled by the increase of synthetic opioids in the drug supply. The third wave started in 2013 with the rise in use of fentanyl and tramadol. The 107,000 number of overdose deaths in the United States in 2021 was more than six times that in 1999, and 75% involved opioids.

“Now, more than ever,” Dr. Garment said, “opioid use disorder should be treated from the primary care setting.”
 

How to Identify OUD

Dr. Garment recommended asking a single question to screen for OUD: “How many times in the past year have you used an illegal drug or used a prescription medication for nonmedical reasons?”

If the patient says any number above zero, that should trigger suspicion of active OUD. “It’s less sensitive for picking up on people who have a prior opioid use disorder history or are only exhibiting risky opioid use that wouldn’t constitute opioid use disorder yet,” she said.

If someone screens positive, to verify OUD, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders identifies criteria for any substance abuse disorder with two general themes: Loss of control and continued use despite negative consequences.

“If you have a patient who is getting prescribed opioids and they have opioid tolerance or withdrawal, that does not mean they have opioid use disorder,” she said.
 

Medication for OUD

Medication is the top treatment for OUD, according to Dr. Garment. Psychosocial treatments can help some but not all people with OUD, she said. “It is not a requirement for a patient to engage in psychosocial treatment in order to get a medication for opioid use disorder, so please do not let that be a barrier for your patients,” she said.

Buprenorphine has advantages over other medications for OUD, including methadone and naltrexone.

Methadone must be obtained daily at a methadone clinic instead of at a local pharmacy. And escalating doses of methadone carry an increased risk for overdose and respiratory problems and potential drug-drug interactions, Dr. Garment added.

One downside with naltrexone is loss of tolerance, she said. If a patient has been using naltrexone to treat OUD and they decide to resume taking opioids, “they no longer can use the same amount of opioids that they were using before” because they have lost their tolerance and now are at a risk for overdose with their usual amount, she said. What’s more, naltrexone has not been shown to reduce overdose deaths.

Finally, she said, buprenorphine, “is an incredibly safe medication. If anyone in this room has ever prescribed coumadin or insulin, I’m going to tell you: This is much safer.”

• The drug is a partial, as opposed to full, opioid agonist, so as the dose increases, the patient experiences less withdrawal and fewer opioid cravings. As a result, they will hit a ceiling effect that avoids euphoria, respiratory depression, or overdose.
• Buprenorphine is “stickier” than other OUD medications: “If I’m taking buprenorphine and I decide to use some [oxycodone], what’s going to happen is that very little of that, if any, is going to get bound to my opioid receptors because buprenorphine is so sticky and adherent, it’s not going to let other opioids on.”
• Most buprenorphine is co-formulated with naloxone, an opioid antagonist. If a patient tries to get high from buprenorphine and tries to snort or inject it, naloxone will kick in and cancel out the buprenorphine.

Dr. Garment said she obtains urine screens ideally twice a year. If other drugs show up on the test, she said, she speaks with the patient about their drug use. “It’s never a reason to discharge someone from a practice,” she said.

Dr. Garment reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

*This story was updated on April 29, 2024.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

It’s a battle of the sexes today as we dive into a paper that makes you say, “Wow, what an interesting study” and also “Boy, am I glad I didn’t do that study.” That’s because studies like this are always somewhat fraught; they say something about medicine but also something about society — and that makes this a bit precarious. But that’s never stopped us before. So, let’s go ahead and try to answer the question: Do women make better doctors than men?

On the surface, this question seems nearly impossible to answer. It’s too broad; what does it mean to be a “better” doctor? At first blush it seems that there are just too many variables to control for here: the type of doctor, the type of patient, the clinical scenario, and so on.

But this study, “Comparison of hospital mortality and readmission rates by physician and patient sex,” which appears in Annals of Internal Medicine, uses a fairly ingenious method to cut through all the bias by leveraging two simple facts: First, hospital medicine is largely conducted by hospitalists these days; second, due to the shift-based nature of hospitalist work, the hospitalist you get when you are admitted to the hospital is pretty much random.

In other words, if you are admitted to the hospital for an acute illness and get a hospitalist as your attending, you have no control over whether it is a man or a woman. Is this a randomized trial? No, but it’s not bad.

Researchers used Medicare claims data to identify adults over age 65 who had nonelective hospital admissions throughout the United States. The claims revealed the sex of the patient and the name of the attending physician. By linking to a medical provider database, they could determine the sex of the provider.

The goal was to look at outcomes across four dyads:

• Male patient – male doctor
• Male patient – female doctor
• Female patient – male doctor
• Female patient – female doctor

The primary outcome was 30-day mortality.

I told you that focusing on hospitalists produces some pseudorandomization, but let’s look at the data to be sure. Just under a million patients were treated by approximately 50,000 physicians, 30% of whom were female. And, though female patients and male patients differed, they did not differ with respect to the sex of their hospitalist. So, by physician sex, patients were similar in mean age, race, ethnicity, household income, eligibility for Medicaid, and comorbid conditions. The authors even created a “predicted mortality” score which was similar across the groups as well.

Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

It’s a battle of the sexes today as we dive into a paper that makes you say, “Wow, what an interesting study” and also “Boy, am I glad I didn’t do that study.” That’s because studies like this are always somewhat fraught; they say something about medicine but also something about society — and that makes this a bit precarious. But that’s never stopped us before. So, let’s go ahead and try to answer the question: Do women make better doctors than men?

On the surface, this question seems nearly impossible to answer. It’s too broad; what does it mean to be a “better” doctor? At first blush it seems that there are just too many variables to control for here: the type of doctor, the type of patient, the clinical scenario, and so on.

But this study, “Comparison of hospital mortality and readmission rates by physician and patient sex,” which appears in Annals of Internal Medicine, uses a fairly ingenious method to cut through all the bias by leveraging two simple facts: First, hospital medicine is largely conducted by hospitalists these days; second, due to the shift-based nature of hospitalist work, the hospitalist you get when you are admitted to the hospital is pretty much random.

In other words, if you are admitted to the hospital for an acute illness and get a hospitalist as your attending, you have no control over whether it is a man or a woman. Is this a randomized trial? No, but it’s not bad.

Researchers used Medicare claims data to identify adults over age 65 who had nonelective hospital admissions throughout the United States. The claims revealed the sex of the patient and the name of the attending physician. By linking to a medical provider database, they could determine the sex of the provider.

The goal was to look at outcomes across four dyads:

• Male patient – male doctor
• Male patient – female doctor
• Female patient – male doctor
• Female patient – female doctor

The primary outcome was 30-day mortality.

I told you that focusing on hospitalists produces some pseudorandomization, but let’s look at the data to be sure. Just under a million patients were treated by approximately 50,000 physicians, 30% of whom were female. And, though female patients and male patients differed, they did not differ with respect to the sex of their hospitalist. So, by physician sex, patients were similar in mean age, race, ethnicity, household income, eligibility for Medicaid, and comorbid conditions. The authors even created a “predicted mortality” score which was similar across the groups as well.

Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

It’s a battle of the sexes today as we dive into a paper that makes you say, “Wow, what an interesting study” and also “Boy, am I glad I didn’t do that study.” That’s because studies like this are always somewhat fraught; they say something about medicine but also something about society — and that makes this a bit precarious. But that’s never stopped us before. So, let’s go ahead and try to answer the question: Do women make better doctors than men?

On the surface, this question seems nearly impossible to answer. It’s too broad; what does it mean to be a “better” doctor? At first blush it seems that there are just too many variables to control for here: the type of doctor, the type of patient, the clinical scenario, and so on.

But this study, “Comparison of hospital mortality and readmission rates by physician and patient sex,” which appears in Annals of Internal Medicine, uses a fairly ingenious method to cut through all the bias by leveraging two simple facts: First, hospital medicine is largely conducted by hospitalists these days; second, due to the shift-based nature of hospitalist work, the hospitalist you get when you are admitted to the hospital is pretty much random.

In other words, if you are admitted to the hospital for an acute illness and get a hospitalist as your attending, you have no control over whether it is a man or a woman. Is this a randomized trial? No, but it’s not bad.

Researchers used Medicare claims data to identify adults over age 65 who had nonelective hospital admissions throughout the United States. The claims revealed the sex of the patient and the name of the attending physician. By linking to a medical provider database, they could determine the sex of the provider.

The goal was to look at outcomes across four dyads:

• Male patient – male doctor
• Male patient – female doctor
• Female patient – male doctor
• Female patient – female doctor

The primary outcome was 30-day mortality.

I told you that focusing on hospitalists produces some pseudorandomization, but let’s look at the data to be sure. Just under a million patients were treated by approximately 50,000 physicians, 30% of whom were female. And, though female patients and male patients differed, they did not differ with respect to the sex of their hospitalist. So, by physician sex, patients were similar in mean age, race, ethnicity, household income, eligibility for Medicaid, and comorbid conditions. The authors even created a “predicted mortality” score which was similar across the groups as well.

Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — Behavioral avoidance could limit the long-term efficacy of exposure and response prevention (ERP), a widely used treatment for obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), a new analysis shows. 

