Fitzpatrick skin type (FST) is the most commonly used classification system in dermatologic practice. It was developed by Thomas B. Fitzpatrick, MD, PhD, in 1975 to assess the propensity of the skin to burn during phototherapy.¹ Fitzpatrick skin type also can be used to assess the clinical benefits and efficacy of cosmetic procedures, including laser hair removal, chemical peel and dermabrasion, tattoo removal, spray tanning, and laser resurfacing for acne scarring.² The original FST classifications included skin types I through IV; skin types V and VI were later added to include individuals of Asian, Indian, and African origin.¹ As a result, FST often is used by providers as a means of describing constitutive skin color and ethnicity.³

How did FST transition from describing the propensity of the skin to burn from UV light exposure to categorizing skin color, thereby becoming a proxy for race? It most likely occurred because there has not been another widely adopted classification system for describing skin color that can be applied to all skin types. Even when the FST classification scale is used as intended, there are inconsistencies with its accuracy; for example, self-reported FSTs have correlated poorly with sunburn risk as well as physician-reported FSTs.^4,5 Although physician-reported FSTs have been demonstrated to correlate with race, race does not consistently correlate with objective measures of pigmentation or self-reported FSTs.⁵ For example, Japanese women often self-identify as FST type II, but Asian skin generally is considered to be nonwhite.¹ Fitzpatrick himself acknowledged that race and ethnicity are cultural and political terms with no scientific basis.⁶ Fitzpatrick skin type also has been demonstrated to correlate poorly with constitutive skin color and minimal erythema dose values.⁷

We conducted an anonymous survey of dermatologists and dermatology trainees to evaluate how providers use FST in their clinical practice as well as how it is used to describe race and ethnicity.

Methods

The survey was distributed electronically to dermatologists and dermatology trainees from March 13 to March 28, 2019, using the Association of Professors of Dermatology listserv, as well as in person at the annual Skin of Color Society meeting in Washington, DC, on February 28, 2019. The 8-item survey included questions about physician demographics (ie, primary practice setting, board certification, and geographic location); whether the respondent identified as an individual with skin of color; and how the respondent utilized FST in clinical notes (ie, describing race/ethnicity, skin cancer risk, and constitutive [baseline] skin color; determining initial phototherapy dosage and suitability for laser treatments, and likelihood of skin burning). A t test was used to determine whether dermatologists who identified as having skin of color utilized FST differently.

Results

A total of 141 surveys were returned, and 140 respondents were included in the final analysis. Given the methods used to distribute the survey, a response rate could not be calculated. The respondents included more board-certified dermatologists (70%) than dermatology trainees (30%). Ninety-three percent of respondents indicated an academic institution as their primary practice location. Notably, 26% of respondents self-identified as having skin of color.

Forty-one percent of all respondents agreed that FST should be included in their clinical documentation. In response to the question “In what scenarios would you refer to FST in a clinical note?” 31% said they used FST to describe patients’ race or ethnicity, 47% used it to describe patients’ constitutive skin color, and 22% utilized it in both scenarios. Respondents who did not identify as having skin of color were more likely to use FST to describe constitutive skin color, though this finding was not statistically significant (P=.063). Anecdotally, providers also included FST in clinical notes on postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, melasma, and treatment with cryotherapy.

Comment

The US Census Bureau has estimated that half of the US population will be of non-European descent by 2050.⁸ As racial and ethnic distinctions continue to be blurred, attempts to include all nonwhite skin types under the umbrella term skin of color becomes increasingly problematic. The true number of skin colors is unknown but likely is infinite, as Brazilian artist Angélica Dass has demonstrated with her photographic project “Humanae” (Figure). Given this shift in demographics and the limitations of the FST, alternative methods of describing skin color must be developed.

The results of our survey suggest that approximately one-third to half of academic dermatologists/dermatology trainees use FST to describe race/ethnicity and/or constitutive skin color. This misuse of FST may occur more frequently among physicians who do not identify as having skin of color. Additionally, misuse of FST in academic settings may be problematic and confusing for medical students who may learn to use this common dermatologic tool outside of its original intent.

We acknowledge that the conundrum of how to classify individuals with nonwhite skin or skin of color is not simply answered. Several alternative skin classification models have been proposed to improve the sensitivity and specificity of identifying patients with skin of color (Table). Refining FST classification is one approach. Employing terms such as skin irritation, tenderness, itching, or skin becoming darker from sun exposure rather than painful burn or tanning may result in better identification.^1,4 A study conducted in India modified the FST questionnaire to acknowledge cultural behaviors.¹⁵ Because lighter skin is culturally valued in this population, patient experience with purposeful sun exposure was limited; thus, the questionnaire was modified to remove questions on the use of tanning booths and/or creams as well as sun exposure and instead included more objective questions regarding dark brown eye color, black and dark brown hair color, and dark brown skin color.¹⁵ Other studies have suggested that patient-reported photosensitivity assessed via a questionnaire is a valid measure for assessing FST but is associated with an overestimation of skin color, known as “the dark shift.”²⁰

Conclusion

Other investigators have criticized the various limitations of FST, including physician vs patient assessment, interview vs questionnaire, and phrasing of questions on skin type.²³ Our findings suggest that medical providers should be cognizant of conflating race and ethnicity with FST. Two authors of this report (O.R.W. and J.E.D.) are medical students with skin of color and frequently have observed the addition of FST to the medical records of patients who were not receiving phototherapy as a proxy for race. We believe that more culturally appropriate and clinically relevant methods for describing skin of color need to be developed and, in the interim, the original intent of FST should be emphasized and incorporated in medical school and resident education.

Acknowledgment
The authors thank Adewole Adamson, MD (Austin, Texas), for discussion and feedback.

Fitzpatrick skin type (FST) is the most commonly used classification system in dermatologic practice. It was developed by Thomas B. Fitzpatrick, MD, PhD, in 1975 to assess the propensity of the skin to burn during phototherapy.¹ Fitzpatrick skin type also can be used to assess the clinical benefits and efficacy of cosmetic procedures, including laser hair removal, chemical peel and dermabrasion, tattoo removal, spray tanning, and laser resurfacing for acne scarring.² The original FST classifications included skin types I through IV; skin types V and VI were later added to include individuals of Asian, Indian, and African origin.¹ As a result, FST often is used by providers as a means of describing constitutive skin color and ethnicity.³

How did FST transition from describing the propensity of the skin to burn from UV light exposure to categorizing skin color, thereby becoming a proxy for race? It most likely occurred because there has not been another widely adopted classification system for describing skin color that can be applied to all skin types. Even when the FST classification scale is used as intended, there are inconsistencies with its accuracy; for example, self-reported FSTs have correlated poorly with sunburn risk as well as physician-reported FSTs.^4,5 Although physician-reported FSTs have been demonstrated to correlate with race, race does not consistently correlate with objective measures of pigmentation or self-reported FSTs.⁵ For example, Japanese women often self-identify as FST type II, but Asian skin generally is considered to be nonwhite.¹ Fitzpatrick himself acknowledged that race and ethnicity are cultural and political terms with no scientific basis.⁶ Fitzpatrick skin type also has been demonstrated to correlate poorly with constitutive skin color and minimal erythema dose values.⁷

We conducted an anonymous survey of dermatologists and dermatology trainees to evaluate how providers use FST in their clinical practice as well as how it is used to describe race and ethnicity.

Methods

The survey was distributed electronically to dermatologists and dermatology trainees from March 13 to March 28, 2019, using the Association of Professors of Dermatology listserv, as well as in person at the annual Skin of Color Society meeting in Washington, DC, on February 28, 2019. The 8-item survey included questions about physician demographics (ie, primary practice setting, board certification, and geographic location); whether the respondent identified as an individual with skin of color; and how the respondent utilized FST in clinical notes (ie, describing race/ethnicity, skin cancer risk, and constitutive [baseline] skin color; determining initial phototherapy dosage and suitability for laser treatments, and likelihood of skin burning). A t test was used to determine whether dermatologists who identified as having skin of color utilized FST differently.

Results

A total of 141 surveys were returned, and 140 respondents were included in the final analysis. Given the methods used to distribute the survey, a response rate could not be calculated. The respondents included more board-certified dermatologists (70%) than dermatology trainees (30%). Ninety-three percent of respondents indicated an academic institution as their primary practice location. Notably, 26% of respondents self-identified as having skin of color.

Forty-one percent of all respondents agreed that FST should be included in their clinical documentation. In response to the question “In what scenarios would you refer to FST in a clinical note?” 31% said they used FST to describe patients’ race or ethnicity, 47% used it to describe patients’ constitutive skin color, and 22% utilized it in both scenarios. Respondents who did not identify as having skin of color were more likely to use FST to describe constitutive skin color, though this finding was not statistically significant (P=.063). Anecdotally, providers also included FST in clinical notes on postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, melasma, and treatment with cryotherapy.

Comment

The US Census Bureau has estimated that half of the US population will be of non-European descent by 2050.⁸ As racial and ethnic distinctions continue to be blurred, attempts to include all nonwhite skin types under the umbrella term skin of color becomes increasingly problematic. The true number of skin colors is unknown but likely is infinite, as Brazilian artist Angélica Dass has demonstrated with her photographic project “Humanae” (Figure). Given this shift in demographics and the limitations of the FST, alternative methods of describing skin color must be developed.

The results of our survey suggest that approximately one-third to half of academic dermatologists/dermatology trainees use FST to describe race/ethnicity and/or constitutive skin color. This misuse of FST may occur more frequently among physicians who do not identify as having skin of color. Additionally, misuse of FST in academic settings may be problematic and confusing for medical students who may learn to use this common dermatologic tool outside of its original intent.

We acknowledge that the conundrum of how to classify individuals with nonwhite skin or skin of color is not simply answered. Several alternative skin classification models have been proposed to improve the sensitivity and specificity of identifying patients with skin of color (Table). Refining FST classification is one approach. Employing terms such as skin irritation, tenderness, itching, or skin becoming darker from sun exposure rather than painful burn or tanning may result in better identification.^1,4 A study conducted in India modified the FST questionnaire to acknowledge cultural behaviors.¹⁵ Because lighter skin is culturally valued in this population, patient experience with purposeful sun exposure was limited; thus, the questionnaire was modified to remove questions on the use of tanning booths and/or creams as well as sun exposure and instead included more objective questions regarding dark brown eye color, black and dark brown hair color, and dark brown skin color.¹⁵ Other studies have suggested that patient-reported photosensitivity assessed via a questionnaire is a valid measure for assessing FST but is associated with an overestimation of skin color, known as “the dark shift.”²⁰

Conclusion

Other investigators have criticized the various limitations of FST, including physician vs patient assessment, interview vs questionnaire, and phrasing of questions on skin type.²³ Our findings suggest that medical providers should be cognizant of conflating race and ethnicity with FST. Two authors of this report (O.R.W. and J.E.D.) are medical students with skin of color and frequently have observed the addition of FST to the medical records of patients who were not receiving phototherapy as a proxy for race. We believe that more culturally appropriate and clinically relevant methods for describing skin of color need to be developed and, in the interim, the original intent of FST should be emphasized and incorporated in medical school and resident education.

Acknowledgment
The authors thank Adewole Adamson, MD (Austin, Texas), for discussion and feedback.

Fitzpatrick skin type (FST) is the most commonly used classification system in dermatologic practice. It was developed by Thomas B. Fitzpatrick, MD, PhD, in 1975 to assess the propensity of the skin to burn during phototherapy.¹ Fitzpatrick skin type also can be used to assess the clinical benefits and efficacy of cosmetic procedures, including laser hair removal, chemical peel and dermabrasion, tattoo removal, spray tanning, and laser resurfacing for acne scarring.² The original FST classifications included skin types I through IV; skin types V and VI were later added to include individuals of Asian, Indian, and African origin.¹ As a result, FST often is used by providers as a means of describing constitutive skin color and ethnicity.³

How did FST transition from describing the propensity of the skin to burn from UV light exposure to categorizing skin color, thereby becoming a proxy for race? It most likely occurred because there has not been another widely adopted classification system for describing skin color that can be applied to all skin types. Even when the FST classification scale is used as intended, there are inconsistencies with its accuracy; for example, self-reported FSTs have correlated poorly with sunburn risk as well as physician-reported FSTs.^4,5 Although physician-reported FSTs have been demonstrated to correlate with race, race does not consistently correlate with objective measures of pigmentation or self-reported FSTs.⁵ For example, Japanese women often self-identify as FST type II, but Asian skin generally is considered to be nonwhite.¹ Fitzpatrick himself acknowledged that race and ethnicity are cultural and political terms with no scientific basis.⁶ Fitzpatrick skin type also has been demonstrated to correlate poorly with constitutive skin color and minimal erythema dose values.⁷

We conducted an anonymous survey of dermatologists and dermatology trainees to evaluate how providers use FST in their clinical practice as well as how it is used to describe race and ethnicity.

Methods

The survey was distributed electronically to dermatologists and dermatology trainees from March 13 to March 28, 2019, using the Association of Professors of Dermatology listserv, as well as in person at the annual Skin of Color Society meeting in Washington, DC, on February 28, 2019. The 8-item survey included questions about physician demographics (ie, primary practice setting, board certification, and geographic location); whether the respondent identified as an individual with skin of color; and how the respondent utilized FST in clinical notes (ie, describing race/ethnicity, skin cancer risk, and constitutive [baseline] skin color; determining initial phototherapy dosage and suitability for laser treatments, and likelihood of skin burning). A t test was used to determine whether dermatologists who identified as having skin of color utilized FST differently.

Results

A total of 141 surveys were returned, and 140 respondents were included in the final analysis. Given the methods used to distribute the survey, a response rate could not be calculated. The respondents included more board-certified dermatologists (70%) than dermatology trainees (30%). Ninety-three percent of respondents indicated an academic institution as their primary practice location. Notably, 26% of respondents self-identified as having skin of color.