Although avoidant patients with OCD reported symptom improvement immediately after treatment, baseline avoidance was associated with significantly worse outcomes 1 year later. 

“Avoidance is often overlooked in OCD,” said lead investigator Michael Wheaton, PhD, an assistant professor of psychology at Barnard College in New York. “It’s really important clinically to focus on that.” 

The findings were presented at the Anxiety and Depression Association of America (ADAA) annual conference and published online in the Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders.
 

The Avoidance Question

Although ERP is often included in treatment for OCD, between 38% and 60% of patients have residual symptoms after treatment and as many as a quarter don’t respond at all, Dr. Wheaton said. 

Severe pretreatment avoidance could affect the efficacy of ERP, which involves exposing patients to situations and stimuli they may usually avoid. But prior research to identify predictors of ERP outcomes have largely excluded severity of pretreatment avoidance as a factor.

The new study analyzed data from 161 Norwegian adults with treatment-resistant OCD who participated in a concentrated ERP therapy called the Bergen 4-day Exposure and Response Prevention (B4DT) treatment. This method delivers intensive treatment over 4 consecutive days in small groups with a 1:1 ratio of therapists to patients. 

B4DT is common throughout Norway, with the treatment offered at 55 clinics, and has been trialed in other countries including the United States, Nepal, Ecuador, and Kenya.

Symptom severity was measured using the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (YBOCS) at baseline, immediately after treatment, and 3 and 12 months later. Functional impairment was measured 12 months after treatment using the Work and Social Adjustment Scale.

Although the formal scoring of the YBOCS does not include any questions about avoidance, one question in the auxiliary items does: “Have you been avoiding doing anything, going anyplace or being with anyone because of obsessional thoughts or out of a need to perform compulsions?” 

Dr. Wheaton used this response, which is rated on a five-point scale, to measure avoidance. Overall, 18.8% of participants had no deliberate avoidance, 15% were rated as having mild avoidance, 36% moderate, 23% severe, and 6.8% extreme.
 

Long-Term Outcomes

Overall, 84% of participants responded to treatment, with a change in mean YBOCS scores from 26.98 at baseline to 12.28 immediately after treatment. Acute outcomes were similar between avoidant and nonavoidant patients. 

But at 12-month follow-up, even after controlling for pretreatment OCD severity, patients with more extensive avoidance at baseline had worse long-term outcomes — both more severe OCD symptoms (P = .031) and greater functional impairment (P = .002).

Across all patients, average avoidance decreased significantly immediately after the concentrated ERP treatment. Average avoidance increased somewhat at 3- and 12-month follow-up but remained significantly improved from pretreatment.

Interestingly, patients’ change in avoidance immediately post-treatment to 3 months post-treatment predicted worsening of OCD severity at 12 months. This change could potentially identify people at risk of relapse, Dr. Wheaton said.

Previous research has shown that pretreatment OCD severity, measured using the YBOCS, does not significantly predict ERP outcomes, and this study found the same. 
 

Relapse Prevention

“The fact that they did equally well in the short run I think was great,” Dr. Wheaton said. 

Previous research, including 2018 and 2023 papers from Wheaton’s team, has shown that more avoidant patients have worse outcomes from standard 12-week ERP programs. 

One possible explanation for this difference is that in the Bergen treatment, most exposures happen during face-to-face time with a therapist instead of as homework, which may be easier to avoid, he said.

“But then the finding was that their symptoms were worsening over time — their avoidance was sliding back into old habits,” said Dr. Wheaton.

He would like to see the study replicated in diverse populations outside Norway and in treatment-naive people. Dr. Wheaton also noted that the study assessed avoidance with only a single item. 

Future work is needed to test ways to improve relapse prevention. For example, clinicians may be able to monitor for avoidance behaviors post-treatment, which could be the start of a relapse, said Dr. Wheaton.

Although clinicians consider avoidance when treating phobias, social anxiety disorder, and panic disorder, “somehow avoidance got relegated to item 11 on the YBOCS that isn’t scored,” Helen Blair Simpson, MD, PhD, director of the Center for OCD and Related Disorders at Columbia University, New York, New York, said during the presentation.

A direct implication of Dr. Wheaton’s findings to clinical practice is to “talk to people about their avoidance right up front,” said Dr. Simpson, who was not part of the study. 

Clinicians who deliver ERP in their practices “can apply this tomorrow,” Dr. Simpson added. 

Dr. Wheaton reported no disclosures. Dr. Simpson reported a stipend from the American Medical Association for serving as associate editor of JAMA Psychiatry and royalties from UpToDate, Inc for articles on OCD and from Cambridge University Press for editing a book on anxiety disorders.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — Behavioral avoidance could limit the long-term efficacy of exposure and response prevention (ERP), a widely used treatment for obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), a new analysis shows. 

Although avoidant patients with OCD reported symptom improvement immediately after treatment, baseline avoidance was associated with significantly worse outcomes 1 year later. 

“Avoidance is often overlooked in OCD,” said lead investigator Michael Wheaton, PhD, an assistant professor of psychology at Barnard College in New York. “It’s really important clinically to focus on that.” 

The findings were presented at the Anxiety and Depression Association of America (ADAA) annual conference and published online in the Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders.
 

The Avoidance Question

Although ERP is often included in treatment for OCD, between 38% and 60% of patients have residual symptoms after treatment and as many as a quarter don’t respond at all, Dr. Wheaton said. 

Severe pretreatment avoidance could affect the efficacy of ERP, which involves exposing patients to situations and stimuli they may usually avoid. But prior research to identify predictors of ERP outcomes have largely excluded severity of pretreatment avoidance as a factor.

The new study analyzed data from 161 Norwegian adults with treatment-resistant OCD who participated in a concentrated ERP therapy called the Bergen 4-day Exposure and Response Prevention (B4DT) treatment. This method delivers intensive treatment over 4 consecutive days in small groups with a 1:1 ratio of therapists to patients. 

B4DT is common throughout Norway, with the treatment offered at 55 clinics, and has been trialed in other countries including the United States, Nepal, Ecuador, and Kenya.

Symptom severity was measured using the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (YBOCS) at baseline, immediately after treatment, and 3 and 12 months later. Functional impairment was measured 12 months after treatment using the Work and Social Adjustment Scale.

Although the formal scoring of the YBOCS does not include any questions about avoidance, one question in the auxiliary items does: “Have you been avoiding doing anything, going anyplace or being with anyone because of obsessional thoughts or out of a need to perform compulsions?” 

Dr. Wheaton used this response, which is rated on a five-point scale, to measure avoidance. Overall, 18.8% of participants had no deliberate avoidance, 15% were rated as having mild avoidance, 36% moderate, 23% severe, and 6.8% extreme.
 

Long-Term Outcomes

Overall, 84% of participants responded to treatment, with a change in mean YBOCS scores from 26.98 at baseline to 12.28 immediately after treatment. Acute outcomes were similar between avoidant and nonavoidant patients. 

But at 12-month follow-up, even after controlling for pretreatment OCD severity, patients with more extensive avoidance at baseline had worse long-term outcomes — both more severe OCD symptoms (P = .031) and greater functional impairment (P = .002).

Across all patients, average avoidance decreased significantly immediately after the concentrated ERP treatment. Average avoidance increased somewhat at 3- and 12-month follow-up but remained significantly improved from pretreatment.

Interestingly, patients’ change in avoidance immediately post-treatment to 3 months post-treatment predicted worsening of OCD severity at 12 months. This change could potentially identify people at risk of relapse, Dr. Wheaton said.

Previous research has shown that pretreatment OCD severity, measured using the YBOCS, does not significantly predict ERP outcomes, and this study found the same. 
 

Relapse Prevention

“The fact that they did equally well in the short run I think was great,” Dr. Wheaton said. 

Previous research, including 2018 and 2023 papers from Wheaton’s team, has shown that more avoidant patients have worse outcomes from standard 12-week ERP programs. 

One possible explanation for this difference is that in the Bergen treatment, most exposures happen during face-to-face time with a therapist instead of as homework, which may be easier to avoid, he said.

“But then the finding was that their symptoms were worsening over time — their avoidance was sliding back into old habits,” said Dr. Wheaton.

He would like to see the study replicated in diverse populations outside Norway and in treatment-naive people. Dr. Wheaton also noted that the study assessed avoidance with only a single item. 

Future work is needed to test ways to improve relapse prevention. For example, clinicians may be able to monitor for avoidance behaviors post-treatment, which could be the start of a relapse, said Dr. Wheaton.

Although clinicians consider avoidance when treating phobias, social anxiety disorder, and panic disorder, “somehow avoidance got relegated to item 11 on the YBOCS that isn’t scored,” Helen Blair Simpson, MD, PhD, director of the Center for OCD and Related Disorders at Columbia University, New York, New York, said during the presentation.

A direct implication of Dr. Wheaton’s findings to clinical practice is to “talk to people about their avoidance right up front,” said Dr. Simpson, who was not part of the study. 

Clinicians who deliver ERP in their practices “can apply this tomorrow,” Dr. Simpson added. 

Dr. Wheaton reported no disclosures. Dr. Simpson reported a stipend from the American Medical Association for serving as associate editor of JAMA Psychiatry and royalties from UpToDate, Inc for articles on OCD and from Cambridge University Press for editing a book on anxiety disorders.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — Behavioral avoidance could limit the long-term efficacy of exposure and response prevention (ERP), a widely used treatment for obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), a new analysis shows. 

Although avoidant patients with OCD reported symptom improvement immediately after treatment, baseline avoidance was associated with significantly worse outcomes 1 year later. 

“Avoidance is often overlooked in OCD,” said lead investigator Michael Wheaton, PhD, an assistant professor of psychology at Barnard College in New York. “It’s really important clinically to focus on that.” 

The findings were presented at the Anxiety and Depression Association of America (ADAA) annual conference and published online in the Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders.
 

The Avoidance Question

Although ERP is often included in treatment for OCD, between 38% and 60% of patients have residual symptoms after treatment and as many as a quarter don’t respond at all, Dr. Wheaton said. 

Severe pretreatment avoidance could affect the efficacy of ERP, which involves exposing patients to situations and stimuli they may usually avoid. But prior research to identify predictors of ERP outcomes have largely excluded severity of pretreatment avoidance as a factor.

The new study analyzed data from 161 Norwegian adults with treatment-resistant OCD who participated in a concentrated ERP therapy called the Bergen 4-day Exposure and Response Prevention (B4DT) treatment. This method delivers intensive treatment over 4 consecutive days in small groups with a 1:1 ratio of therapists to patients. 

B4DT is common throughout Norway, with the treatment offered at 55 clinics, and has been trialed in other countries including the United States, Nepal, Ecuador, and Kenya.

Symptom severity was measured using the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (YBOCS) at baseline, immediately after treatment, and 3 and 12 months later. Functional impairment was measured 12 months after treatment using the Work and Social Adjustment Scale.

Although the formal scoring of the YBOCS does not include any questions about avoidance, one question in the auxiliary items does: “Have you been avoiding doing anything, going anyplace or being with anyone because of obsessional thoughts or out of a need to perform compulsions?” 

Dr. Wheaton used this response, which is rated on a five-point scale, to measure avoidance. Overall, 18.8% of participants had no deliberate avoidance, 15% were rated as having mild avoidance, 36% moderate, 23% severe, and 6.8% extreme.
 

Long-Term Outcomes

Overall, 84% of participants responded to treatment, with a change in mean YBOCS scores from 26.98 at baseline to 12.28 immediately after treatment. Acute outcomes were similar between avoidant and nonavoidant patients. 

But at 12-month follow-up, even after controlling for pretreatment OCD severity, patients with more extensive avoidance at baseline had worse long-term outcomes — both more severe OCD symptoms (P = .031) and greater functional impairment (P = .002).

Across all patients, average avoidance decreased significantly immediately after the concentrated ERP treatment. Average avoidance increased somewhat at 3- and 12-month follow-up but remained significantly improved from pretreatment.

Interestingly, patients’ change in avoidance immediately post-treatment to 3 months post-treatment predicted worsening of OCD severity at 12 months. This change could potentially identify people at risk of relapse, Dr. Wheaton said.

Previous research has shown that pretreatment OCD severity, measured using the YBOCS, does not significantly predict ERP outcomes, and this study found the same. 
 

Relapse Prevention

“The fact that they did equally well in the short run I think was great,” Dr. Wheaton said. 

Previous research, including 2018 and 2023 papers from Wheaton’s team, has shown that more avoidant patients have worse outcomes from standard 12-week ERP programs. 

One possible explanation for this difference is that in the Bergen treatment, most exposures happen during face-to-face time with a therapist instead of as homework, which may be easier to avoid, he said.

“But then the finding was that their symptoms were worsening over time — their avoidance was sliding back into old habits,” said Dr. Wheaton.

He would like to see the study replicated in diverse populations outside Norway and in treatment-naive people. Dr. Wheaton also noted that the study assessed avoidance with only a single item. 

Future work is needed to test ways to improve relapse prevention. For example, clinicians may be able to monitor for avoidance behaviors post-treatment, which could be the start of a relapse, said Dr. Wheaton.

Although clinicians consider avoidance when treating phobias, social anxiety disorder, and panic disorder, “somehow avoidance got relegated to item 11 on the YBOCS that isn’t scored,” Helen Blair Simpson, MD, PhD, director of the Center for OCD and Related Disorders at Columbia University, New York, New York, said during the presentation.

A direct implication of Dr. Wheaton’s findings to clinical practice is to “talk to people about their avoidance right up front,” said Dr. Simpson, who was not part of the study. 

Clinicians who deliver ERP in their practices “can apply this tomorrow,” Dr. Simpson added. 

Dr. Wheaton reported no disclosures. Dr. Simpson reported a stipend from the American Medical Association for serving as associate editor of JAMA Psychiatry and royalties from UpToDate, Inc for articles on OCD and from Cambridge University Press for editing a book on anxiety disorders.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

With all the excitement about GLP-1 agonists, I get many questions from providers about which antiobesity drug they should prescribe. I’ll tell you the methods that I use to determine which drug is best for which patient.

Of course, we want to make sure that we’re treating the right condition. If the patient has type 2 diabetes, we tend to give them medication that is indicated for type 2 diabetes. Many GLP-1 agonists are available in a diabetes version and a chronic weight management or obesity version. If a patient has diabetes and obesity, they can receive either one. If a patient has only diabetes but not obesity, they should be prescribed the diabetes version. For obesity without diabetes, we tend to stick with the drugs that are indicated for chronic weight management.

Let’s go through them.

Exenatide. In chronological order of approval, the first GLP-1 drug that was used for diabetes dates back to exenatide (Bydureon). Bydureon had a partner called Byetta (also exenatide), both of which are still on the market but infrequently used. Some patients reported that these medications were inconvenient because they required twice-daily injections and caused painful injection-site nodules.

Diabetes drugs in more common use include liraglutide (Victoza) for type 2 diabetes. It is a daily injection and has various doses. We always start low and increase with tolerance and desired effect for A1c.

Liraglutide. Victoza has an antiobesity counterpart called Saxenda. The Saxenda pen looks very similar to the Victoza pen. It is a daily GLP-1 agonist for chronic weight management. The SCALE trial demonstrated 8%-12% weight loss with Saxenda.

Those are the daily injections: Victoza for diabetes and Saxenda for weight loss.

Our patients are very excited about the advent of weekly injections for diabetes and weight management. Ozempic is very popular. It is a weekly GLP-1 agonist for type 2 diabetes. Many patients come in asking for Ozempic, and we must make sure that we’re moving them in the right direction depending on their condition.

Semaglutide. Ozempic has a few different doses. It is a weekly injection and has been found to be quite efficacious for treating diabetes. The drug’s weight loss counterpart is called Wegovy, which comes in a different pen. Both forms contain the compound semaglutide. While all of these GLP-1 agonists are indicated to treat type 2 diabetes or for weight management, Wegovy has a special indication that none of the others have. In March 2024, Wegovy acquired an indication to decrease cardiac risk in those with a BMI ≥ 27 and a previous cardiac history. This will really change the accessibility of this medication because patients with heart conditions who are on Medicare are expected to have access to Wegovy.

Tirzepatide. Another weekly injection for treatment of type 2 diabetes is called Mounjaro. Its counterpart for weight management is called Zepbound, which was found to have about 20.9% weight loss over 72 weeks. These medications have similar side effects in differing degrees, but the most-often reported are nausea, stool changes, abdominal pain, and reflux. There are some other potential side effects; I recommend that you read the individual prescribing information available for each drug to have more clarity about that.

It is important that we stay on label for using the GLP-1 receptor agonists, for many reasons. One, it increases our patients’ accessibility to the right medication for them, and we can also make sure that we’re treating the patient with the right drug according to the clinical trials. When the clinical trials are done, the study populations demonstrate safety and efficacy for that population. But if we’re prescribing a GLP-1 for a different population, it is considered off-label use.
 

Dr. Lofton, an obesity medicine specialist, is clinical associate professor of surgery and medicine at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, and director of the medical weight management program at NYU Langone Weight Management Center, New York. She disclosed ties to Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

With all the excitement about GLP-1 agonists, I get many questions from providers about which antiobesity drug they should prescribe. I’ll tell you the methods that I use to determine which drug is best for which patient.

Of course, we want to make sure that we’re treating the right condition. If the patient has type 2 diabetes, we tend to give them medication that is indicated for type 2 diabetes. Many GLP-1 agonists are available in a diabetes version and a chronic weight management or obesity version. If a patient has diabetes and obesity, they can receive either one. If a patient has only diabetes but not obesity, they should be prescribed the diabetes version. For obesity without diabetes, we tend to stick with the drugs that are indicated for chronic weight management.

Let’s go through them.

Exenatide. In chronological order of approval, the first GLP-1 drug that was used for diabetes dates back to exenatide (Bydureon). Bydureon had a partner called Byetta (also exenatide), both of which are still on the market but infrequently used. Some patients reported that these medications were inconvenient because they required twice-daily injections and caused painful injection-site nodules.