Forty-one percent of all respondents agreed that FST should be included in their clinical documentation. In response to the question “In what scenarios would you refer to FST in a clinical note?” 31% said they used FST to describe patients’ race or ethnicity, 47% used it to describe patients’ constitutive skin color, and 22% utilized it in both scenarios. Respondents who did not identify as having skin of color were more likely to use FST to describe constitutive skin color, though this finding was not statistically significant (P=.063). Anecdotally, providers also included FST in clinical notes on postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, melasma, and treatment with cryotherapy.

Comment

The US Census Bureau has estimated that half of the US population will be of non-European descent by 2050.⁸ As racial and ethnic distinctions continue to be blurred, attempts to include all nonwhite skin types under the umbrella term skin of color becomes increasingly problematic. The true number of skin colors is unknown but likely is infinite, as Brazilian artist Angélica Dass has demonstrated with her photographic project “Humanae” (Figure). Given this shift in demographics and the limitations of the FST, alternative methods of describing skin color must be developed.

The results of our survey suggest that approximately one-third to half of academic dermatologists/dermatology trainees use FST to describe race/ethnicity and/or constitutive skin color. This misuse of FST may occur more frequently among physicians who do not identify as having skin of color. Additionally, misuse of FST in academic settings may be problematic and confusing for medical students who may learn to use this common dermatologic tool outside of its original intent.

We acknowledge that the conundrum of how to classify individuals with nonwhite skin or skin of color is not simply answered. Several alternative skin classification models have been proposed to improve the sensitivity and specificity of identifying patients with skin of color (Table). Refining FST classification is one approach. Employing terms such as skin irritation, tenderness, itching, or skin becoming darker from sun exposure rather than painful burn or tanning may result in better identification.^1,4 A study conducted in India modified the FST questionnaire to acknowledge cultural behaviors.¹⁵ Because lighter skin is culturally valued in this population, patient experience with purposeful sun exposure was limited; thus, the questionnaire was modified to remove questions on the use of tanning booths and/or creams as well as sun exposure and instead included more objective questions regarding dark brown eye color, black and dark brown hair color, and dark brown skin color.¹⁵ Other studies have suggested that patient-reported photosensitivity assessed via a questionnaire is a valid measure for assessing FST but is associated with an overestimation of skin color, known as “the dark shift.”²⁰

Conclusion

Other investigators have criticized the various limitations of FST, including physician vs patient assessment, interview vs questionnaire, and phrasing of questions on skin type.²³ Our findings suggest that medical providers should be cognizant of conflating race and ethnicity with FST. Two authors of this report (O.R.W. and J.E.D.) are medical students with skin of color and frequently have observed the addition of FST to the medical records of patients who were not receiving phototherapy as a proxy for race. We believe that more culturally appropriate and clinically relevant methods for describing skin of color need to be developed and, in the interim, the original intent of FST should be emphasized and incorporated in medical school and resident education.

Acknowledgment
The authors thank Adewole Adamson, MD (Austin, Texas), for discussion and feedback.

Hypersensitivity to metal implants remains a controversial field in contact dermatitis and patch testing. With positive reactions to nickel hovering around 20% in patch-tested populations,¹ the question remains whether metal-allergic patients can safely receive metal implants. Unfortunately, large controlled studies are lacking, in part due to ethical concerns of knowingly placing a metal implant in a metal-allergic patient. Much of the focus of implant hypersensitivity reactions (IHRs) has been on orthopedic joints including hips, knees, and shoulders, as well as fixed orthopedic implanted materials such as screws and plates. However, there have been reports of IHRs to cardiac devices including defibrillators, pacemakers, and intracardiac devices; dental hardware including implants, crowns, dentures, and braces; and neurologic and gynecologic devices. For the purposes of this review, we will focus on IHRs to orthopedic implants.

Making the Case for IHRs

There are multiple case reports and series documenting likely orthopedic IHRs in the literature^2-5; however, large prospective studies are lacking. Some of the largest series are from Danish registry studies. In 2009, Thyssen et al⁶ reviewed356 patients who had undergone both total hip arthroplasty and patch testing. Metal allergy frequencies were similar between patch-tested registry patients and patch test controls, showing no increase in positive patch tests to metals after receiving implants. Additionally, implant revision rates were comparable between registry patients with and without patch testing. The group concluded that the risk for revision after hip implantation in metal-allergic patients and the risk for development of metal allergy after implantation were both low.⁶ In 2015, Münch et al⁷ compared 327 patients who had undergone both total knee arthroplasty and patch testing and found that prevalence of allergy to nickel, cobalt, and chromium was similar between patients who had undergone revision surgery and those who had not; however, for patients who had 2 or more knee revisions, there was a higher prevalence of postimplant metal allergy. This study also showed that metal allergy identified before implantation did not increase the risk for postimplantation knee revision surgery or implant failure.⁷ These larger studies suggest that although individual cases of IHR exist, it is likely quite rare.

Patients have been found to have increased levels of chromium (serum and urine) and titanium (serum) following total hip arthroplasty.⁸ Additionally, metal wear particles have been identified in postmortem livers and spleens, which was more prevalent in patients with a history of failed hip arthroplasty.⁹ It is difficult to determine the meaning of this data, as the presence of metal ions does not necessarily indicate allergy or IHR. In 2001, Hallab et al¹⁰ pooled data from several implant cohort studies and concluded that in comparison to a baseline metal sensitivity prevalence of approximately 10%, patients with well-functioning implants had a metal sensitivity–weighted average of 25%, and those with poorly functioning implants had a weighted average of 60%. Again, positive patch testing to metals does not necessarily implicate allergy as the cause of implant failure.

Some small studies have shown that patients with evidence of metal hypersensitivity improve with revision. Zondervan et al¹¹ reviewed results of 46 orthopedic revisions following painful total knee arthroplasty. Patients with knee pain and lymphocyte transformation testing (LTT) positive for metals received hypoallergenic revisions, and those with LTT negative for metals received standard revisions. The group who received hypoallergenic revisions had more pain reduction compared to the standard revision group (37.8% reduction in pain vs 27%). However, this study was limited in that the diagnosis of metal allergy was made entirely on results of LTT.¹¹ In 2012, Atanaskova Mesinkovska et al¹² described 41 patients who underwent orthopedic patch testing following implantation for symptoms including pain, dermatitis, pruritus, joint loosening, edema, and impaired wound healing. Fifteen (37%) patients had positive patch test reactions to metals, and 10 (67%) of them had reactions to metals that were present in their implants. Six (60%) of these patients had their implants removed and their symptoms resolved; the remaining 4 continued to experience implant symptoms.¹² These studies support the existence of rare metal-related orthopedic IHRs and support the concept of proceeding with orthopedic implant revision when indicated, safe, and agreed upon by the surgeon and patient. However, as noted in the series by Zondervan et al,¹¹ not every patient with confirmed metal allergy who undergoes revision improves, so an informed conversation between the patient and surgeon is mandatory.

Types of Orthopedic Implants

Orthopedic implanted materials consist of either dynamic (knees, hips) or static (screws, plates) components. Several generations of hip implants have evolved since the 1960s. First-generation implanted hips were metal-on-metal and had high rates of metal release and sensitization. Metal-on-plastic implants may be less likely to release metal but instead release large polyethylene wear particles. Second-generation metal-on-metal implants reportedly have lower wear rates. With these implants, wear particles are generated but are reportedly smaller than first-generation particles.¹³

Allergens in IHRs

Metals
Metals are the most commonly implicated allergens in orthopedic IHRs. Potentially relevant metal alloys include 316L stainless steel, cobalt-chromium-molybdenum steel, Vitallium alloy, titanium alloy, titanium-tantalum-niobium alloy, and Oxinium (Smith & Nephew).^14,15 Each alloy contains several metals, which can include nickel, chromium, cobalt, manganese, molybdenum, iron, titanium, aluminum, vanadium, niobium, tantalum, and zirconium, among others. For example, 316L stainless steel contains iron, nickel, chromium, manganese, molybdenum, nitrogen, carbon, sulfur, silicon, and phosphorus, whereas Oxinium contains only oxidized zirconium and niobium.

Bone Cement
Bone cement also has been reported in cases of orthopedic IHRs and can contain several chemicals, including methyl methacrylate, N,N-dimethyl-p-toluidine, benzoyl peroxide, hydroquinone, and gentamicin.¹⁴ Other potential exposures include adhesives (cyanoacrylates) and topical antibiotics.

Clinical Presentation

Several clinical presentations of orthopedic IHRs have been described. Perhaps the most commonly recognized is a localized cutaneous eczematous eruption, with dermatitis typically overlying the site of the implanted material.^1,2,16 Generalized cutaneous eczematous IHRs also have been reported, including diffuse generalized dermatitis from a stainless steel orthopedic screw⁴ and nummular dermatitis attributed to vanadium in an orthopedic plate.⁵ Urticaria, vasculitis, and bullous cutaneous reactions, as well as extracutaneous complications, also have been reported.^14,15 Pain, edema, joint loosening or failure, and poor wound healing have been reported,¹² but it remains unclear whether these symptoms represent IHR.

Patch Testing for IHR

Several groups have published recommended patch test series for IHR.^12,14,15 Common components of implant patch testing panels include metals, adhesives (acrylates, epoxy resins) and antibiotics. Importantly, obtaining product information from the manufacturer of the suspected implant can guide which allergens to include in patch testing. Implant and metal panels also are available for commercial purchase.

Other Diagnostic Tests

We rarely (almost never) order LTTs in the workup for potential IHRs. This is an in vitro test that includes lymphocytes, metal ions, and the radioactive marker methyl-3H-thymidine. The goal of the test is to evaluate if patient lymphocytes are reactive or responsive to metal ions. A positive LTT suggests that lymphocytes can respond to the presence of metal ions but does not confirm allergy or the presence of IHR.

Typically, skin or tissue biopsies are not required to make a diagnosis of IHR; however, if performed, histopathology suggestive of IHR can support a suspected diagnosis. Typical findings include but are not limited to spongiotic dermatitis. Eosinophils may or may not be present. Metal disc testing has been utilized for orthopedic IHR but is not currently recommended due to low diagnostic yield. Prick testing rarely is used and also is not a primary method for diagnosis of IHR.¹⁷

Preimplantation Patch Testing

Expert opinion guidelines published by the American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS) state that routine preimplantation patch testing is not necessary; however, for those patients with a clear history of contact reactions to metal, preimplantation patch testing can be considered.¹⁷

Patch test results can influence the orthopedic surgeon’s choice of implant material. In one study, when preimplantation patch testing showed a positive patch test reaction to metals, the results influenced the surgeon’s decision-making in all cases.¹²

Postimplantation Patch Testing: Diagnostic Criteria for Metal IHR After Implantation

From 2012 to 2013, Schalock and Thyssen¹⁸ surveyed expert attendees at meetings of the European Society of Contact Dermatitis and the ACDS for their opinions on proposed diagnostic criteria for metal IHRs. Based on these results (N=119), the authors stratified 4 major and 5 minor diagnostic criteria, which were defined based on overall responses of meeting attendees. Major criteria included (1) chronic dermatitis beginning weeks to months after metallic implantation, (2) complete recovery after removal of the offending implant, (3) eruption overlying the metal implant, and (4) positive patch test reaction to a metal used in the implant. Minor criteria included (1) histology consistent with allergic contact dermatitis, (2) morphology consistent with dermatitis (ie, erythema, induration, papules, vesicles), (3) positive in vitro test to metals (eg, lymphocyte transformation test), (4) systemic allergic dermatitis reaction, and (5) therapy-resistant dermatitis reaction. The authors did not describe a scoring system for evaluation and confirmation of a diagnosis of IHR. Instead, the criteria should be used as general guidelines when evaluating patients for possible IHRs. From a standpoint of available diagnostic tests for metal IHR, 86.1% of experts agreed that a positive patch test reaction to a metal used in the implant was suggestive of a diagnosis, whereas a positive in vitro test to metals (LTT) was suggestive of a diagnosis for only 32.2% of respondents. This study was designed specifically for metal IHRs and therefore is not necessarily generalizable for nonmetal IHRs.¹⁸

Final Interpretation

We follow the 2016 ACDS guidelines¹⁷ and complete preimplantation patch testing only in the setting of suspected metal allergy and postimplantation patch testing based on the guidelines described by Schalock and Thyssen.¹⁸ However, an extended conversation is warranted prior to patch testing to ensure the patient fully understands the limitations of the test. Although we have both ordered the LTT, interpretation remains murky, and until this test is standardized, routine use is unlikely to benefit the patient. Until we are more reliably able to predict who will develop hypersensitivity to implanted metals, the decision to remove or revise an implant is one that should be made by a multidisciplinary team that includes the surgeon and the patient.

Hypersensitivity to metal implants remains a controversial field in contact dermatitis and patch testing. With positive reactions to nickel hovering around 20% in patch-tested populations,¹ the question remains whether metal-allergic patients can safely receive metal implants. Unfortunately, large controlled studies are lacking, in part due to ethical concerns of knowingly placing a metal implant in a metal-allergic patient. Much of the focus of implant hypersensitivity reactions (IHRs) has been on orthopedic joints including hips, knees, and shoulders, as well as fixed orthopedic implanted materials such as screws and plates. However, there have been reports of IHRs to cardiac devices including defibrillators, pacemakers, and intracardiac devices; dental hardware including implants, crowns, dentures, and braces; and neurologic and gynecologic devices. For the purposes of this review, we will focus on IHRs to orthopedic implants.