Diabetes drugs in more common use include liraglutide (Victoza) for type 2 diabetes. It is a daily injection and has various doses. We always start low and increase with tolerance and desired effect for A1c.

Liraglutide. Victoza has an antiobesity counterpart called Saxenda. The Saxenda pen looks very similar to the Victoza pen. It is a daily GLP-1 agonist for chronic weight management. The SCALE trial demonstrated 8%-12% weight loss with Saxenda.

Those are the daily injections: Victoza for diabetes and Saxenda for weight loss.

Our patients are very excited about the advent of weekly injections for diabetes and weight management. Ozempic is very popular. It is a weekly GLP-1 agonist for type 2 diabetes. Many patients come in asking for Ozempic, and we must make sure that we’re moving them in the right direction depending on their condition.

Semaglutide. Ozempic has a few different doses. It is a weekly injection and has been found to be quite efficacious for treating diabetes. The drug’s weight loss counterpart is called Wegovy, which comes in a different pen. Both forms contain the compound semaglutide. While all of these GLP-1 agonists are indicated to treat type 2 diabetes or for weight management, Wegovy has a special indication that none of the others have. In March 2024, Wegovy acquired an indication to decrease cardiac risk in those with a BMI ≥ 27 and a previous cardiac history. This will really change the accessibility of this medication because patients with heart conditions who are on Medicare are expected to have access to Wegovy.

Tirzepatide. Another weekly injection for treatment of type 2 diabetes is called Mounjaro. Its counterpart for weight management is called Zepbound, which was found to have about 20.9% weight loss over 72 weeks. These medications have similar side effects in differing degrees, but the most-often reported are nausea, stool changes, abdominal pain, and reflux. There are some other potential side effects; I recommend that you read the individual prescribing information available for each drug to have more clarity about that.

It is important that we stay on label for using the GLP-1 receptor agonists, for many reasons. One, it increases our patients’ accessibility to the right medication for them, and we can also make sure that we’re treating the patient with the right drug according to the clinical trials. When the clinical trials are done, the study populations demonstrate safety and efficacy for that population. But if we’re prescribing a GLP-1 for a different population, it is considered off-label use.
 

Dr. Lofton, an obesity medicine specialist, is clinical associate professor of surgery and medicine at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, and director of the medical weight management program at NYU Langone Weight Management Center, New York. She disclosed ties to Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

With all the excitement about GLP-1 agonists, I get many questions from providers about which antiobesity drug they should prescribe. I’ll tell you the methods that I use to determine which drug is best for which patient.

Of course, we want to make sure that we’re treating the right condition. If the patient has type 2 diabetes, we tend to give them medication that is indicated for type 2 diabetes. Many GLP-1 agonists are available in a diabetes version and a chronic weight management or obesity version. If a patient has diabetes and obesity, they can receive either one. If a patient has only diabetes but not obesity, they should be prescribed the diabetes version. For obesity without diabetes, we tend to stick with the drugs that are indicated for chronic weight management.

Let’s go through them.

Exenatide. In chronological order of approval, the first GLP-1 drug that was used for diabetes dates back to exenatide (Bydureon). Bydureon had a partner called Byetta (also exenatide), both of which are still on the market but infrequently used. Some patients reported that these medications were inconvenient because they required twice-daily injections and caused painful injection-site nodules.

Diabetes drugs in more common use include liraglutide (Victoza) for type 2 diabetes. It is a daily injection and has various doses. We always start low and increase with tolerance and desired effect for A1c.

Liraglutide. Victoza has an antiobesity counterpart called Saxenda. The Saxenda pen looks very similar to the Victoza pen. It is a daily GLP-1 agonist for chronic weight management. The SCALE trial demonstrated 8%-12% weight loss with Saxenda.

Those are the daily injections: Victoza for diabetes and Saxenda for weight loss.

Our patients are very excited about the advent of weekly injections for diabetes and weight management. Ozempic is very popular. It is a weekly GLP-1 agonist for type 2 diabetes. Many patients come in asking for Ozempic, and we must make sure that we’re moving them in the right direction depending on their condition.

Semaglutide. Ozempic has a few different doses. It is a weekly injection and has been found to be quite efficacious for treating diabetes. The drug’s weight loss counterpart is called Wegovy, which comes in a different pen. Both forms contain the compound semaglutide. While all of these GLP-1 agonists are indicated to treat type 2 diabetes or for weight management, Wegovy has a special indication that none of the others have. In March 2024, Wegovy acquired an indication to decrease cardiac risk in those with a BMI ≥ 27 and a previous cardiac history. This will really change the accessibility of this medication because patients with heart conditions who are on Medicare are expected to have access to Wegovy.

Tirzepatide. Another weekly injection for treatment of type 2 diabetes is called Mounjaro. Its counterpart for weight management is called Zepbound, which was found to have about 20.9% weight loss over 72 weeks. These medications have similar side effects in differing degrees, but the most-often reported are nausea, stool changes, abdominal pain, and reflux. There are some other potential side effects; I recommend that you read the individual prescribing information available for each drug to have more clarity about that.

It is important that we stay on label for using the GLP-1 receptor agonists, for many reasons. One, it increases our patients’ accessibility to the right medication for them, and we can also make sure that we’re treating the patient with the right drug according to the clinical trials. When the clinical trials are done, the study populations demonstrate safety and efficacy for that population. But if we’re prescribing a GLP-1 for a different population, it is considered off-label use.
 

Dr. Lofton, an obesity medicine specialist, is clinical associate professor of surgery and medicine at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, and director of the medical weight management program at NYU Langone Weight Management Center, New York. She disclosed ties to Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — When should patients with advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer receive osimertinib plus platinum-based chemotherapy in the frontline setting and when is osimertinib enough on its own?

That is a question brewing among some oncologists now that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved osimertinib (Tagrisso, AstraZeneca) for both indications in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations.

An answer began to emerge in research presented at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

An exploratory analysis of the FLAURA2 trial found that, when patients have EGFR mutations on baseline circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing, the combination treatment can extend progression-free survival (PFS). In this patient group, those receiving osimertinib alongside pemetrexed plus cisplatin or carboplatin had a 9-month PFS advantage compared with those who received osimertinib alone.

Conversely, when patients do not have EGFR mutations following baseline ctDNA testing, osimertinib alone appears to offer similar PFS outcomes to the combination therapy, but with less toxicity.

“Baseline detection of plasma EGFR mutations may identify a subgroup of patients who derive most benefit from the addition of platinum-pemetrexed to osimertinib as first-line treatment of EGFR-mutated advance non–small cell lung cancer,” investigator Pasi A. Jänne, MD, PhD, a lung cancer oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said during his presentation.

The FLAURA2 trial randomized 557 patients equally to daily osimertinib either alone or with pemetrexed plus cisplatin or carboplatin every 3 weeks for four cycles followed by pemetrexed every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Patients were tested for Ex19del or L858R EGFR mutations at baseline and at 3 and 6 weeks; baseline mutations were found in 73% of evaluable patients.

In patients with baseline mutations, the median PFS was 24.8 months with the combination therapy vs 13.9 months with osimertinib alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.60).

In patients without baseline mutations, the median PFS was similar in both groups — 33.3 months with the combination vs 30.3 months with monotherapy (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.51-1.72).

The investigators also found that having baseline mutations was associated with worse outcomes regardless of study arm, and mutation clearance was associated with improved outcomes. Clearance occurred more quickly among patients receiving the combination treatment, but almost 90% of patients in both arms cleared their mutations by week 6.

“As we move forward and think about which of our patients we would treat with the combination ... the presence of baseline EGFR mutations in ctDNA may be one of the features that goes into the conversation,” Dr. Jänne said.

Study discussant Marina Chiara Garassino, MD, a thoracic oncologist at the University of Chicago, agreed that this trial can help oncologists make this kind of treatment decision.

Patients with baseline EGFR mutations also tended to have larger tumors, more brain metastases, and worse performance scores; the combination therapy makes sense when such factors are present in patients with baseline EGFR mutations, Dr. Garassino said.

The wrinkle in the findings is that the study used digital droplet polymerase chain reaction (Biodesix) to test for EGFR mutations, which is not commonly used. Clinicians often use next-generation sequencing, which is less sensitive and can lead to false negatives.

It makes it difficult to know how to apply the findings to everyday practice, but Janne hopes a study will be done to correlate next-generation sequencing detection with outcomes.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca, maker of osimertinib, and researchers included AstraZeneca employees. Dr. Jänne is a consultant for and reported research funding from the company. He is a co-inventor on an EGFR mutations patent. Dr. Garassino is also an AstraZeneca consultant and reported institutional financial interests in the company.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — When should patients with advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer receive osimertinib plus platinum-based chemotherapy in the frontline setting and when is osimertinib enough on its own?

That is a question brewing among some oncologists now that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved osimertinib (Tagrisso, AstraZeneca) for both indications in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations.

An answer began to emerge in research presented at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

An exploratory analysis of the FLAURA2 trial found that, when patients have EGFR mutations on baseline circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing, the combination treatment can extend progression-free survival (PFS). In this patient group, those receiving osimertinib alongside pemetrexed plus cisplatin or carboplatin had a 9-month PFS advantage compared with those who received osimertinib alone.

Conversely, when patients do not have EGFR mutations following baseline ctDNA testing, osimertinib alone appears to offer similar PFS outcomes to the combination therapy, but with less toxicity.

“Baseline detection of plasma EGFR mutations may identify a subgroup of patients who derive most benefit from the addition of platinum-pemetrexed to osimertinib as first-line treatment of EGFR-mutated advance non–small cell lung cancer,” investigator Pasi A. Jänne, MD, PhD, a lung cancer oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said during his presentation.

The FLAURA2 trial randomized 557 patients equally to daily osimertinib either alone or with pemetrexed plus cisplatin or carboplatin every 3 weeks for four cycles followed by pemetrexed every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Patients were tested for Ex19del or L858R EGFR mutations at baseline and at 3 and 6 weeks; baseline mutations were found in 73% of evaluable patients.

In patients with baseline mutations, the median PFS was 24.8 months with the combination therapy vs 13.9 months with osimertinib alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.60).

In patients without baseline mutations, the median PFS was similar in both groups — 33.3 months with the combination vs 30.3 months with monotherapy (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.51-1.72).

The investigators also found that having baseline mutations was associated with worse outcomes regardless of study arm, and mutation clearance was associated with improved outcomes. Clearance occurred more quickly among patients receiving the combination treatment, but almost 90% of patients in both arms cleared their mutations by week 6.

“As we move forward and think about which of our patients we would treat with the combination ... the presence of baseline EGFR mutations in ctDNA may be one of the features that goes into the conversation,” Dr. Jänne said.

Study discussant Marina Chiara Garassino, MD, a thoracic oncologist at the University of Chicago, agreed that this trial can help oncologists make this kind of treatment decision.

Patients with baseline EGFR mutations also tended to have larger tumors, more brain metastases, and worse performance scores; the combination therapy makes sense when such factors are present in patients with baseline EGFR mutations, Dr. Garassino said.

The wrinkle in the findings is that the study used digital droplet polymerase chain reaction (Biodesix) to test for EGFR mutations, which is not commonly used. Clinicians often use next-generation sequencing, which is less sensitive and can lead to false negatives.

It makes it difficult to know how to apply the findings to everyday practice, but Janne hopes a study will be done to correlate next-generation sequencing detection with outcomes.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca, maker of osimertinib, and researchers included AstraZeneca employees. Dr. Jänne is a consultant for and reported research funding from the company. He is a co-inventor on an EGFR mutations patent. Dr. Garassino is also an AstraZeneca consultant and reported institutional financial interests in the company.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — When should patients with advanced or metastatic non–small cell lung cancer receive osimertinib plus platinum-based chemotherapy in the frontline setting and when is osimertinib enough on its own?

That is a question brewing among some oncologists now that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved osimertinib (Tagrisso, AstraZeneca) for both indications in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations.

An answer began to emerge in research presented at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

An exploratory analysis of the FLAURA2 trial found that, when patients have EGFR mutations on baseline circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing, the combination treatment can extend progression-free survival (PFS). In this patient group, those receiving osimertinib alongside pemetrexed plus cisplatin or carboplatin had a 9-month PFS advantage compared with those who received osimertinib alone.

Conversely, when patients do not have EGFR mutations following baseline ctDNA testing, osimertinib alone appears to offer similar PFS outcomes to the combination therapy, but with less toxicity.

“Baseline detection of plasma EGFR mutations may identify a subgroup of patients who derive most benefit from the addition of platinum-pemetrexed to osimertinib as first-line treatment of EGFR-mutated advance non–small cell lung cancer,” investigator Pasi A. Jänne, MD, PhD, a lung cancer oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said during his presentation.

The FLAURA2 trial randomized 557 patients equally to daily osimertinib either alone or with pemetrexed plus cisplatin or carboplatin every 3 weeks for four cycles followed by pemetrexed every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Patients were tested for Ex19del or L858R EGFR mutations at baseline and at 3 and 6 weeks; baseline mutations were found in 73% of evaluable patients.

In patients with baseline mutations, the median PFS was 24.8 months with the combination therapy vs 13.9 months with osimertinib alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.60).

In patients without baseline mutations, the median PFS was similar in both groups — 33.3 months with the combination vs 30.3 months with monotherapy (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.51-1.72).

The investigators also found that having baseline mutations was associated with worse outcomes regardless of study arm, and mutation clearance was associated with improved outcomes. Clearance occurred more quickly among patients receiving the combination treatment, but almost 90% of patients in both arms cleared their mutations by week 6.

“As we move forward and think about which of our patients we would treat with the combination ... the presence of baseline EGFR mutations in ctDNA may be one of the features that goes into the conversation,” Dr. Jänne said.

Study discussant Marina Chiara Garassino, MD, a thoracic oncologist at the University of Chicago, agreed that this trial can help oncologists make this kind of treatment decision.

Patients with baseline EGFR mutations also tended to have larger tumors, more brain metastases, and worse performance scores; the combination therapy makes sense when such factors are present in patients with baseline EGFR mutations, Dr. Garassino said.

The wrinkle in the findings is that the study used digital droplet polymerase chain reaction (Biodesix) to test for EGFR mutations, which is not commonly used. Clinicians often use next-generation sequencing, which is less sensitive and can lead to false negatives.

It makes it difficult to know how to apply the findings to everyday practice, but Janne hopes a study will be done to correlate next-generation sequencing detection with outcomes.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca, maker of osimertinib, and researchers included AstraZeneca employees. Dr. Jänne is a consultant for and reported research funding from the company. He is a co-inventor on an EGFR mutations patent. Dr. Garassino is also an AstraZeneca consultant and reported institutional financial interests in the company.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the first-in-class interleukin (IL)-15 superagonist nogapendekin alfa inbakicept-pmln (Anktiva), plus bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG), for the treatment of certain non–muscle-invasive bladder cancers that fail to respond to BCG alone.

Specifically, the agent is approved to treat patients with BCG-unresponsive non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer carcinoma in situ with or without Ta or T1 papillary disease. 

The FDA declined an initial approval for the combination in May 2023 because of deficiencies the agency observed during its prelicense inspection of third-party manufacturing organizations. In October 2023, ImmunityBio resubmitted the Biologics License Application, which was accepted.

The new therapy represents addresses “an unmet need” in this high-risk bladder cancer population, the company stated in a press release announcing the initial study findings. Typically, patients with intermediate or high-risk disease undergo bladder tumor resection followed by treatment with BCG, but the cancer recurs in up to 50% of patients, including those who experience a complete response, explained ImmunityBio, which acquired Altor BioScience. 

Approval was based on findings from the single arm, phase 2/3 open-label QUILT-3.032 study, which included 77 patients with BCG-unresponsive, high-risk disease following transurethral resection. All had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. 

Patients received nogapendekin alfa inbakicept-pmln induction via intravesical instillation with BCG followed by maintenance therapy for up to 37 months. 

According to the FDA’s press release, 62% of patients had a complete response, defined as a negative cystoscopy and urine cytology; 58% of those with a complete response had a duration of response lasting at least 12 months and 40% had a duration of response lasting 24 months or longer.

The safety of the combination was evaluated in a cohort of 88 patients. Serious adverse reactions occurred in 16% of patients. The most common treatment-emergent adverse effects included dysuria, pollakiuria, and hematuria, which are associated with intravesical BCG; 86% of these events were grade 1 or 2. Overall, 7% of patients discontinued the combination owing to adverse reactions.

The recommended dose is 400 mcg administered intravesically with BCG once a week for 6 weeks as induction therapy, with an option for a second induction course if patients don’t achieve a complete response at 3 months. The recommended maintenance therapy dose is 400 mcg with BCG once a week for 3 weeks at months 4, 7, 10, 13, and 19. Patients who achieve a complete response at 25 months and beyond may receive maintenance instillations with BCG once a week for 3 weeks at months 25, 31, and 37. The maximum treatment duration is 37 months.

The FDA recommends discontinuing treatment if disease persists after second induction or owing to disease recurrence, progression, or unacceptable toxicity. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the first-in-class interleukin (IL)-15 superagonist nogapendekin alfa inbakicept-pmln (Anktiva), plus bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG), for the treatment of certain non–muscle-invasive bladder cancers that fail to respond to BCG alone.

Specifically, the agent is approved to treat patients with BCG-unresponsive non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer carcinoma in situ with or without Ta or T1 papillary disease. 

The FDA declined an initial approval for the combination in May 2023 because of deficiencies the agency observed during its prelicense inspection of third-party manufacturing organizations. In October 2023, ImmunityBio resubmitted the Biologics License Application, which was accepted.

The new therapy represents addresses “an unmet need” in this high-risk bladder cancer population, the company stated in a press release announcing the initial study findings. Typically, patients with intermediate or high-risk disease undergo bladder tumor resection followed by treatment with BCG, but the cancer recurs in up to 50% of patients, including those who experience a complete response, explained ImmunityBio, which acquired Altor BioScience. 