Making the Case for IHRs

There are multiple case reports and series documenting likely orthopedic IHRs in the literature^2-5; however, large prospective studies are lacking. Some of the largest series are from Danish registry studies. In 2009, Thyssen et al⁶ reviewed356 patients who had undergone both total hip arthroplasty and patch testing. Metal allergy frequencies were similar between patch-tested registry patients and patch test controls, showing no increase in positive patch tests to metals after receiving implants. Additionally, implant revision rates were comparable between registry patients with and without patch testing. The group concluded that the risk for revision after hip implantation in metal-allergic patients and the risk for development of metal allergy after implantation were both low.⁶ In 2015, Münch et al⁷ compared 327 patients who had undergone both total knee arthroplasty and patch testing and found that prevalence of allergy to nickel, cobalt, and chromium was similar between patients who had undergone revision surgery and those who had not; however, for patients who had 2 or more knee revisions, there was a higher prevalence of postimplant metal allergy. This study also showed that metal allergy identified before implantation did not increase the risk for postimplantation knee revision surgery or implant failure.⁷ These larger studies suggest that although individual cases of IHR exist, it is likely quite rare.

Patients have been found to have increased levels of chromium (serum and urine) and titanium (serum) following total hip arthroplasty.⁸ Additionally, metal wear particles have been identified in postmortem livers and spleens, which was more prevalent in patients with a history of failed hip arthroplasty.⁹ It is difficult to determine the meaning of this data, as the presence of metal ions does not necessarily indicate allergy or IHR. In 2001, Hallab et al¹⁰ pooled data from several implant cohort studies and concluded that in comparison to a baseline metal sensitivity prevalence of approximately 10%, patients with well-functioning implants had a metal sensitivity–weighted average of 25%, and those with poorly functioning implants had a weighted average of 60%. Again, positive patch testing to metals does not necessarily implicate allergy as the cause of implant failure.

Some small studies have shown that patients with evidence of metal hypersensitivity improve with revision. Zondervan et al¹¹ reviewed results of 46 orthopedic revisions following painful total knee arthroplasty. Patients with knee pain and lymphocyte transformation testing (LTT) positive for metals received hypoallergenic revisions, and those with LTT negative for metals received standard revisions. The group who received hypoallergenic revisions had more pain reduction compared to the standard revision group (37.8% reduction in pain vs 27%). However, this study was limited in that the diagnosis of metal allergy was made entirely on results of LTT.¹¹ In 2012, Atanaskova Mesinkovska et al¹² described 41 patients who underwent orthopedic patch testing following implantation for symptoms including pain, dermatitis, pruritus, joint loosening, edema, and impaired wound healing. Fifteen (37%) patients had positive patch test reactions to metals, and 10 (67%) of them had reactions to metals that were present in their implants. Six (60%) of these patients had their implants removed and their symptoms resolved; the remaining 4 continued to experience implant symptoms.¹² These studies support the existence of rare metal-related orthopedic IHRs and support the concept of proceeding with orthopedic implant revision when indicated, safe, and agreed upon by the surgeon and patient. However, as noted in the series by Zondervan et al,¹¹ not every patient with confirmed metal allergy who undergoes revision improves, so an informed conversation between the patient and surgeon is mandatory.

Types of Orthopedic Implants

Orthopedic implanted materials consist of either dynamic (knees, hips) or static (screws, plates) components. Several generations of hip implants have evolved since the 1960s. First-generation implanted hips were metal-on-metal and had high rates of metal release and sensitization. Metal-on-plastic implants may be less likely to release metal but instead release large polyethylene wear particles. Second-generation metal-on-metal implants reportedly have lower wear rates. With these implants, wear particles are generated but are reportedly smaller than first-generation particles.¹³

Allergens in IHRs

Metals
Metals are the most commonly implicated allergens in orthopedic IHRs. Potentially relevant metal alloys include 316L stainless steel, cobalt-chromium-molybdenum steel, Vitallium alloy, titanium alloy, titanium-tantalum-niobium alloy, and Oxinium (Smith & Nephew).^14,15 Each alloy contains several metals, which can include nickel, chromium, cobalt, manganese, molybdenum, iron, titanium, aluminum, vanadium, niobium, tantalum, and zirconium, among others. For example, 316L stainless steel contains iron, nickel, chromium, manganese, molybdenum, nitrogen, carbon, sulfur, silicon, and phosphorus, whereas Oxinium contains only oxidized zirconium and niobium.

Bone Cement
Bone cement also has been reported in cases of orthopedic IHRs and can contain several chemicals, including methyl methacrylate, N,N-dimethyl-p-toluidine, benzoyl peroxide, hydroquinone, and gentamicin.¹⁴ Other potential exposures include adhesives (cyanoacrylates) and topical antibiotics.

Clinical Presentation

Several clinical presentations of orthopedic IHRs have been described. Perhaps the most commonly recognized is a localized cutaneous eczematous eruption, with dermatitis typically overlying the site of the implanted material.^1,2,16 Generalized cutaneous eczematous IHRs also have been reported, including diffuse generalized dermatitis from a stainless steel orthopedic screw⁴ and nummular dermatitis attributed to vanadium in an orthopedic plate.⁵ Urticaria, vasculitis, and bullous cutaneous reactions, as well as extracutaneous complications, also have been reported.^14,15 Pain, edema, joint loosening or failure, and poor wound healing have been reported,¹² but it remains unclear whether these symptoms represent IHR.

Patch Testing for IHR

Several groups have published recommended patch test series for IHR.^12,14,15 Common components of implant patch testing panels include metals, adhesives (acrylates, epoxy resins) and antibiotics. Importantly, obtaining product information from the manufacturer of the suspected implant can guide which allergens to include in patch testing. Implant and metal panels also are available for commercial purchase.

Other Diagnostic Tests

We rarely (almost never) order LTTs in the workup for potential IHRs. This is an in vitro test that includes lymphocytes, metal ions, and the radioactive marker methyl-3H-thymidine. The goal of the test is to evaluate if patient lymphocytes are reactive or responsive to metal ions. A positive LTT suggests that lymphocytes can respond to the presence of metal ions but does not confirm allergy or the presence of IHR.

Typically, skin or tissue biopsies are not required to make a diagnosis of IHR; however, if performed, histopathology suggestive of IHR can support a suspected diagnosis. Typical findings include but are not limited to spongiotic dermatitis. Eosinophils may or may not be present. Metal disc testing has been utilized for orthopedic IHR but is not currently recommended due to low diagnostic yield. Prick testing rarely is used and also is not a primary method for diagnosis of IHR.¹⁷

Preimplantation Patch Testing

Expert opinion guidelines published by the American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS) state that routine preimplantation patch testing is not necessary; however, for those patients with a clear history of contact reactions to metal, preimplantation patch testing can be considered.¹⁷

Patch test results can influence the orthopedic surgeon’s choice of implant material. In one study, when preimplantation patch testing showed a positive patch test reaction to metals, the results influenced the surgeon’s decision-making in all cases.¹²

Postimplantation Patch Testing: Diagnostic Criteria for Metal IHR After Implantation

From 2012 to 2013, Schalock and Thyssen¹⁸ surveyed expert attendees at meetings of the European Society of Contact Dermatitis and the ACDS for their opinions on proposed diagnostic criteria for metal IHRs. Based on these results (N=119), the authors stratified 4 major and 5 minor diagnostic criteria, which were defined based on overall responses of meeting attendees. Major criteria included (1) chronic dermatitis beginning weeks to months after metallic implantation, (2) complete recovery after removal of the offending implant, (3) eruption overlying the metal implant, and (4) positive patch test reaction to a metal used in the implant. Minor criteria included (1) histology consistent with allergic contact dermatitis, (2) morphology consistent with dermatitis (ie, erythema, induration, papules, vesicles), (3) positive in vitro test to metals (eg, lymphocyte transformation test), (4) systemic allergic dermatitis reaction, and (5) therapy-resistant dermatitis reaction. The authors did not describe a scoring system for evaluation and confirmation of a diagnosis of IHR. Instead, the criteria should be used as general guidelines when evaluating patients for possible IHRs. From a standpoint of available diagnostic tests for metal IHR, 86.1% of experts agreed that a positive patch test reaction to a metal used in the implant was suggestive of a diagnosis, whereas a positive in vitro test to metals (LTT) was suggestive of a diagnosis for only 32.2% of respondents. This study was designed specifically for metal IHRs and therefore is not necessarily generalizable for nonmetal IHRs.¹⁸

Final Interpretation

We follow the 2016 ACDS guidelines¹⁷ and complete preimplantation patch testing only in the setting of suspected metal allergy and postimplantation patch testing based on the guidelines described by Schalock and Thyssen.¹⁸ However, an extended conversation is warranted prior to patch testing to ensure the patient fully understands the limitations of the test. Although we have both ordered the LTT, interpretation remains murky, and until this test is standardized, routine use is unlikely to benefit the patient. Until we are more reliably able to predict who will develop hypersensitivity to implanted metals, the decision to remove or revise an implant is one that should be made by a multidisciplinary team that includes the surgeon and the patient.

Hypersensitivity to metal implants remains a controversial field in contact dermatitis and patch testing. With positive reactions to nickel hovering around 20% in patch-tested populations,¹ the question remains whether metal-allergic patients can safely receive metal implants. Unfortunately, large controlled studies are lacking, in part due to ethical concerns of knowingly placing a metal implant in a metal-allergic patient. Much of the focus of implant hypersensitivity reactions (IHRs) has been on orthopedic joints including hips, knees, and shoulders, as well as fixed orthopedic implanted materials such as screws and plates. However, there have been reports of IHRs to cardiac devices including defibrillators, pacemakers, and intracardiac devices; dental hardware including implants, crowns, dentures, and braces; and neurologic and gynecologic devices. For the purposes of this review, we will focus on IHRs to orthopedic implants.

Making the Case for IHRs

There are multiple case reports and series documenting likely orthopedic IHRs in the literature^2-5; however, large prospective studies are lacking. Some of the largest series are from Danish registry studies. In 2009, Thyssen et al⁶ reviewed356 patients who had undergone both total hip arthroplasty and patch testing. Metal allergy frequencies were similar between patch-tested registry patients and patch test controls, showing no increase in positive patch tests to metals after receiving implants. Additionally, implant revision rates were comparable between registry patients with and without patch testing. The group concluded that the risk for revision after hip implantation in metal-allergic patients and the risk for development of metal allergy after implantation were both low.⁶ In 2015, Münch et al⁷ compared 327 patients who had undergone both total knee arthroplasty and patch testing and found that prevalence of allergy to nickel, cobalt, and chromium was similar between patients who had undergone revision surgery and those who had not; however, for patients who had 2 or more knee revisions, there was a higher prevalence of postimplant metal allergy. This study also showed that metal allergy identified before implantation did not increase the risk for postimplantation knee revision surgery or implant failure.⁷ These larger studies suggest that although individual cases of IHR exist, it is likely quite rare.

Patients have been found to have increased levels of chromium (serum and urine) and titanium (serum) following total hip arthroplasty.⁸ Additionally, metal wear particles have been identified in postmortem livers and spleens, which was more prevalent in patients with a history of failed hip arthroplasty.⁹ It is difficult to determine the meaning of this data, as the presence of metal ions does not necessarily indicate allergy or IHR. In 2001, Hallab et al¹⁰ pooled data from several implant cohort studies and concluded that in comparison to a baseline metal sensitivity prevalence of approximately 10%, patients with well-functioning implants had a metal sensitivity–weighted average of 25%, and those with poorly functioning implants had a weighted average of 60%. Again, positive patch testing to metals does not necessarily implicate allergy as the cause of implant failure.

Some small studies have shown that patients with evidence of metal hypersensitivity improve with revision. Zondervan et al¹¹ reviewed results of 46 orthopedic revisions following painful total knee arthroplasty. Patients with knee pain and lymphocyte transformation testing (LTT) positive for metals received hypoallergenic revisions, and those with LTT negative for metals received standard revisions. The group who received hypoallergenic revisions had more pain reduction compared to the standard revision group (37.8% reduction in pain vs 27%). However, this study was limited in that the diagnosis of metal allergy was made entirely on results of LTT.¹¹ In 2012, Atanaskova Mesinkovska et al¹² described 41 patients who underwent orthopedic patch testing following implantation for symptoms including pain, dermatitis, pruritus, joint loosening, edema, and impaired wound healing. Fifteen (37%) patients had positive patch test reactions to metals, and 10 (67%) of them had reactions to metals that were present in their implants. Six (60%) of these patients had their implants removed and their symptoms resolved; the remaining 4 continued to experience implant symptoms.¹² These studies support the existence of rare metal-related orthopedic IHRs and support the concept of proceeding with orthopedic implant revision when indicated, safe, and agreed upon by the surgeon and patient. However, as noted in the series by Zondervan et al,¹¹ not every patient with confirmed metal allergy who undergoes revision improves, so an informed conversation between the patient and surgeon is mandatory.

Types of Orthopedic Implants

Orthopedic implanted materials consist of either dynamic (knees, hips) or static (screws, plates) components. Several generations of hip implants have evolved since the 1960s. First-generation implanted hips were metal-on-metal and had high rates of metal release and sensitization. Metal-on-plastic implants may be less likely to release metal but instead release large polyethylene wear particles. Second-generation metal-on-metal implants reportedly have lower wear rates. With these implants, wear particles are generated but are reportedly smaller than first-generation particles.¹³

Allergens in IHRs

Metals
Metals are the most commonly implicated allergens in orthopedic IHRs. Potentially relevant metal alloys include 316L stainless steel, cobalt-chromium-molybdenum steel, Vitallium alloy, titanium alloy, titanium-tantalum-niobium alloy, and Oxinium (Smith & Nephew).^14,15 Each alloy contains several metals, which can include nickel, chromium, cobalt, manganese, molybdenum, iron, titanium, aluminum, vanadium, niobium, tantalum, and zirconium, among others. For example, 316L stainless steel contains iron, nickel, chromium, manganese, molybdenum, nitrogen, carbon, sulfur, silicon, and phosphorus, whereas Oxinium contains only oxidized zirconium and niobium.

Bone Cement
Bone cement also has been reported in cases of orthopedic IHRs and can contain several chemicals, including methyl methacrylate, N,N-dimethyl-p-toluidine, benzoyl peroxide, hydroquinone, and gentamicin.¹⁴ Other potential exposures include adhesives (cyanoacrylates) and topical antibiotics.