Approval was based on findings from the single arm, phase 2/3 open-label QUILT-3.032 study, which included 77 patients with BCG-unresponsive, high-risk disease following transurethral resection. All had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. 

Patients received nogapendekin alfa inbakicept-pmln induction via intravesical instillation with BCG followed by maintenance therapy for up to 37 months. 

According to the FDA’s press release, 62% of patients had a complete response, defined as a negative cystoscopy and urine cytology; 58% of those with a complete response had a duration of response lasting at least 12 months and 40% had a duration of response lasting 24 months or longer.

The safety of the combination was evaluated in a cohort of 88 patients. Serious adverse reactions occurred in 16% of patients. The most common treatment-emergent adverse effects included dysuria, pollakiuria, and hematuria, which are associated with intravesical BCG; 86% of these events were grade 1 or 2. Overall, 7% of patients discontinued the combination owing to adverse reactions.

The recommended dose is 400 mcg administered intravesically with BCG once a week for 6 weeks as induction therapy, with an option for a second induction course if patients don’t achieve a complete response at 3 months. The recommended maintenance therapy dose is 400 mcg with BCG once a week for 3 weeks at months 4, 7, 10, 13, and 19. Patients who achieve a complete response at 25 months and beyond may receive maintenance instillations with BCG once a week for 3 weeks at months 25, 31, and 37. The maximum treatment duration is 37 months.

The FDA recommends discontinuing treatment if disease persists after second induction or owing to disease recurrence, progression, or unacceptable toxicity. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the first-in-class interleukin (IL)-15 superagonist nogapendekin alfa inbakicept-pmln (Anktiva), plus bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG), for the treatment of certain non–muscle-invasive bladder cancers that fail to respond to BCG alone.

Specifically, the agent is approved to treat patients with BCG-unresponsive non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer carcinoma in situ with or without Ta or T1 papillary disease. 

The FDA declined an initial approval for the combination in May 2023 because of deficiencies the agency observed during its prelicense inspection of third-party manufacturing organizations. In October 2023, ImmunityBio resubmitted the Biologics License Application, which was accepted.

The new therapy represents addresses “an unmet need” in this high-risk bladder cancer population, the company stated in a press release announcing the initial study findings. Typically, patients with intermediate or high-risk disease undergo bladder tumor resection followed by treatment with BCG, but the cancer recurs in up to 50% of patients, including those who experience a complete response, explained ImmunityBio, which acquired Altor BioScience. 

Approval was based on findings from the single arm, phase 2/3 open-label QUILT-3.032 study, which included 77 patients with BCG-unresponsive, high-risk disease following transurethral resection. All had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. 

Patients received nogapendekin alfa inbakicept-pmln induction via intravesical instillation with BCG followed by maintenance therapy for up to 37 months. 

According to the FDA’s press release, 62% of patients had a complete response, defined as a negative cystoscopy and urine cytology; 58% of those with a complete response had a duration of response lasting at least 12 months and 40% had a duration of response lasting 24 months or longer.

The safety of the combination was evaluated in a cohort of 88 patients. Serious adverse reactions occurred in 16% of patients. The most common treatment-emergent adverse effects included dysuria, pollakiuria, and hematuria, which are associated with intravesical BCG; 86% of these events were grade 1 or 2. Overall, 7% of patients discontinued the combination owing to adverse reactions.

The recommended dose is 400 mcg administered intravesically with BCG once a week for 6 weeks as induction therapy, with an option for a second induction course if patients don’t achieve a complete response at 3 months. The recommended maintenance therapy dose is 400 mcg with BCG once a week for 3 weeks at months 4, 7, 10, 13, and 19. Patients who achieve a complete response at 25 months and beyond may receive maintenance instillations with BCG once a week for 3 weeks at months 25, 31, and 37. The maximum treatment duration is 37 months.

The FDA recommends discontinuing treatment if disease persists after second induction or owing to disease recurrence, progression, or unacceptable toxicity. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Exposure to furan, a chemical present in agricultural products, stabilizers, pharmaceuticals, and heat-processed foods, shows a significant positive correlation with the prevalence and respiratory mortality of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers reviewed data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey database from 2013 to 2018 and identified 270 adults with a diagnosis of COPD and 7212 without.
• Exposure to furan was based on blood furan levels, and participants were divided into five groups on the basis of quartiles of log10-transformed blood furan levels.
• The researchers used a restricted cubic spline analysis to examine the association between COPD risk and blood furan levels and mediating analysis to explore the impact of inflammation.
• The primary outcome of the study was respiratory mortality.

TAKEAWAY:

• Ten COPD patients died of respiratory diseases; adjusted analysis showed a positive correlation between log10-transformed blood furan levels and respiratory mortality in COPD patients (hazard ratio, 41.00, P = .003).
• In a logistic regression analysis, log10-transformed blood furan levels were significantly associated with increased risk for COPD; individuals in the fifth quartile had significantly increased risk compared with the first quartile (odds ratio, 4.47; P = .006).
• COPD demonstrated a significant positive association with monocytes, neutrophils, and basophils, which showed mediated proportions of 8.73%, 20.90%, and 10.94%, respectively, in the relationship between furan exposure and prevalence of COPD (P < .05 for all).

IN PRACTICE:

“The implication [of the findings] is that reducing exposure to furan in the environment could potentially lower the incidence of COPD and improve the prognosis for COPD patients,” but large-scale prospective cohort studies are needed, the researchers wrote in their conclusion.

SOURCE:

The lead author of the study was Di Sun, MD, of Capital Medical University, Beijing, China. The study was published online in BMC Public Health.

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional design prevented establishment of a causal relationship between furan exposure and COPD; lack of data on the conditions of furan exposure and the reliance on self-reports for COPD diagnosis were among the factors that limited the study findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the High Level Public Health Technology Talent Construction Project and Reform and Development Program of Beijing Institute of Respiratory Medicine. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Exposure to furan, a chemical present in agricultural products, stabilizers, pharmaceuticals, and heat-processed foods, shows a significant positive correlation with the prevalence and respiratory mortality of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers reviewed data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey database from 2013 to 2018 and identified 270 adults with a diagnosis of COPD and 7212 without.
• Exposure to furan was based on blood furan levels, and participants were divided into five groups on the basis of quartiles of log10-transformed blood furan levels.
• The researchers used a restricted cubic spline analysis to examine the association between COPD risk and blood furan levels and mediating analysis to explore the impact of inflammation.
• The primary outcome of the study was respiratory mortality.

TAKEAWAY:

• Ten COPD patients died of respiratory diseases; adjusted analysis showed a positive correlation between log10-transformed blood furan levels and respiratory mortality in COPD patients (hazard ratio, 41.00, P = .003).
• In a logistic regression analysis, log10-transformed blood furan levels were significantly associated with increased risk for COPD; individuals in the fifth quartile had significantly increased risk compared with the first quartile (odds ratio, 4.47; P = .006).
• COPD demonstrated a significant positive association with monocytes, neutrophils, and basophils, which showed mediated proportions of 8.73%, 20.90%, and 10.94%, respectively, in the relationship between furan exposure and prevalence of COPD (P < .05 for all).

IN PRACTICE:

“The implication [of the findings] is that reducing exposure to furan in the environment could potentially lower the incidence of COPD and improve the prognosis for COPD patients,” but large-scale prospective cohort studies are needed, the researchers wrote in their conclusion.

SOURCE:

The lead author of the study was Di Sun, MD, of Capital Medical University, Beijing, China. The study was published online in BMC Public Health.

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional design prevented establishment of a causal relationship between furan exposure and COPD; lack of data on the conditions of furan exposure and the reliance on self-reports for COPD diagnosis were among the factors that limited the study findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the High Level Public Health Technology Talent Construction Project and Reform and Development Program of Beijing Institute of Respiratory Medicine. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Exposure to furan, a chemical present in agricultural products, stabilizers, pharmaceuticals, and heat-processed foods, shows a significant positive correlation with the prevalence and respiratory mortality of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers reviewed data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey database from 2013 to 2018 and identified 270 adults with a diagnosis of COPD and 7212 without.
• Exposure to furan was based on blood furan levels, and participants were divided into five groups on the basis of quartiles of log10-transformed blood furan levels.
• The researchers used a restricted cubic spline analysis to examine the association between COPD risk and blood furan levels and mediating analysis to explore the impact of inflammation.
• The primary outcome of the study was respiratory mortality.

TAKEAWAY:

• Ten COPD patients died of respiratory diseases; adjusted analysis showed a positive correlation between log10-transformed blood furan levels and respiratory mortality in COPD patients (hazard ratio, 41.00, P = .003).
• In a logistic regression analysis, log10-transformed blood furan levels were significantly associated with increased risk for COPD; individuals in the fifth quartile had significantly increased risk compared with the first quartile (odds ratio, 4.47; P = .006).
• COPD demonstrated a significant positive association with monocytes, neutrophils, and basophils, which showed mediated proportions of 8.73%, 20.90%, and 10.94%, respectively, in the relationship between furan exposure and prevalence of COPD (P < .05 for all).

IN PRACTICE:

“The implication [of the findings] is that reducing exposure to furan in the environment could potentially lower the incidence of COPD and improve the prognosis for COPD patients,” but large-scale prospective cohort studies are needed, the researchers wrote in their conclusion.

SOURCE:

The lead author of the study was Di Sun, MD, of Capital Medical University, Beijing, China. The study was published online in BMC Public Health.

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional design prevented establishment of a causal relationship between furan exposure and COPD; lack of data on the conditions of furan exposure and the reliance on self-reports for COPD diagnosis were among the factors that limited the study findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the High Level Public Health Technology Talent Construction Project and Reform and Development Program of Beijing Institute of Respiratory Medicine. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Diagnosis: Subcutaneous Fat Necrosis

Histopathology revealed lobular panniculitis with lymphohistiocytic inflammation, lipid crystals, and calcifications in our patient (Figure). Subcutaneous fat necrosis (SCFN) was diagnosed based on these characteristic histopathologic findings. No further treatment was pursued.

Subcutaneous fat necrosis is a rare, self-limiting panniculitis that typically resolves within several weeks to months without scarring. It manifests as red or violaceous subcutaneous nodules or plaques most commonly on the buttocks, trunk, proximal arms and legs, and cheeks.¹ Histopathology reveals lobular panniculitis with dense granulomatous infiltrates of histiocytes, eosinophils, and multinucleated giant cells with needle-shaped crystals. Focal areas of fat necrosis with calcification also can be seen.²

The epidemiology of SCFN is unknown. Most cases occur in healthy full-term to postterm neonates who experience hypoxia, other prenatal stressors, or therapeutic hypothermia for the treatment of hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy.³ Although the etiology is unclear, certain inciting factors such as local tissue hypoxia, cold exposure, meconium aspiration, maternal diabetes, preeclampsia, and mechanical pressure have been proposed. Our patient underwent hypothermic cooling protocol, and it has been suggested that the increased saturated to unsaturated fat concentration in the skin of newborns increases the melting point, thus predisposing them to fat crystalization.⁴ Cases of SCFN involving the scalp are rare; therefore, any newborns receiving hypothermic therapy for hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy should have a thorough skin examination with possible biopsy of lesions that are characteristic of SCFN, such as red or violaceous subcutaneous nodules or plaques, for specific disease identification.

The main complication of SCFN is hypercalcemia, which occurs in approximately 50% of cases. Other serum abnormalities include hyperglycemia, hypertriglyceridemia, and thrombocytopenia, though these findings are not as well associated.⁴ Patients with associated hypercalcemia may be asymptomatic, as in our patient, but other presentations include irritability, weakness, anorexia, vomiting, renal failure, failure to thrive, and encephalopathy. Nephrocalcinosis is a common complication of severe hypercalcemia; however, there is little evidence of associated major renal dysfunction.⁵ The exact mechanism of hypercalcemia is poorly understood. A widely accepted theory postulates that a granulomatous inflammatory infiltrate upregulates 1-α-hydroxylase activity, which enzymatically converts 25-hydroxyvitamin D to its active form, 1,25-dihydroxycholecalciferol, which increases bone resorption and calcium absorption through the gastrointestinal tract and renal systems. Treatments for hypercalcemia include hyperhydration, calcium-wasting diuretics, and low calcium intake.⁶ Furthermore, calcium levels should be obtained at the time of diagnosis and 30, 45, and 60 days after the lesions resolve.⁴

Subcutaneous fat necrosis needs to be differentiated from the more severe panniculitis, sclerema neonatorum (SN), which typically affects critically ill, preterm, and small-for-gestational-age newborns. It is associated with a high mortality rate and is characterized by skin and subadjacent tissue structures. The process typically begins in the thighs, buttocks, or trunk and spreads diffusely, sparing the fat-free palms, soles, and genitalia.⁷ Although our patient was born preterm, the physical characteristics of the nodule and the lack of severe illness placed SN lower on our differential. Histopathologic differences between SCFN and SN involve the extent of tissue fibrosis and presence of inflammatory cells. Sclerema neonatorum typically manifests with thickened connective tissue with a sparse inflammatory infiltrate, including lymphocytes, histiocytes, and multinucleated giant cells.⁷ Conversely, SCFN manifests with fat necrosis with an extensive inflammatory infiltrate. It is important to be able to distinguish between these 2 conditions, as both have vastly different prognoses.

Cold panniculitis, sometimes called “popsicle panniculitis,” is a phenomenon in which cold contact with the skin causes eruption of firm, erythematous, indurated plaques at the site of exposure. This self-limiting condition typically appears hours to days after cold exposure and spontaneously resolves in a few weeks.⁸ Therapeutic hypothermic protocol treatment involves using cooling devices to lower the body temperature for a short duration. The temperature typically is lowered to approximately 32 °C to 36 °C. These temperatures are not low enough to induce cold panniculitis, which is more commonly seen in facial ice applications when managing supraventricular tachycardia in neonates.

Cephalohematoma is a birthing injury that causes blood accumulation within the subperiosteal space. During parturition, the compressive and sheering forces on the calvarium rupture the vessels passing through the periosteum, causing blood to pool slowly into the subperiostium; thus, a cephalohematoma usually manifests later at 1 to 3 days of life as localized head swelling.⁹ The bleeding typically does not cross suture lines and is primarily found in the occipital or parietal regions. The incidence has been reported to be 0.4% to 2.5% of all live births.¹⁰ Although the location of the nodule in our patient was in the occipital region, imaging and biopsy results did not show hemorrhagic findings consistent with cephalohematoma. Management of cephalohematoma mainly is observational, as the mass slowly regresses and the accumulated blood gradually is reabsorbed.

Fungal scalp infections (tinea capitis) are common in the pediatric population. The peak incidence of this infection has been reported in children aged 3 to 7 years, with Trichophyton tonsurans and Microsporum canis as the usual causative organisms.¹¹ Clinical features of tinea capitis include scaly patches with hair loss, hair loss with black pigmented dots at the follicular openings, diffuse scalp scaling with subtle hair loss, and cervical lymphadenopathy.¹² Although less common, tinea capitis can progress to a more severe form known as a kerion, which is characterized by a tender plaque with pustules and crusting. A kerion can result in permanent scarring and alopecia if left untreated.¹² In our patient, a nodule with scaling and faint erythema was observed, but no black pigmented dots at the follicular orifices were present. Therefore, a potassium hydroxide wet mount preparation used to diagnose tinea capitis was unnecessary. Systemic oral antifungal therapy such as fluconazole or terbinafine is the standard treatment for tinea capitis.

The Diagnosis: Subcutaneous Fat Necrosis

Histopathology revealed lobular panniculitis with lymphohistiocytic inflammation, lipid crystals, and calcifications in our patient (Figure). Subcutaneous fat necrosis (SCFN) was diagnosed based on these characteristic histopathologic findings. No further treatment was pursued.

Subcutaneous fat necrosis is a rare, self-limiting panniculitis that typically resolves within several weeks to months without scarring. It manifests as red or violaceous subcutaneous nodules or plaques most commonly on the buttocks, trunk, proximal arms and legs, and cheeks.¹ Histopathology reveals lobular panniculitis with dense granulomatous infiltrates of histiocytes, eosinophils, and multinucleated giant cells with needle-shaped crystals. Focal areas of fat necrosis with calcification also can be seen.²

The epidemiology of SCFN is unknown. Most cases occur in healthy full-term to postterm neonates who experience hypoxia, other prenatal stressors, or therapeutic hypothermia for the treatment of hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy.³ Although the etiology is unclear, certain inciting factors such as local tissue hypoxia, cold exposure, meconium aspiration, maternal diabetes, preeclampsia, and mechanical pressure have been proposed. Our patient underwent hypothermic cooling protocol, and it has been suggested that the increased saturated to unsaturated fat concentration in the skin of newborns increases the melting point, thus predisposing them to fat crystalization.⁴ Cases of SCFN involving the scalp are rare; therefore, any newborns receiving hypothermic therapy for hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy should have a thorough skin examination with possible biopsy of lesions that are characteristic of SCFN, such as red or violaceous subcutaneous nodules or plaques, for specific disease identification.

The main complication of SCFN is hypercalcemia, which occurs in approximately 50% of cases. Other serum abnormalities include hyperglycemia, hypertriglyceridemia, and thrombocytopenia, though these findings are not as well associated.⁴ Patients with associated hypercalcemia may be asymptomatic, as in our patient, but other presentations include irritability, weakness, anorexia, vomiting, renal failure, failure to thrive, and encephalopathy. Nephrocalcinosis is a common complication of severe hypercalcemia; however, there is little evidence of associated major renal dysfunction.⁵ The exact mechanism of hypercalcemia is poorly understood. A widely accepted theory postulates that a granulomatous inflammatory infiltrate upregulates 1-α-hydroxylase activity, which enzymatically converts 25-hydroxyvitamin D to its active form, 1,25-dihydroxycholecalciferol, which increases bone resorption and calcium absorption through the gastrointestinal tract and renal systems. Treatments for hypercalcemia include hyperhydration, calcium-wasting diuretics, and low calcium intake.⁶ Furthermore, calcium levels should be obtained at the time of diagnosis and 30, 45, and 60 days after the lesions resolve.⁴

Subcutaneous fat necrosis needs to be differentiated from the more severe panniculitis, sclerema neonatorum (SN), which typically affects critically ill, preterm, and small-for-gestational-age newborns. It is associated with a high mortality rate and is characterized by skin and subadjacent tissue structures. The process typically begins in the thighs, buttocks, or trunk and spreads diffusely, sparing the fat-free palms, soles, and genitalia.⁷ Although our patient was born preterm, the physical characteristics of the nodule and the lack of severe illness placed SN lower on our differential. Histopathologic differences between SCFN and SN involve the extent of tissue fibrosis and presence of inflammatory cells. Sclerema neonatorum typically manifests with thickened connective tissue with a sparse inflammatory infiltrate, including lymphocytes, histiocytes, and multinucleated giant cells.⁷ Conversely, SCFN manifests with fat necrosis with an extensive inflammatory infiltrate. It is important to be able to distinguish between these 2 conditions, as both have vastly different prognoses.