Clinical Presentation

Several clinical presentations of orthopedic IHRs have been described. Perhaps the most commonly recognized is a localized cutaneous eczematous eruption, with dermatitis typically overlying the site of the implanted material.^1,2,16 Generalized cutaneous eczematous IHRs also have been reported, including diffuse generalized dermatitis from a stainless steel orthopedic screw⁴ and nummular dermatitis attributed to vanadium in an orthopedic plate.⁵ Urticaria, vasculitis, and bullous cutaneous reactions, as well as extracutaneous complications, also have been reported.^14,15 Pain, edema, joint loosening or failure, and poor wound healing have been reported,¹² but it remains unclear whether these symptoms represent IHR.

Patch Testing for IHR

Several groups have published recommended patch test series for IHR.^12,14,15 Common components of implant patch testing panels include metals, adhesives (acrylates, epoxy resins) and antibiotics. Importantly, obtaining product information from the manufacturer of the suspected implant can guide which allergens to include in patch testing. Implant and metal panels also are available for commercial purchase.

Other Diagnostic Tests

We rarely (almost never) order LTTs in the workup for potential IHRs. This is an in vitro test that includes lymphocytes, metal ions, and the radioactive marker methyl-3H-thymidine. The goal of the test is to evaluate if patient lymphocytes are reactive or responsive to metal ions. A positive LTT suggests that lymphocytes can respond to the presence of metal ions but does not confirm allergy or the presence of IHR.

Typically, skin or tissue biopsies are not required to make a diagnosis of IHR; however, if performed, histopathology suggestive of IHR can support a suspected diagnosis. Typical findings include but are not limited to spongiotic dermatitis. Eosinophils may or may not be present. Metal disc testing has been utilized for orthopedic IHR but is not currently recommended due to low diagnostic yield. Prick testing rarely is used and also is not a primary method for diagnosis of IHR.¹⁷

Preimplantation Patch Testing

Expert opinion guidelines published by the American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS) state that routine preimplantation patch testing is not necessary; however, for those patients with a clear history of contact reactions to metal, preimplantation patch testing can be considered.¹⁷

Patch test results can influence the orthopedic surgeon’s choice of implant material. In one study, when preimplantation patch testing showed a positive patch test reaction to metals, the results influenced the surgeon’s decision-making in all cases.¹²

Postimplantation Patch Testing: Diagnostic Criteria for Metal IHR After Implantation

From 2012 to 2013, Schalock and Thyssen¹⁸ surveyed expert attendees at meetings of the European Society of Contact Dermatitis and the ACDS for their opinions on proposed diagnostic criteria for metal IHRs. Based on these results (N=119), the authors stratified 4 major and 5 minor diagnostic criteria, which were defined based on overall responses of meeting attendees. Major criteria included (1) chronic dermatitis beginning weeks to months after metallic implantation, (2) complete recovery after removal of the offending implant, (3) eruption overlying the metal implant, and (4) positive patch test reaction to a metal used in the implant. Minor criteria included (1) histology consistent with allergic contact dermatitis, (2) morphology consistent with dermatitis (ie, erythema, induration, papules, vesicles), (3) positive in vitro test to metals (eg, lymphocyte transformation test), (4) systemic allergic dermatitis reaction, and (5) therapy-resistant dermatitis reaction. The authors did not describe a scoring system for evaluation and confirmation of a diagnosis of IHR. Instead, the criteria should be used as general guidelines when evaluating patients for possible IHRs. From a standpoint of available diagnostic tests for metal IHR, 86.1% of experts agreed that a positive patch test reaction to a metal used in the implant was suggestive of a diagnosis, whereas a positive in vitro test to metals (LTT) was suggestive of a diagnosis for only 32.2% of respondents. This study was designed specifically for metal IHRs and therefore is not necessarily generalizable for nonmetal IHRs.¹⁸

Final Interpretation

We follow the 2016 ACDS guidelines¹⁷ and complete preimplantation patch testing only in the setting of suspected metal allergy and postimplantation patch testing based on the guidelines described by Schalock and Thyssen.¹⁸ However, an extended conversation is warranted prior to patch testing to ensure the patient fully understands the limitations of the test. Although we have both ordered the LTT, interpretation remains murky, and until this test is standardized, routine use is unlikely to benefit the patient. Until we are more reliably able to predict who will develop hypersensitivity to implanted metals, the decision to remove or revise an implant is one that should be made by a multidisciplinary team that includes the surgeon and the patient.

The connection between psoriasis and increased major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) has been well studied. ^1,2 Although treatment of psoriasis can improve skin and joint symptoms, it is less clear whether therapies may mitigate the increased risk for cardiovascular comorbidities. Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in particular have been studied with great interest given the role of TNF in vascular and metabolic functions. ³ Using a retrospective cohort design, Wu and colleagues ⁴ examined if treatment with TNF inhibitors in patients with psoriasis would be associated with a lower risk for MACEs compared to phototherapy. Results suggested a significantly lower hazard of MACEs in patients using TNF inhibitors vs patients treated with phototherapy (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.77; P = .046). Moreover, based on these findings, they calculated that treating approximately 161 patients with TNF inhibitors rather than phototherapy would result in 1 less MACE per year overall. ⁴

Patients with psoriasis have been shown to have a greater noncalcified coronary plaque burden and prevalence of high-risk plaque compared to healthy patients.⁵ Lerman and colleagues⁵ measured the coronary plaque burden of 105 patients with psoriasis and 25 healthy volunteers using coronary computed tomography angiography. Although the patients were on average 10 years younger and had lower cardiovascular risk as measured by traditional risk scores, patients with psoriasis were found to have a greater noncalcified coronary plaque burden compared to 100 patients with hyperlipidemia. This burden was associated with an increased prevalence of high-risk plaques. Furthermore, in patients followed for 1 year, improvements in psoriasis severity were associated with reductions in noncalcified coronary plaque burden, though this finding was across all treatment modalities. However, there was no significant difference in calcified coronary plaque burden associated with reduced psoriasis severity.⁵

Moreover, Pina et al⁶ conducted a prospective study evaluating the use of the TNF inhibitor adalimumab to improve endothelial function and arterial stiffness in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. Among 29 patients, they found a significant improvement in endothelial function as measured by flow-mediated dilatation after 6 months of adalimumab therapy, with a mean increase from 6.19% to 7.46% (P=.008). They also reported decreases in arterial stiffness by pulse wave velocity (P=.03). Despite a small sample size, these findings provide 2 potential mechanisms by which TNF inhibitor therapy may reduce the risk for cardiovascular events.⁶

A retrospective cohort study evaluating data from the Kaiser Permanente Southern California health plan assessed whether TNF inhibitor therapy was associated with a lower risk for MACE in patients with psoriasis.⁷ A total of 18,194 patients were included; of these, 1463 received TNF inhibitor therapy for at least 2 months. After controlling for other variables, including age at psoriasis diagnosis, sex, race/ethnicity, and other cardiovascular risk factors (eg, history of smoking or alcohol use; use of clopidogrel, antihypertensive agents, antihyperlipidemics, or anticoagulants), patients in the TNF inhibitor cohort demonstrated a significantly lower MACE hazard ratio compared to patients treated with topicals (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.98; P<.05).⁷

Conversely, a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of 107 patients found no difference in vascular inflammation of the ascending aorta and the carotids after 16 weeks of adalimumab treatment vs placebo. In this study, however, most patients had only moderate psoriasis based on a mean psoriasis area and severity index score of 9.8.⁸ Given studies finding higher risk burden in patients with more severe skin disease,² it is possible that the effect of TNF inhibitor therapy may not be as pronounced in patients with less skin involvement. There was a significant effect on C-reactive protein levels in patients receiving TNF inhibitor therapy compared to placebo at 16 weeks (P=.012), suggesting TNF does play some role in systemic inflammation, and it is possible it may exert cardiovascular effects through a mechanism other than vascular inflammation.⁸

A second double-blind, randomized trial reported similar results.⁹ Among 97 patients randomized to receive adalimumab, placebo, or phototherapy, no significant difference in vascular inflammation was found after 12 weeks of therapy. In contrast, levels of C-reactive protein, IL-6, and glycoprotein acetylation were markedly reduced. The authors also reported adverse effects of adalimumab therapy on lipid metabolism with reduced cholesterol efflux capacity, a marker of ability of high-density-lipoprotein particles to perform reverse cholesterol transport, and high-density-lipoprotein particles, suggesting these effects may counteract some of the anti-inflammatory effects of TNF inhibitors.⁹

A growing body of data regarding the effect of TNF inhibitors on cardiovascular morbidity in patients with psoriasis is being collected, but no strong conclusions can be made. Given the disconnect of findings across these studies, it is possible that we have yet to elucidate the full mechanism by which TNF inhibitors may affect cardiovascular health. However, there may be additional confounding factors or patient characteristics at play. More large, prospective, randomized, controlled studies are needed to further understand this relationship.

The connection between psoriasis and increased major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) has been well studied. ^1,2 Although treatment of psoriasis can improve skin and joint symptoms, it is less clear whether therapies may mitigate the increased risk for cardiovascular comorbidities. Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in particular have been studied with great interest given the role of TNF in vascular and metabolic functions. ³ Using a retrospective cohort design, Wu and colleagues ⁴ examined if treatment with TNF inhibitors in patients with psoriasis would be associated with a lower risk for MACEs compared to phototherapy. Results suggested a significantly lower hazard of MACEs in patients using TNF inhibitors vs patients treated with phototherapy (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.77; P = .046). Moreover, based on these findings, they calculated that treating approximately 161 patients with TNF inhibitors rather than phototherapy would result in 1 less MACE per year overall. ⁴

Patients with psoriasis have been shown to have a greater noncalcified coronary plaque burden and prevalence of high-risk plaque compared to healthy patients.⁵ Lerman and colleagues⁵ measured the coronary plaque burden of 105 patients with psoriasis and 25 healthy volunteers using coronary computed tomography angiography. Although the patients were on average 10 years younger and had lower cardiovascular risk as measured by traditional risk scores, patients with psoriasis were found to have a greater noncalcified coronary plaque burden compared to 100 patients with hyperlipidemia. This burden was associated with an increased prevalence of high-risk plaques. Furthermore, in patients followed for 1 year, improvements in psoriasis severity were associated with reductions in noncalcified coronary plaque burden, though this finding was across all treatment modalities. However, there was no significant difference in calcified coronary plaque burden associated with reduced psoriasis severity.⁵

Moreover, Pina et al⁶ conducted a prospective study evaluating the use of the TNF inhibitor adalimumab to improve endothelial function and arterial stiffness in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. Among 29 patients, they found a significant improvement in endothelial function as measured by flow-mediated dilatation after 6 months of adalimumab therapy, with a mean increase from 6.19% to 7.46% (P=.008). They also reported decreases in arterial stiffness by pulse wave velocity (P=.03). Despite a small sample size, these findings provide 2 potential mechanisms by which TNF inhibitor therapy may reduce the risk for cardiovascular events.⁶

A retrospective cohort study evaluating data from the Kaiser Permanente Southern California health plan assessed whether TNF inhibitor therapy was associated with a lower risk for MACE in patients with psoriasis.⁷ A total of 18,194 patients were included; of these, 1463 received TNF inhibitor therapy for at least 2 months. After controlling for other variables, including age at psoriasis diagnosis, sex, race/ethnicity, and other cardiovascular risk factors (eg, history of smoking or alcohol use; use of clopidogrel, antihypertensive agents, antihyperlipidemics, or anticoagulants), patients in the TNF inhibitor cohort demonstrated a significantly lower MACE hazard ratio compared to patients treated with topicals (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.98; P<.05).⁷

Conversely, a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of 107 patients found no difference in vascular inflammation of the ascending aorta and the carotids after 16 weeks of adalimumab treatment vs placebo. In this study, however, most patients had only moderate psoriasis based on a mean psoriasis area and severity index score of 9.8.⁸ Given studies finding higher risk burden in patients with more severe skin disease,² it is possible that the effect of TNF inhibitor therapy may not be as pronounced in patients with less skin involvement. There was a significant effect on C-reactive protein levels in patients receiving TNF inhibitor therapy compared to placebo at 16 weeks (P=.012), suggesting TNF does play some role in systemic inflammation, and it is possible it may exert cardiovascular effects through a mechanism other than vascular inflammation.⁸

A second double-blind, randomized trial reported similar results.⁹ Among 97 patients randomized to receive adalimumab, placebo, or phototherapy, no significant difference in vascular inflammation was found after 12 weeks of therapy. In contrast, levels of C-reactive protein, IL-6, and glycoprotein acetylation were markedly reduced. The authors also reported adverse effects of adalimumab therapy on lipid metabolism with reduced cholesterol efflux capacity, a marker of ability of high-density-lipoprotein particles to perform reverse cholesterol transport, and high-density-lipoprotein particles, suggesting these effects may counteract some of the anti-inflammatory effects of TNF inhibitors.⁹

A growing body of data regarding the effect of TNF inhibitors on cardiovascular morbidity in patients with psoriasis is being collected, but no strong conclusions can be made. Given the disconnect of findings across these studies, it is possible that we have yet to elucidate the full mechanism by which TNF inhibitors may affect cardiovascular health. However, there may be additional confounding factors or patient characteristics at play. More large, prospective, randomized, controlled studies are needed to further understand this relationship.

The connection between psoriasis and increased major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) has been well studied. ^1,2 Although treatment of psoriasis can improve skin and joint symptoms, it is less clear whether therapies may mitigate the increased risk for cardiovascular comorbidities. Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in particular have been studied with great interest given the role of TNF in vascular and metabolic functions. ³ Using a retrospective cohort design, Wu and colleagues ⁴ examined if treatment with TNF inhibitors in patients with psoriasis would be associated with a lower risk for MACEs compared to phototherapy. Results suggested a significantly lower hazard of MACEs in patients using TNF inhibitors vs patients treated with phototherapy (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.77; P = .046). Moreover, based on these findings, they calculated that treating approximately 161 patients with TNF inhibitors rather than phototherapy would result in 1 less MACE per year overall. ⁴

Patients with psoriasis have been shown to have a greater noncalcified coronary plaque burden and prevalence of high-risk plaque compared to healthy patients.⁵ Lerman and colleagues⁵ measured the coronary plaque burden of 105 patients with psoriasis and 25 healthy volunteers using coronary computed tomography angiography. Although the patients were on average 10 years younger and had lower cardiovascular risk as measured by traditional risk scores, patients with psoriasis were found to have a greater noncalcified coronary plaque burden compared to 100 patients with hyperlipidemia. This burden was associated with an increased prevalence of high-risk plaques. Furthermore, in patients followed for 1 year, improvements in psoriasis severity were associated with reductions in noncalcified coronary plaque burden, though this finding was across all treatment modalities. However, there was no significant difference in calcified coronary plaque burden associated with reduced psoriasis severity.⁵

Moreover, Pina et al⁶ conducted a prospective study evaluating the use of the TNF inhibitor adalimumab to improve endothelial function and arterial stiffness in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. Among 29 patients, they found a significant improvement in endothelial function as measured by flow-mediated dilatation after 6 months of adalimumab therapy, with a mean increase from 6.19% to 7.46% (P=.008). They also reported decreases in arterial stiffness by pulse wave velocity (P=.03). Despite a small sample size, these findings provide 2 potential mechanisms by which TNF inhibitor therapy may reduce the risk for cardiovascular events.⁶

A retrospective cohort study evaluating data from the Kaiser Permanente Southern California health plan assessed whether TNF inhibitor therapy was associated with a lower risk for MACE in patients with psoriasis.⁷ A total of 18,194 patients were included; of these, 1463 received TNF inhibitor therapy for at least 2 months. After controlling for other variables, including age at psoriasis diagnosis, sex, race/ethnicity, and other cardiovascular risk factors (eg, history of smoking or alcohol use; use of clopidogrel, antihypertensive agents, antihyperlipidemics, or anticoagulants), patients in the TNF inhibitor cohort demonstrated a significantly lower MACE hazard ratio compared to patients treated with topicals (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.98; P<.05).⁷

Conversely, a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of 107 patients found no difference in vascular inflammation of the ascending aorta and the carotids after 16 weeks of adalimumab treatment vs placebo. In this study, however, most patients had only moderate psoriasis based on a mean psoriasis area and severity index score of 9.8.⁸ Given studies finding higher risk burden in patients with more severe skin disease,² it is possible that the effect of TNF inhibitor therapy may not be as pronounced in patients with less skin involvement. There was a significant effect on C-reactive protein levels in patients receiving TNF inhibitor therapy compared to placebo at 16 weeks (P=.012), suggesting TNF does play some role in systemic inflammation, and it is possible it may exert cardiovascular effects through a mechanism other than vascular inflammation.⁸

A second double-blind, randomized trial reported similar results.⁹ Among 97 patients randomized to receive adalimumab, placebo, or phototherapy, no significant difference in vascular inflammation was found after 12 weeks of therapy. In contrast, levels of C-reactive protein, IL-6, and glycoprotein acetylation were markedly reduced. The authors also reported adverse effects of adalimumab therapy on lipid metabolism with reduced cholesterol efflux capacity, a marker of ability of high-density-lipoprotein particles to perform reverse cholesterol transport, and high-density-lipoprotein particles, suggesting these effects may counteract some of the anti-inflammatory effects of TNF inhibitors.⁹

A growing body of data regarding the effect of TNF inhibitors on cardiovascular morbidity in patients with psoriasis is being collected, but no strong conclusions can be made. Given the disconnect of findings across these studies, it is possible that we have yet to elucidate the full mechanism by which TNF inhibitors may affect cardiovascular health. However, there may be additional confounding factors or patient characteristics at play. More large, prospective, randomized, controlled studies are needed to further understand this relationship.

In patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), comorbid chronic cough is associated with more respiratory symptoms and health care utilization, decreased lung function, and increased inflammatory markers in blood, according to research published in CHEST.

The results indicate “that chronic cough in individuals with COPD is associated with a more severe disease phenotype, which could be helpful for stratifying management of COPD in the future,” wrote Eskild Landt, PhD, a research assistant at Zealand University Hospital in Køge, Denmark, and colleagues.

A study by published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice (2019;7[6]:1783-92.e8) indicated that in patients with asthma, chronic cough was associated with worse respiratory symptoms, more health care utilization, decreased lung function, and increased inflammatory markers in blood. Dr. Landt and colleagues hypothesized that patients with COPD and chronic cough had a similar pattern of disease severity.

To test their hypothesis, they identified individuals with COPD and chronic cough among 43,271 participants in the Copenhagen General Population Study, a population-based cohort study. The researchers defined COPD as a ratio of forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) to forced vital capacity (FVC) of less than 0.70 in individuals without asthma. Consecutive individuals answered questions about chronic cough, which was defined as a cough lasting more than 8 weeks, and responded to the Leicester Cough Questionnaire. They also underwent a physical health examination, including prebronchodilatory spirometry, and gave blood for biochemical analyses. The blood was analyzed for high-sensitive C-reactive protein, fibrinogen, leukocytes, eosinophils, neutrophils, and immunoglobulin E (i.e., inflammatory biomarkers).

Dr. Landt and colleagues identified 8,181 patients (19% of the population) with COPD, 796 (10%) of whom had chronic cough. Of the 33,364 participants without COPD, 1,585 (5%) had chronic cough. For patients with COPD and chronic cough, median total Leicester Cough Questionnaire score was 17.7, corresponding to 5.9 for the physical domain, 5.6 for the psychological domain, and 6.3 for the social domain.

Among participants with COPD, those with chronic cough had higher rates of sputum production (60% versus 8%), wheezing (46% versus 14%), dyspnea (66% versus 38%), chest pain or tightness (9% versus 4%), nighttime dyspnea (8% versus 3%), episodes of acute bronchitis or pneumonias in the past 10 years (45% versus 25%), and general practitioner visits in the past 12 months (53% versus 37%). In addition, these participants had lower FEV₁% of predicted (81% versus 89%), lower ratio of FEV₁ to FVC (0.64 versus 0.66), and higher levels of high-sensitive C-reactive protein, fibrinogen, leukocytes, neutrophils, eosinophils, and immunoglobulin E in blood.

“To our knowledge, this is the first study reporting Leicester Cough Questionnaire score for randomly selected individuals with COPD from a general population setting,” wrote Dr. Landt and colleagues. The study’s strengths include its randomly chosen population-based sample and investigator blinding to disease status and clinical outcome, they added. Some patients with the most severe types of COPD and chronic cough may not have attended the physical examination and participated in the study, however, and this factor could have biased the results. Furthermore, nearly the entire sample was white, so the results may not be generalizable to other ethnicities. “That said, we are not aware of results to suggest that our findings should not be relevant to individuals of all races,” wrote the investigators.

The study was funded by the private Lundbeck Foundation, as well as by the Danish Lung Association and the Danish Cancer Society. Several authors reported receiving grants and fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis that were unrelated to the study.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Landt E et al. CHEST. 2020 Jan 24. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.12.038.

In patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), comorbid chronic cough is associated with more respiratory symptoms and health care utilization, decreased lung function, and increased inflammatory markers in blood, according to research published in CHEST.

The results indicate “that chronic cough in individuals with COPD is associated with a more severe disease phenotype, which could be helpful for stratifying management of COPD in the future,” wrote Eskild Landt, PhD, a research assistant at Zealand University Hospital in Køge, Denmark, and colleagues.

A study by published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice (2019;7[6]:1783-92.e8) indicated that in patients with asthma, chronic cough was associated with worse respiratory symptoms, more health care utilization, decreased lung function, and increased inflammatory markers in blood. Dr. Landt and colleagues hypothesized that patients with COPD and chronic cough had a similar pattern of disease severity.

To test their hypothesis, they identified individuals with COPD and chronic cough among 43,271 participants in the Copenhagen General Population Study, a population-based cohort study. The researchers defined COPD as a ratio of forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) to forced vital capacity (FVC) of less than 0.70 in individuals without asthma. Consecutive individuals answered questions about chronic cough, which was defined as a cough lasting more than 8 weeks, and responded to the Leicester Cough Questionnaire. They also underwent a physical health examination, including prebronchodilatory spirometry, and gave blood for biochemical analyses. The blood was analyzed for high-sensitive C-reactive protein, fibrinogen, leukocytes, eosinophils, neutrophils, and immunoglobulin E (i.e., inflammatory biomarkers).

Dr. Landt and colleagues identified 8,181 patients (19% of the population) with COPD, 796 (10%) of whom had chronic cough. Of the 33,364 participants without COPD, 1,585 (5%) had chronic cough. For patients with COPD and chronic cough, median total Leicester Cough Questionnaire score was 17.7, corresponding to 5.9 for the physical domain, 5.6 for the psychological domain, and 6.3 for the social domain.

Among participants with COPD, those with chronic cough had higher rates of sputum production (60% versus 8%), wheezing (46% versus 14%), dyspnea (66% versus 38%), chest pain or tightness (9% versus 4%), nighttime dyspnea (8% versus 3%), episodes of acute bronchitis or pneumonias in the past 10 years (45% versus 25%), and general practitioner visits in the past 12 months (53% versus 37%). In addition, these participants had lower FEV₁% of predicted (81% versus 89%), lower ratio of FEV₁ to FVC (0.64 versus 0.66), and higher levels of high-sensitive C-reactive protein, fibrinogen, leukocytes, neutrophils, eosinophils, and immunoglobulin E in blood.

“To our knowledge, this is the first study reporting Leicester Cough Questionnaire score for randomly selected individuals with COPD from a general population setting,” wrote Dr. Landt and colleagues. The study’s strengths include its randomly chosen population-based sample and investigator blinding to disease status and clinical outcome, they added. Some patients with the most severe types of COPD and chronic cough may not have attended the physical examination and participated in the study, however, and this factor could have biased the results. Furthermore, nearly the entire sample was white, so the results may not be generalizable to other ethnicities. “That said, we are not aware of results to suggest that our findings should not be relevant to individuals of all races,” wrote the investigators.

The study was funded by the private Lundbeck Foundation, as well as by the Danish Lung Association and the Danish Cancer Society. Several authors reported receiving grants and fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis that were unrelated to the study.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Landt E et al. CHEST. 2020 Jan 24. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.12.038.

In patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), comorbid chronic cough is associated with more respiratory symptoms and health care utilization, decreased lung function, and increased inflammatory markers in blood, according to research published in CHEST.

The results indicate “that chronic cough in individuals with COPD is associated with a more severe disease phenotype, which could be helpful for stratifying management of COPD in the future,” wrote Eskild Landt, PhD, a research assistant at Zealand University Hospital in Køge, Denmark, and colleagues.

A study by published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice (2019;7[6]:1783-92.e8) indicated that in patients with asthma, chronic cough was associated with worse respiratory symptoms, more health care utilization, decreased lung function, and increased inflammatory markers in blood. Dr. Landt and colleagues hypothesized that patients with COPD and chronic cough had a similar pattern of disease severity.

To test their hypothesis, they identified individuals with COPD and chronic cough among 43,271 participants in the Copenhagen General Population Study, a population-based cohort study. The researchers defined COPD as a ratio of forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) to forced vital capacity (FVC) of less than 0.70 in individuals without asthma. Consecutive individuals answered questions about chronic cough, which was defined as a cough lasting more than 8 weeks, and responded to the Leicester Cough Questionnaire. They also underwent a physical health examination, including prebronchodilatory spirometry, and gave blood for biochemical analyses. The blood was analyzed for high-sensitive C-reactive protein, fibrinogen, leukocytes, eosinophils, neutrophils, and immunoglobulin E (i.e., inflammatory biomarkers).

Dr. Landt and colleagues identified 8,181 patients (19% of the population) with COPD, 796 (10%) of whom had chronic cough. Of the 33,364 participants without COPD, 1,585 (5%) had chronic cough. For patients with COPD and chronic cough, median total Leicester Cough Questionnaire score was 17.7, corresponding to 5.9 for the physical domain, 5.6 for the psychological domain, and 6.3 for the social domain.

Among participants with COPD, those with chronic cough had higher rates of sputum production (60% versus 8%), wheezing (46% versus 14%), dyspnea (66% versus 38%), chest pain or tightness (9% versus 4%), nighttime dyspnea (8% versus 3%), episodes of acute bronchitis or pneumonias in the past 10 years (45% versus 25%), and general practitioner visits in the past 12 months (53% versus 37%). In addition, these participants had lower FEV₁% of predicted (81% versus 89%), lower ratio of FEV₁ to FVC (0.64 versus 0.66), and higher levels of high-sensitive C-reactive protein, fibrinogen, leukocytes, neutrophils, eosinophils, and immunoglobulin E in blood.

“To our knowledge, this is the first study reporting Leicester Cough Questionnaire score for randomly selected individuals with COPD from a general population setting,” wrote Dr. Landt and colleagues. The study’s strengths include its randomly chosen population-based sample and investigator blinding to disease status and clinical outcome, they added. Some patients with the most severe types of COPD and chronic cough may not have attended the physical examination and participated in the study, however, and this factor could have biased the results. Furthermore, nearly the entire sample was white, so the results may not be generalizable to other ethnicities. “That said, we are not aware of results to suggest that our findings should not be relevant to individuals of all races,” wrote the investigators.

The study was funded by the private Lundbeck Foundation, as well as by the Danish Lung Association and the Danish Cancer Society. Several authors reported receiving grants and fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis that were unrelated to the study.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Landt E et al. CHEST. 2020 Jan 24. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.12.038.