Cold panniculitis, sometimes called “popsicle panniculitis,” is a phenomenon in which cold contact with the skin causes eruption of firm, erythematous, indurated plaques at the site of exposure. This self-limiting condition typically appears hours to days after cold exposure and spontaneously resolves in a few weeks.⁸ Therapeutic hypothermic protocol treatment involves using cooling devices to lower the body temperature for a short duration. The temperature typically is lowered to approximately 32 °C to 36 °C. These temperatures are not low enough to induce cold panniculitis, which is more commonly seen in facial ice applications when managing supraventricular tachycardia in neonates.

Cephalohematoma is a birthing injury that causes blood accumulation within the subperiosteal space. During parturition, the compressive and sheering forces on the calvarium rupture the vessels passing through the periosteum, causing blood to pool slowly into the subperiostium; thus, a cephalohematoma usually manifests later at 1 to 3 days of life as localized head swelling.⁹ The bleeding typically does not cross suture lines and is primarily found in the occipital or parietal regions. The incidence has been reported to be 0.4% to 2.5% of all live births.¹⁰ Although the location of the nodule in our patient was in the occipital region, imaging and biopsy results did not show hemorrhagic findings consistent with cephalohematoma. Management of cephalohematoma mainly is observational, as the mass slowly regresses and the accumulated blood gradually is reabsorbed.

Fungal scalp infections (tinea capitis) are common in the pediatric population. The peak incidence of this infection has been reported in children aged 3 to 7 years, with Trichophyton tonsurans and Microsporum canis as the usual causative organisms.¹¹ Clinical features of tinea capitis include scaly patches with hair loss, hair loss with black pigmented dots at the follicular openings, diffuse scalp scaling with subtle hair loss, and cervical lymphadenopathy.¹² Although less common, tinea capitis can progress to a more severe form known as a kerion, which is characterized by a tender plaque with pustules and crusting. A kerion can result in permanent scarring and alopecia if left untreated.¹² In our patient, a nodule with scaling and faint erythema was observed, but no black pigmented dots at the follicular orifices were present. Therefore, a potassium hydroxide wet mount preparation used to diagnose tinea capitis was unnecessary. Systemic oral antifungal therapy such as fluconazole or terbinafine is the standard treatment for tinea capitis.

The Diagnosis: Subcutaneous Fat Necrosis

Histopathology revealed lobular panniculitis with lymphohistiocytic inflammation, lipid crystals, and calcifications in our patient (Figure). Subcutaneous fat necrosis (SCFN) was diagnosed based on these characteristic histopathologic findings. No further treatment was pursued.

Subcutaneous fat necrosis is a rare, self-limiting panniculitis that typically resolves within several weeks to months without scarring. It manifests as red or violaceous subcutaneous nodules or plaques most commonly on the buttocks, trunk, proximal arms and legs, and cheeks.¹ Histopathology reveals lobular panniculitis with dense granulomatous infiltrates of histiocytes, eosinophils, and multinucleated giant cells with needle-shaped crystals. Focal areas of fat necrosis with calcification also can be seen.²

The epidemiology of SCFN is unknown. Most cases occur in healthy full-term to postterm neonates who experience hypoxia, other prenatal stressors, or therapeutic hypothermia for the treatment of hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy.³ Although the etiology is unclear, certain inciting factors such as local tissue hypoxia, cold exposure, meconium aspiration, maternal diabetes, preeclampsia, and mechanical pressure have been proposed. Our patient underwent hypothermic cooling protocol, and it has been suggested that the increased saturated to unsaturated fat concentration in the skin of newborns increases the melting point, thus predisposing them to fat crystalization.⁴ Cases of SCFN involving the scalp are rare; therefore, any newborns receiving hypothermic therapy for hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy should have a thorough skin examination with possible biopsy of lesions that are characteristic of SCFN, such as red or violaceous subcutaneous nodules or plaques, for specific disease identification.

The main complication of SCFN is hypercalcemia, which occurs in approximately 50% of cases. Other serum abnormalities include hyperglycemia, hypertriglyceridemia, and thrombocytopenia, though these findings are not as well associated.⁴ Patients with associated hypercalcemia may be asymptomatic, as in our patient, but other presentations include irritability, weakness, anorexia, vomiting, renal failure, failure to thrive, and encephalopathy. Nephrocalcinosis is a common complication of severe hypercalcemia; however, there is little evidence of associated major renal dysfunction.⁵ The exact mechanism of hypercalcemia is poorly understood. A widely accepted theory postulates that a granulomatous inflammatory infiltrate upregulates 1-α-hydroxylase activity, which enzymatically converts 25-hydroxyvitamin D to its active form, 1,25-dihydroxycholecalciferol, which increases bone resorption and calcium absorption through the gastrointestinal tract and renal systems. Treatments for hypercalcemia include hyperhydration, calcium-wasting diuretics, and low calcium intake.⁶ Furthermore, calcium levels should be obtained at the time of diagnosis and 30, 45, and 60 days after the lesions resolve.⁴

Subcutaneous fat necrosis needs to be differentiated from the more severe panniculitis, sclerema neonatorum (SN), which typically affects critically ill, preterm, and small-for-gestational-age newborns. It is associated with a high mortality rate and is characterized by skin and subadjacent tissue structures. The process typically begins in the thighs, buttocks, or trunk and spreads diffusely, sparing the fat-free palms, soles, and genitalia.⁷ Although our patient was born preterm, the physical characteristics of the nodule and the lack of severe illness placed SN lower on our differential. Histopathologic differences between SCFN and SN involve the extent of tissue fibrosis and presence of inflammatory cells. Sclerema neonatorum typically manifests with thickened connective tissue with a sparse inflammatory infiltrate, including lymphocytes, histiocytes, and multinucleated giant cells.⁷ Conversely, SCFN manifests with fat necrosis with an extensive inflammatory infiltrate. It is important to be able to distinguish between these 2 conditions, as both have vastly different prognoses.

Cold panniculitis, sometimes called “popsicle panniculitis,” is a phenomenon in which cold contact with the skin causes eruption of firm, erythematous, indurated plaques at the site of exposure. This self-limiting condition typically appears hours to days after cold exposure and spontaneously resolves in a few weeks.⁸ Therapeutic hypothermic protocol treatment involves using cooling devices to lower the body temperature for a short duration. The temperature typically is lowered to approximately 32 °C to 36 °C. These temperatures are not low enough to induce cold panniculitis, which is more commonly seen in facial ice applications when managing supraventricular tachycardia in neonates.

Cephalohematoma is a birthing injury that causes blood accumulation within the subperiosteal space. During parturition, the compressive and sheering forces on the calvarium rupture the vessels passing through the periosteum, causing blood to pool slowly into the subperiostium; thus, a cephalohematoma usually manifests later at 1 to 3 days of life as localized head swelling.⁹ The bleeding typically does not cross suture lines and is primarily found in the occipital or parietal regions. The incidence has been reported to be 0.4% to 2.5% of all live births.¹⁰ Although the location of the nodule in our patient was in the occipital region, imaging and biopsy results did not show hemorrhagic findings consistent with cephalohematoma. Management of cephalohematoma mainly is observational, as the mass slowly regresses and the accumulated blood gradually is reabsorbed.

Fungal scalp infections (tinea capitis) are common in the pediatric population. The peak incidence of this infection has been reported in children aged 3 to 7 years, with Trichophyton tonsurans and Microsporum canis as the usual causative organisms.¹¹ Clinical features of tinea capitis include scaly patches with hair loss, hair loss with black pigmented dots at the follicular openings, diffuse scalp scaling with subtle hair loss, and cervical lymphadenopathy.¹² Although less common, tinea capitis can progress to a more severe form known as a kerion, which is characterized by a tender plaque with pustules and crusting. A kerion can result in permanent scarring and alopecia if left untreated.¹² In our patient, a nodule with scaling and faint erythema was observed, but no black pigmented dots at the follicular orifices were present. Therefore, a potassium hydroxide wet mount preparation used to diagnose tinea capitis was unnecessary. Systemic oral antifungal therapy such as fluconazole or terbinafine is the standard treatment for tinea capitis.