Documentation has always been part of a physician’s job. Historically, in the days of paper records, physicians saw a patient on rounds and immediately following, while still on the unit, wrote a daily note detailing the events, test results, and plans since the last note. Addenda were written over the course of the day and night as needed.

The medical record was a chronological itemization of the encounter. The chart told the patient’s story, hopefully legibly and without excessive rehashing of previous material. The discharge summary then encapsulated the hospitalization in several coherent paragraphs.

In the current electronic records environment, we are inundated with excessive and repetitious information, data without interpretation, differentials without diagnoses. Prepopulation of templated notes, defaults without edit, and dictation without revision have degraded our documentation to the point of unintelligibility. The chronological storytelling and trustworthiness of the medical record has become suspect.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is touting its “Patients over Paperwork” initiative. The solution is flawed (that is, future relaxation of documentation requirements for professional billing) because the premise is delusive. Documentation isn’t fundamentally the problem. Having clinicians jump through regulatory hoops which do not advance patients’ care, and providers misunderstanding the requirements for level-of-service billing are the essential issues. Getting no training on how to properly document in medical school/residency and receiving no formative feedback on documentation throughout one’s career compounds the problem. Having clinical documentation serve too many masters, including compliance, quality, medicolegal, utilization review, and reimbursement, is also to blame. The advent of the electronic medical record was just the straw that broke the camel’s back.

Many hospitals now have a clinical documentation integrity (CDI) team which is tasked with querying the provider when the health record documentation is conflicting, imprecise, incomplete, illegible, ambiguous, or inconsistent. They are charged with getting practitioners to associate clinical indicators with diagnoses and to consider removal of diagnoses which do not seem clinically valid from the existing documentation. From this explanation, you might well conclude that the CDI specialist could generate a query on every patient if they were so inclined, and you would be correct. But the goal isn’t to torture the physician – it is to ensure that the medical record is accurately depicting the encounter.

You are not being asked for more documentation by the CDI team; they are entreating you for higher-quality documentation. Let me give you some pointers to ward off queries.

• Tell the story. The most important goal of documentation is to clinically communicate to other caregivers. Think to yourself: “What would a fellow clinician need to know about this patient to understand why I drew those conclusions or to pick up where I left off?” At 2 a.m., that information, or lack thereof, could literally be a matter of life or death.
• Tell the truth. Embellishing the record or including invalid diagnoses with the intent to increase the severity of illness resulting in a more favorable diagnosis-related group – the inpatient risk-adjustment system – is considered fraud.
• You may like the convenience of copy forward, but do you relish reading other people’s copy and paste? Consider doing a documentation time-out. Before you copy and paste yesterday’s assessment and plan, stop and think: “Why is the patient still here? Why are we doing what we are doing?” If you choose to copy and paste, be certain to do mindful editing so the documentation represents the current situation and avoids redundancy. Appropriately editing copy and pasted documentation may prove more time consuming than generating a note de novo.
• Translate findings into diagnoses using your best medical judgment. One man’s hypotension may be another health care provider’s shock. Coders are not clinical and are not permitted to make inferences. A potassium of 6.7 may be hyperkalemia or it may be spurious – only a clinician may make that determination using their clinical expertise and experience. The coder is not allowed to read your mind. You must explicitly draw the conclusion that a febrile patient with bacteremia, encephalopathy, hypoxemia, and a blood pressure of 85/60 is in septic shock.
• Uncertain diagnoses (heralded by words such as: likely, possible, probable, suspected, rule out, etc.) which are not ruled out prior to discharge or demise are coded as if they were definitively present, for the inpatient technical side of hospital billing. This is distinctly different than the professional fee where you can only code definitive diagnoses. If you have a strong suspicion (not wild speculation) that a condition is present, best practice is to offer an uncertain diagnosis. Associate signs and symptoms with your most likely diagnosis: “Shortness of breath, pleuritic chest pain, and hypoxemia in the setting of cancer, probable pulmonary embolism.”
• Evolve, resolve, remove, and recap. If an uncertain diagnosis is ruled in, take away the uncertainty. If it is ruled out, don’t have 4 days of copy and pasted: “Possible eosinophilic pneumonia.” You do not have to maintain a resolved diagnosis ad infinitum. It can drop off the diagnosis list but be sure to have it reappear in the discharge summary.
• I know it can be a hASSLe to do excellent documentation, but it is critical for many reasons, most importantly for superlative patient care. More accurate coding and billing is an intended consequence. A: Acuity; S: Severity; S: Specificity (may affect the coding and the risk-adjustment implications. Acute systolic heart failure does not equal heart failure; type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic chronic kidney disease, stage 4 does not equal chronic kidney disease); and L: Linkage (of diagnosis with underlying cause or manifestation [e.g., because of, associated with, as a result of, secondary to, or from diabetic nephropathy, hypertensive encephalopathy]).
• If you have the capability to keep a running summary throughout the hospital stay, do so and keep it updated. A few moments of daily careful editing and composing can save time and effort at the back end creating the discharge summary. The follow-up care provider can reconstruct the hospital course and it is your last chance to spin the narrative for the lawyers.
• Read your documentation over. Ensure that it is clear, accurate, concise, and tells the story and the plans for the patient. Make sure that someone reading the note will know what you were thinking.
• Set up a program to self-audit documentation where monthly or quarterly, you and your partners mutually review a certain number of records and give each other feedback. Design an assessment tool which rates the quality of documentation elements which your hospital/network/service line values (clarity, copy and paste, complete and specific diagnoses, etc.). You know who the best documenters are. Why do you think their documentation is superior? How can you emulate them?

Finally, answer CDI queries. The CDI specialist is your ally, not your enemy. They want you to get credit for taking care of sick and complex patients. They are not permitted to lead the provider, so don’t ask them what they want you to write. But, if you don’t understand the query or issue, have a conversation and get it clarified. It is in everyone’s best interest to get this right.

Documentation improves patient care and demonstrates that you provided excellent patient care. Put mentation back into documentation.

Dr. Remer was a practicing emergency physician for 25 years and a physician advisor for 4 years. She is on the board of directors of the American College of Physician Advisors and the advisory board of the Association of Clinical Documentation Improvement Specialists. She currently provides consulting services for provider education on documentation, CDI, and ICD-10 coding. Dr. Remer can be reached at [email protected]

Documentation has always been part of a physician’s job. Historically, in the days of paper records, physicians saw a patient on rounds and immediately following, while still on the unit, wrote a daily note detailing the events, test results, and plans since the last note. Addenda were written over the course of the day and night as needed.

The medical record was a chronological itemization of the encounter. The chart told the patient’s story, hopefully legibly and without excessive rehashing of previous material. The discharge summary then encapsulated the hospitalization in several coherent paragraphs.

In the current electronic records environment, we are inundated with excessive and repetitious information, data without interpretation, differentials without diagnoses. Prepopulation of templated notes, defaults without edit, and dictation without revision have degraded our documentation to the point of unintelligibility. The chronological storytelling and trustworthiness of the medical record has become suspect.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is touting its “Patients over Paperwork” initiative. The solution is flawed (that is, future relaxation of documentation requirements for professional billing) because the premise is delusive. Documentation isn’t fundamentally the problem. Having clinicians jump through regulatory hoops which do not advance patients’ care, and providers misunderstanding the requirements for level-of-service billing are the essential issues. Getting no training on how to properly document in medical school/residency and receiving no formative feedback on documentation throughout one’s career compounds the problem. Having clinical documentation serve too many masters, including compliance, quality, medicolegal, utilization review, and reimbursement, is also to blame. The advent of the electronic medical record was just the straw that broke the camel’s back.

Many hospitals now have a clinical documentation integrity (CDI) team which is tasked with querying the provider when the health record documentation is conflicting, imprecise, incomplete, illegible, ambiguous, or inconsistent. They are charged with getting practitioners to associate clinical indicators with diagnoses and to consider removal of diagnoses which do not seem clinically valid from the existing documentation. From this explanation, you might well conclude that the CDI specialist could generate a query on every patient if they were so inclined, and you would be correct. But the goal isn’t to torture the physician – it is to ensure that the medical record is accurately depicting the encounter.

You are not being asked for more documentation by the CDI team; they are entreating you for higher-quality documentation. Let me give you some pointers to ward off queries.

• Tell the story. The most important goal of documentation is to clinically communicate to other caregivers. Think to yourself: “What would a fellow clinician need to know about this patient to understand why I drew those conclusions or to pick up where I left off?” At 2 a.m., that information, or lack thereof, could literally be a matter of life or death.
• Tell the truth. Embellishing the record or including invalid diagnoses with the intent to increase the severity of illness resulting in a more favorable diagnosis-related group – the inpatient risk-adjustment system – is considered fraud.
• You may like the convenience of copy forward, but do you relish reading other people’s copy and paste? Consider doing a documentation time-out. Before you copy and paste yesterday’s assessment and plan, stop and think: “Why is the patient still here? Why are we doing what we are doing?” If you choose to copy and paste, be certain to do mindful editing so the documentation represents the current situation and avoids redundancy. Appropriately editing copy and pasted documentation may prove more time consuming than generating a note de novo.
• Translate findings into diagnoses using your best medical judgment. One man’s hypotension may be another health care provider’s shock. Coders are not clinical and are not permitted to make inferences. A potassium of 6.7 may be hyperkalemia or it may be spurious – only a clinician may make that determination using their clinical expertise and experience. The coder is not allowed to read your mind. You must explicitly draw the conclusion that a febrile patient with bacteremia, encephalopathy, hypoxemia, and a blood pressure of 85/60 is in septic shock.
• Uncertain diagnoses (heralded by words such as: likely, possible, probable, suspected, rule out, etc.) which are not ruled out prior to discharge or demise are coded as if they were definitively present, for the inpatient technical side of hospital billing. This is distinctly different than the professional fee where you can only code definitive diagnoses. If you have a strong suspicion (not wild speculation) that a condition is present, best practice is to offer an uncertain diagnosis. Associate signs and symptoms with your most likely diagnosis: “Shortness of breath, pleuritic chest pain, and hypoxemia in the setting of cancer, probable pulmonary embolism.”
• Evolve, resolve, remove, and recap. If an uncertain diagnosis is ruled in, take away the uncertainty. If it is ruled out, don’t have 4 days of copy and pasted: “Possible eosinophilic pneumonia.” You do not have to maintain a resolved diagnosis ad infinitum. It can drop off the diagnosis list but be sure to have it reappear in the discharge summary.
• I know it can be a hASSLe to do excellent documentation, but it is critical for many reasons, most importantly for superlative patient care. More accurate coding and billing is an intended consequence. A: Acuity; S: Severity; S: Specificity (may affect the coding and the risk-adjustment implications. Acute systolic heart failure does not equal heart failure; type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic chronic kidney disease, stage 4 does not equal chronic kidney disease); and L: Linkage (of diagnosis with underlying cause or manifestation [e.g., because of, associated with, as a result of, secondary to, or from diabetic nephropathy, hypertensive encephalopathy]).
• If you have the capability to keep a running summary throughout the hospital stay, do so and keep it updated. A few moments of daily careful editing and composing can save time and effort at the back end creating the discharge summary. The follow-up care provider can reconstruct the hospital course and it is your last chance to spin the narrative for the lawyers.
• Read your documentation over. Ensure that it is clear, accurate, concise, and tells the story and the plans for the patient. Make sure that someone reading the note will know what you were thinking.
• Set up a program to self-audit documentation where monthly or quarterly, you and your partners mutually review a certain number of records and give each other feedback. Design an assessment tool which rates the quality of documentation elements which your hospital/network/service line values (clarity, copy and paste, complete and specific diagnoses, etc.). You know who the best documenters are. Why do you think their documentation is superior? How can you emulate them?

Finally, answer CDI queries. The CDI specialist is your ally, not your enemy. They want you to get credit for taking care of sick and complex patients. They are not permitted to lead the provider, so don’t ask them what they want you to write. But, if you don’t understand the query or issue, have a conversation and get it clarified. It is in everyone’s best interest to get this right.

Documentation improves patient care and demonstrates that you provided excellent patient care. Put mentation back into documentation.

Dr. Remer was a practicing emergency physician for 25 years and a physician advisor for 4 years. She is on the board of directors of the American College of Physician Advisors and the advisory board of the Association of Clinical Documentation Improvement Specialists. She currently provides consulting services for provider education on documentation, CDI, and ICD-10 coding. Dr. Remer can be reached at [email protected]

Documentation has always been part of a physician’s job. Historically, in the days of paper records, physicians saw a patient on rounds and immediately following, while still on the unit, wrote a daily note detailing the events, test results, and plans since the last note. Addenda were written over the course of the day and night as needed.

The medical record was a chronological itemization of the encounter. The chart told the patient’s story, hopefully legibly and without excessive rehashing of previous material. The discharge summary then encapsulated the hospitalization in several coherent paragraphs.

In the current electronic records environment, we are inundated with excessive and repetitious information, data without interpretation, differentials without diagnoses. Prepopulation of templated notes, defaults without edit, and dictation without revision have degraded our documentation to the point of unintelligibility. The chronological storytelling and trustworthiness of the medical record has become suspect.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is touting its “Patients over Paperwork” initiative. The solution is flawed (that is, future relaxation of documentation requirements for professional billing) because the premise is delusive. Documentation isn’t fundamentally the problem. Having clinicians jump through regulatory hoops which do not advance patients’ care, and providers misunderstanding the requirements for level-of-service billing are the essential issues. Getting no training on how to properly document in medical school/residency and receiving no formative feedback on documentation throughout one’s career compounds the problem. Having clinical documentation serve too many masters, including compliance, quality, medicolegal, utilization review, and reimbursement, is also to blame. The advent of the electronic medical record was just the straw that broke the camel’s back.

Many hospitals now have a clinical documentation integrity (CDI) team which is tasked with querying the provider when the health record documentation is conflicting, imprecise, incomplete, illegible, ambiguous, or inconsistent. They are charged with getting practitioners to associate clinical indicators with diagnoses and to consider removal of diagnoses which do not seem clinically valid from the existing documentation. From this explanation, you might well conclude that the CDI specialist could generate a query on every patient if they were so inclined, and you would be correct. But the goal isn’t to torture the physician – it is to ensure that the medical record is accurately depicting the encounter.

You are not being asked for more documentation by the CDI team; they are entreating you for higher-quality documentation. Let me give you some pointers to ward off queries.

• Tell the story. The most important goal of documentation is to clinically communicate to other caregivers. Think to yourself: “What would a fellow clinician need to know about this patient to understand why I drew those conclusions or to pick up where I left off?” At 2 a.m., that information, or lack thereof, could literally be a matter of life or death.
• Tell the truth. Embellishing the record or including invalid diagnoses with the intent to increase the severity of illness resulting in a more favorable diagnosis-related group – the inpatient risk-adjustment system – is considered fraud.
• You may like the convenience of copy forward, but do you relish reading other people’s copy and paste? Consider doing a documentation time-out. Before you copy and paste yesterday’s assessment and plan, stop and think: “Why is the patient still here? Why are we doing what we are doing?” If you choose to copy and paste, be certain to do mindful editing so the documentation represents the current situation and avoids redundancy. Appropriately editing copy and pasted documentation may prove more time consuming than generating a note de novo.
• Translate findings into diagnoses using your best medical judgment. One man’s hypotension may be another health care provider’s shock. Coders are not clinical and are not permitted to make inferences. A potassium of 6.7 may be hyperkalemia or it may be spurious – only a clinician may make that determination using their clinical expertise and experience. The coder is not allowed to read your mind. You must explicitly draw the conclusion that a febrile patient with bacteremia, encephalopathy, hypoxemia, and a blood pressure of 85/60 is in septic shock.
• Uncertain diagnoses (heralded by words such as: likely, possible, probable, suspected, rule out, etc.) which are not ruled out prior to discharge or demise are coded as if they were definitively present, for the inpatient technical side of hospital billing. This is distinctly different than the professional fee where you can only code definitive diagnoses. If you have a strong suspicion (not wild speculation) that a condition is present, best practice is to offer an uncertain diagnosis. Associate signs and symptoms with your most likely diagnosis: “Shortness of breath, pleuritic chest pain, and hypoxemia in the setting of cancer, probable pulmonary embolism.”
• Evolve, resolve, remove, and recap. If an uncertain diagnosis is ruled in, take away the uncertainty. If it is ruled out, don’t have 4 days of copy and pasted: “Possible eosinophilic pneumonia.” You do not have to maintain a resolved diagnosis ad infinitum. It can drop off the diagnosis list but be sure to have it reappear in the discharge summary.
• I know it can be a hASSLe to do excellent documentation, but it is critical for many reasons, most importantly for superlative patient care. More accurate coding and billing is an intended consequence. A: Acuity; S: Severity; S: Specificity (may affect the coding and the risk-adjustment implications. Acute systolic heart failure does not equal heart failure; type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic chronic kidney disease, stage 4 does not equal chronic kidney disease); and L: Linkage (of diagnosis with underlying cause or manifestation [e.g., because of, associated with, as a result of, secondary to, or from diabetic nephropathy, hypertensive encephalopathy]).
• If you have the capability to keep a running summary throughout the hospital stay, do so and keep it updated. A few moments of daily careful editing and composing can save time and effort at the back end creating the discharge summary. The follow-up care provider can reconstruct the hospital course and it is your last chance to spin the narrative for the lawyers.
• Read your documentation over. Ensure that it is clear, accurate, concise, and tells the story and the plans for the patient. Make sure that someone reading the note will know what you were thinking.
• Set up a program to self-audit documentation where monthly or quarterly, you and your partners mutually review a certain number of records and give each other feedback. Design an assessment tool which rates the quality of documentation elements which your hospital/network/service line values (clarity, copy and paste, complete and specific diagnoses, etc.). You know who the best documenters are. Why do you think their documentation is superior? How can you emulate them?

Finally, answer CDI queries. The CDI specialist is your ally, not your enemy. They want you to get credit for taking care of sick and complex patients. They are not permitted to lead the provider, so don’t ask them what they want you to write. But, if you don’t understand the query or issue, have a conversation and get it clarified. It is in everyone’s best interest to get this right.

Documentation improves patient care and demonstrates that you provided excellent patient care. Put mentation back into documentation.

Dr. Remer was a practicing emergency physician for 25 years and a physician advisor for 4 years. She is on the board of directors of the American College of Physician Advisors and the advisory board of the Association of Clinical Documentation Improvement Specialists. She currently provides consulting services for provider education on documentation, CDI, and ICD-10 coding. Dr. Remer can be reached at [email protected]

An open-label, randomized study did not confirm that patients with very early rheumatoid arthritis obtain an outsized benefit from first-line combination treatment with etanercept (Enbrel) plus methotrexate, investigators say.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

A remission rate of 52% was seen with first-line etanercept plus methotrexate, compared with 38% for a strategy of methotrexate escalated to add etanercept in patients not in remission at 24 weeks in the study, known as VEDERA (Very Early Versus Delayed Etanercept in Patients With RA).

Investigators said a difference of 14 percentage points between remission rates was comparable to what was seen among patients with early RA in an earlier randomized trial of etanercept plus methotrexate versus methotrexate monotherapy.

However, the difference was not on par with the “larger than standard” effect of about 30% seen in an exploratory analysis of the very early RA subset in that previous study, according to VEDERA study authors, led by Paul Emery, MD, of the University of Leeds (England).

Taken together, the results highlight a “ceiling effect” in achieving remission in this real-life, treatment-naive cohort, Dr. Emery and coauthors noted in their report, which appears in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The study population aligned with real-world clinical practice, according to the investigators, who noted that half the cohort had at least one comorbidity.

“This may have partly driven the generally poorer than expected performance, the exact mechanisms for which are unclear,” they wrote in their discussion of results.

Delaying etanercept until failure of methotrexate, instead of giving both drugs up front, was linked to poorer etanercept response in an exploratory analysis of VEDERA. However, Dr. Emery and coinvestigators noted that this finding “requires validation and further investigation.”

While first-line etanercept plus methotrexate is a “clinically appropriate approach” in early RA, results of the VEDERA study don’t help to inform clinicians as to when it would be prudent to select that therapeutic approach, said Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor of medicine (emeritus) at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“Whether you’re treating with methotrexate or methotrexate plus etanercept, they do pretty well,” Dr. Furst said in an interview. “What that says to me is when you have patients with very early RA and the disease is moderately active, you should really try methotrexate before you add expensive other drugs.”

The phase 4, open-label, randomized VEDERA trial included 120 adult patients with new-onset early RA with symptom duration of less than 12 months. All patients in VEDERA had a 28-joint disease activity score based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) of 3.2 or greater and clinical evidence of synovitis. They were all positive for anti-citrullinated peptide antibody or rheumatoid factor, or had evidence of disease activity in at least one joint by power Doppler ultrasonography.

The patients were randomized to 48 weeks of treatment with either first-line etanercept plus methotrexate, or with methotrexate in a treat-to-target strategy that called for the addition of etanercept if the DAS28-ESR was still 2.6 or greater at 24 weeks.

Based on results of the earlier trial, known as COMET, a confirmatory remission rate in the etanercept plus methotrexate arm was anticipated to be 70%, versus 40% for the methotrexate treat-to-target arm, investigators said in a discussion of their statistical methods.

Study results did not confirm a large effect size, according to the investigators. By week 48, DAS28-ESR remission was achieved in 52% of patients in the first-line etanercept plus methotrexate arm, versus 38% in the methotrexate treat-to-target arm, for an absolute difference of 14 percentage points (odds ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-3.70; P = .160).

In early, new-onset RA, remission is the goal, Dr. Emery and coauthors said. The proportions of patients in remission in both arms are “suboptimal rates for the contemporary era,” they wrote.

The escalation to etanercept at week 24 did not improve remission rates appreciably, with about 60% still failing to achieve that endpoint. However, an exploratory analysis suggested the subsequent 24 weeks of etanercept exposure in those escalated patients was associated with a lower rate of remission, compared with 24 weeks of etanercept in the front-line approach, investigators said.

In that analysis, the adjusted odds ratio of achieving DAS28-ESR remission was 2.84 (95% CI, 0.84-9.60) in favor of the first-line etanercept approach.

Dr. Furst said in the interview that the VEDERA results are subject to the inherent biases of an open-label study. He also suggested that further investigations could compare the two first-line treatment approaches specifically in very early RA patients with markers of more severe disease.

“That’s the only way I would think we might gain a little bit more, but so far, these data don’t support getting terribly aggressive,” he said.

The study was funded through an investigator-sponsored research grant provided by Pfizer. Three authors disclosed financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies that market drugs for RA, including Pfizer.

SOURCE: Emery P et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jan 29. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216539.

An open-label, randomized study did not confirm that patients with very early rheumatoid arthritis obtain an outsized benefit from first-line combination treatment with etanercept (Enbrel) plus methotrexate, investigators say.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

A remission rate of 52% was seen with first-line etanercept plus methotrexate, compared with 38% for a strategy of methotrexate escalated to add etanercept in patients not in remission at 24 weeks in the study, known as VEDERA (Very Early Versus Delayed Etanercept in Patients With RA).

Investigators said a difference of 14 percentage points between remission rates was comparable to what was seen among patients with early RA in an earlier randomized trial of etanercept plus methotrexate versus methotrexate monotherapy.

However, the difference was not on par with the “larger than standard” effect of about 30% seen in an exploratory analysis of the very early RA subset in that previous study, according to VEDERA study authors, led by Paul Emery, MD, of the University of Leeds (England).

Taken together, the results highlight a “ceiling effect” in achieving remission in this real-life, treatment-naive cohort, Dr. Emery and coauthors noted in their report, which appears in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The study population aligned with real-world clinical practice, according to the investigators, who noted that half the cohort had at least one comorbidity.

“This may have partly driven the generally poorer than expected performance, the exact mechanisms for which are unclear,” they wrote in their discussion of results.

Delaying etanercept until failure of methotrexate, instead of giving both drugs up front, was linked to poorer etanercept response in an exploratory analysis of VEDERA. However, Dr. Emery and coinvestigators noted that this finding “requires validation and further investigation.”

While first-line etanercept plus methotrexate is a “clinically appropriate approach” in early RA, results of the VEDERA study don’t help to inform clinicians as to when it would be prudent to select that therapeutic approach, said Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor of medicine (emeritus) at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“Whether you’re treating with methotrexate or methotrexate plus etanercept, they do pretty well,” Dr. Furst said in an interview. “What that says to me is when you have patients with very early RA and the disease is moderately active, you should really try methotrexate before you add expensive other drugs.”

The phase 4, open-label, randomized VEDERA trial included 120 adult patients with new-onset early RA with symptom duration of less than 12 months. All patients in VEDERA had a 28-joint disease activity score based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) of 3.2 or greater and clinical evidence of synovitis. They were all positive for anti-citrullinated peptide antibody or rheumatoid factor, or had evidence of disease activity in at least one joint by power Doppler ultrasonography.

The patients were randomized to 48 weeks of treatment with either first-line etanercept plus methotrexate, or with methotrexate in a treat-to-target strategy that called for the addition of etanercept if the DAS28-ESR was still 2.6 or greater at 24 weeks.

Based on results of the earlier trial, known as COMET, a confirmatory remission rate in the etanercept plus methotrexate arm was anticipated to be 70%, versus 40% for the methotrexate treat-to-target arm, investigators said in a discussion of their statistical methods.

Study results did not confirm a large effect size, according to the investigators. By week 48, DAS28-ESR remission was achieved in 52% of patients in the first-line etanercept plus methotrexate arm, versus 38% in the methotrexate treat-to-target arm, for an absolute difference of 14 percentage points (odds ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-3.70; P = .160).

In early, new-onset RA, remission is the goal, Dr. Emery and coauthors said. The proportions of patients in remission in both arms are “suboptimal rates for the contemporary era,” they wrote.

The escalation to etanercept at week 24 did not improve remission rates appreciably, with about 60% still failing to achieve that endpoint. However, an exploratory analysis suggested the subsequent 24 weeks of etanercept exposure in those escalated patients was associated with a lower rate of remission, compared with 24 weeks of etanercept in the front-line approach, investigators said.

In that analysis, the adjusted odds ratio of achieving DAS28-ESR remission was 2.84 (95% CI, 0.84-9.60) in favor of the first-line etanercept approach.

Dr. Furst said in the interview that the VEDERA results are subject to the inherent biases of an open-label study. He also suggested that further investigations could compare the two first-line treatment approaches specifically in very early RA patients with markers of more severe disease.

“That’s the only way I would think we might gain a little bit more, but so far, these data don’t support getting terribly aggressive,” he said.

The study was funded through an investigator-sponsored research grant provided by Pfizer. Three authors disclosed financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies that market drugs for RA, including Pfizer.

SOURCE: Emery P et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jan 29. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216539.

An open-label, randomized study did not confirm that patients with very early rheumatoid arthritis obtain an outsized benefit from first-line combination treatment with etanercept (Enbrel) plus methotrexate, investigators say.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

A remission rate of 52% was seen with first-line etanercept plus methotrexate, compared with 38% for a strategy of methotrexate escalated to add etanercept in patients not in remission at 24 weeks in the study, known as VEDERA (Very Early Versus Delayed Etanercept in Patients With RA).

Investigators said a difference of 14 percentage points between remission rates was comparable to what was seen among patients with early RA in an earlier randomized trial of etanercept plus methotrexate versus methotrexate monotherapy.

However, the difference was not on par with the “larger than standard” effect of about 30% seen in an exploratory analysis of the very early RA subset in that previous study, according to VEDERA study authors, led by Paul Emery, MD, of the University of Leeds (England).

Taken together, the results highlight a “ceiling effect” in achieving remission in this real-life, treatment-naive cohort, Dr. Emery and coauthors noted in their report, which appears in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The study population aligned with real-world clinical practice, according to the investigators, who noted that half the cohort had at least one comorbidity.

“This may have partly driven the generally poorer than expected performance, the exact mechanisms for which are unclear,” they wrote in their discussion of results.

Delaying etanercept until failure of methotrexate, instead of giving both drugs up front, was linked to poorer etanercept response in an exploratory analysis of VEDERA. However, Dr. Emery and coinvestigators noted that this finding “requires validation and further investigation.”

While first-line etanercept plus methotrexate is a “clinically appropriate approach” in early RA, results of the VEDERA study don’t help to inform clinicians as to when it would be prudent to select that therapeutic approach, said Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor of medicine (emeritus) at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“Whether you’re treating with methotrexate or methotrexate plus etanercept, they do pretty well,” Dr. Furst said in an interview. “What that says to me is when you have patients with very early RA and the disease is moderately active, you should really try methotrexate before you add expensive other drugs.”

The phase 4, open-label, randomized VEDERA trial included 120 adult patients with new-onset early RA with symptom duration of less than 12 months. All patients in VEDERA had a 28-joint disease activity score based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) of 3.2 or greater and clinical evidence of synovitis. They were all positive for anti-citrullinated peptide antibody or rheumatoid factor, or had evidence of disease activity in at least one joint by power Doppler ultrasonography.

The patients were randomized to 48 weeks of treatment with either first-line etanercept plus methotrexate, or with methotrexate in a treat-to-target strategy that called for the addition of etanercept if the DAS28-ESR was still 2.6 or greater at 24 weeks.

Based on results of the earlier trial, known as COMET, a confirmatory remission rate in the etanercept plus methotrexate arm was anticipated to be 70%, versus 40% for the methotrexate treat-to-target arm, investigators said in a discussion of their statistical methods.

Study results did not confirm a large effect size, according to the investigators. By week 48, DAS28-ESR remission was achieved in 52% of patients in the first-line etanercept plus methotrexate arm, versus 38% in the methotrexate treat-to-target arm, for an absolute difference of 14 percentage points (odds ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-3.70; P = .160).

In early, new-onset RA, remission is the goal, Dr. Emery and coauthors said. The proportions of patients in remission in both arms are “suboptimal rates for the contemporary era,” they wrote.

The escalation to etanercept at week 24 did not improve remission rates appreciably, with about 60% still failing to achieve that endpoint. However, an exploratory analysis suggested the subsequent 24 weeks of etanercept exposure in those escalated patients was associated with a lower rate of remission, compared with 24 weeks of etanercept in the front-line approach, investigators said.

In that analysis, the adjusted odds ratio of achieving DAS28-ESR remission was 2.84 (95% CI, 0.84-9.60) in favor of the first-line etanercept approach.

Dr. Furst said in the interview that the VEDERA results are subject to the inherent biases of an open-label study. He also suggested that further investigations could compare the two first-line treatment approaches specifically in very early RA patients with markers of more severe disease.

“That’s the only way I would think we might gain a little bit more, but so far, these data don’t support getting terribly aggressive,” he said.

The study was funded through an investigator-sponsored research grant provided by Pfizer. Three authors disclosed financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies that market drugs for RA, including Pfizer.

SOURCE: Emery P et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jan 29. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216539.

Women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who experience hypertensive disorders of pregnancy may have a higher rate of cardiovascular outcomes after pregnancy, as well as a higher rate of hypertension later in life, than do those without maternal hypertension, according to findings from a Swedish population-based, longitudinal cohort study.

“Premature CVD [cardiovascular disease] is a well-documented complication in women with SLE, which is likely, at least in part, due to renal disease, prothrombotic [antiphospholipid antibodies], and systemic inflammation. Our data confirm that women who experience a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy [HDP] are at greater risk of developing hypertension after pregnancy, and that this association is also evident for women with SLE. Women with SLE and HDP were also at increased risk of CVD, particularly stroke, at young ages and should be monitored closely and consider treatment to attenuate risk,” wrote first author Julia F. Simard, ScD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and colleagues in Arthritis Care & Research.

To reach those conclusions, the researchers identified 3,340 women in the Swedish Medical Birth Register with their first singleton delivery during 1987-2012. They matched each of the 450 women with prevalent SLE from the Medical Birth Register to 5 women without SLE in the National Patient Register based on sex, birth year, calendar time, and county of residence.

During a median follow-up period of nearly 11 years, women with SLE had an unadjusted incidence rate of incident cardiovascular outcomes of 50 cases per 10,000 person-years versus 7.2 for women without SLE. Cardiovascular outcomes included fatal and nonfatal acute MI, fatal and nonfatal stroke, transient ischemic attacks, unstable angina, and heart failure. A history of HDP in women with SLE, including preeclampsia, was linked with about a twofold higher rate of cardiovascular outcomes regardless of multiple sensitivity analyses, both before and after adjusting for maternal age at delivery, county of birth, education, body mass index, and first-trimester smoking.

The researchers found that the hazard ratio for cardiovascular outcomes in women with SLE and HDP was about eight times higher than the hazard ratio for women without SLE but with HDP, but the relative rarity of cardiovascular events seen during the follow-up period, particularly among women without SLE, made it so that they “could not confirm established associations between HDP and CVD, possibly due to the relatively short follow-up time given that premenopausal CVD is rare among women free of SLE.”

HDP was associated with a threefold higher risk for incident hypertension later in life regardless of SLE status, even though the unadjusted incidence rate was 524 cases per 10,000 person-years among women with both SLE and HDP, compared with 177 per 10,000 person-years among women with HDP in the general population, which sensitivity analyses suggested “was not due to misclassification of antihypertensive use for renal disease in women with SLE nor antihypertensive use for possible HDP in subsequent pregnancies,” the researchers wrote.

Several authors reported research grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Karolinska Institute, the Swedish Research Council, Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation, Stockholm County Council, the King Gustaf V 80th Birthday Fund, the Swedish Rheumatism Association, and Ingegerd Johansson’s Foundation that helped to fund the study. All authors reported having no competing interests.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Simard JF et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Jan 31. doi: 10.1002/acr.24160.

Women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who experience hypertensive disorders of pregnancy may have a higher rate of cardiovascular outcomes after pregnancy, as well as a higher rate of hypertension later in life, than do those without maternal hypertension, according to findings from a Swedish population-based, longitudinal cohort study.

“Premature CVD [cardiovascular disease] is a well-documented complication in women with SLE, which is likely, at least in part, due to renal disease, prothrombotic [antiphospholipid antibodies], and systemic inflammation. Our data confirm that women who experience a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy [HDP] are at greater risk of developing hypertension after pregnancy, and that this association is also evident for women with SLE. Women with SLE and HDP were also at increased risk of CVD, particularly stroke, at young ages and should be monitored closely and consider treatment to attenuate risk,” wrote first author Julia F. Simard, ScD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and colleagues in Arthritis Care & Research.

To reach those conclusions, the researchers identified 3,340 women in the Swedish Medical Birth Register with their first singleton delivery during 1987-2012. They matched each of the 450 women with prevalent SLE from the Medical Birth Register to 5 women without SLE in the National Patient Register based on sex, birth year, calendar time, and county of residence.

During a median follow-up period of nearly 11 years, women with SLE had an unadjusted incidence rate of incident cardiovascular outcomes of 50 cases per 10,000 person-years versus 7.2 for women without SLE. Cardiovascular outcomes included fatal and nonfatal acute MI, fatal and nonfatal stroke, transient ischemic attacks, unstable angina, and heart failure. A history of HDP in women with SLE, including preeclampsia, was linked with about a twofold higher rate of cardiovascular outcomes regardless of multiple sensitivity analyses, both before and after adjusting for maternal age at delivery, county of birth, education, body mass index, and first-trimester smoking.

The researchers found that the hazard ratio for cardiovascular outcomes in women with SLE and HDP was about eight times higher than the hazard ratio for women without SLE but with HDP, but the relative rarity of cardiovascular events seen during the follow-up period, particularly among women without SLE, made it so that they “could not confirm established associations between HDP and CVD, possibly due to the relatively short follow-up time given that premenopausal CVD is rare among women free of SLE.”

HDP was associated with a threefold higher risk for incident hypertension later in life regardless of SLE status, even though the unadjusted incidence rate was 524 cases per 10,000 person-years among women with both SLE and HDP, compared with 177 per 10,000 person-years among women with HDP in the general population, which sensitivity analyses suggested “was not due to misclassification of antihypertensive use for renal disease in women with SLE nor antihypertensive use for possible HDP in subsequent pregnancies,” the researchers wrote.

Several authors reported research grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Karolinska Institute, the Swedish Research Council, Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation, Stockholm County Council, the King Gustaf V 80th Birthday Fund, the Swedish Rheumatism Association, and Ingegerd Johansson’s Foundation that helped to fund the study. All authors reported having no competing interests.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Simard JF et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Jan 31. doi: 10.1002/acr.24160.

Women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who experience hypertensive disorders of pregnancy may have a higher rate of cardiovascular outcomes after pregnancy, as well as a higher rate of hypertension later in life, than do those without maternal hypertension, according to findings from a Swedish population-based, longitudinal cohort study.

“Premature CVD [cardiovascular disease] is a well-documented complication in women with SLE, which is likely, at least in part, due to renal disease, prothrombotic [antiphospholipid antibodies], and systemic inflammation. Our data confirm that women who experience a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy [HDP] are at greater risk of developing hypertension after pregnancy, and that this association is also evident for women with SLE. Women with SLE and HDP were also at increased risk of CVD, particularly stroke, at young ages and should be monitored closely and consider treatment to attenuate risk,” wrote first author Julia F. Simard, ScD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and colleagues in Arthritis Care & Research.

To reach those conclusions, the researchers identified 3,340 women in the Swedish Medical Birth Register with their first singleton delivery during 1987-2012. They matched each of the 450 women with prevalent SLE from the Medical Birth Register to 5 women without SLE in the National Patient Register based on sex, birth year, calendar time, and county of residence.

During a median follow-up period of nearly 11 years, women with SLE had an unadjusted incidence rate of incident cardiovascular outcomes of 50 cases per 10,000 person-years versus 7.2 for women without SLE. Cardiovascular outcomes included fatal and nonfatal acute MI, fatal and nonfatal stroke, transient ischemic attacks, unstable angina, and heart failure. A history of HDP in women with SLE, including preeclampsia, was linked with about a twofold higher rate of cardiovascular outcomes regardless of multiple sensitivity analyses, both before and after adjusting for maternal age at delivery, county of birth, education, body mass index, and first-trimester smoking.

The researchers found that the hazard ratio for cardiovascular outcomes in women with SLE and HDP was about eight times higher than the hazard ratio for women without SLE but with HDP, but the relative rarity of cardiovascular events seen during the follow-up period, particularly among women without SLE, made it so that they “could not confirm established associations between HDP and CVD, possibly due to the relatively short follow-up time given that premenopausal CVD is rare among women free of SLE.”

HDP was associated with a threefold higher risk for incident hypertension later in life regardless of SLE status, even though the unadjusted incidence rate was 524 cases per 10,000 person-years among women with both SLE and HDP, compared with 177 per 10,000 person-years among women with HDP in the general population, which sensitivity analyses suggested “was not due to misclassification of antihypertensive use for renal disease in women with SLE nor antihypertensive use for possible HDP in subsequent pregnancies,” the researchers wrote.

Several authors reported research grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Karolinska Institute, the Swedish Research Council, Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation, Stockholm County Council, the King Gustaf V 80th Birthday Fund, the Swedish Rheumatism Association, and Ingegerd Johansson’s Foundation that helped to fund the study. All authors reported having no competing interests.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Simard JF et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Jan 31. doi: 10.1002/acr.24160.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first and only adjuvanted, cell-based pandemic vaccine to provide active immunization against the influenza A virus H5N1 strain.
 

Influenza A (H5N1) monovalent vaccine, adjuvanted (Audenz, Seqirus) is for use in individuals aged 6 months and older.  It’s designed to be rapidly deployed to help protect the U.S. population and can be stockpiled for first responders in the event of a pandemic.

The vaccine and formulated prefilled syringes used in the vaccine are produced in a state-of-the-art production facility built and supported through a multiyear public-private partnership between Seqirus and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.

“Pandemic influenza viruses can be deadly and spread rapidly, making production of safe, effective vaccines essential in saving lives,” BARDA Director Rick Bright, PhD, said in a company news release.

“With this licensure – the latest FDA-approved vaccine to prevent H5N1 influenza — we celebrate a decade-long partnership to achieve health security goals set by the National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza and the 2019 Executive Order to speed the availability of influenza vaccine. Ultimately, this latest licensure means we can protect more people in an influenza pandemic,” said Bright.

“The approval of Audenz represents a key advance in influenza prevention and pandemic preparedness, combining leading-edge, cell-based manufacturing and adjuvant technologies,” Russell Basser, MD, chief scientist and senior vice president of research and development at Seqirus, said in the news release. “This pandemic influenza vaccine exemplifies our commitment to developing innovative technologies that can help provide rapid response during a pandemic emergency.”

Audenz had FDA fast track designation, a process designed to facilitate the development and expedite the review of drugs to treat serious conditions and fill an unmet medical need.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first and only adjuvanted, cell-based pandemic vaccine to provide active immunization against the influenza A virus H5N1 strain.
 

Influenza A (H5N1) monovalent vaccine, adjuvanted (Audenz, Seqirus) is for use in individuals aged 6 months and older.  It’s designed to be rapidly deployed to help protect the U.S. population and can be stockpiled for first responders in the event of a pandemic.

The vaccine and formulated prefilled syringes used in the vaccine are produced in a state-of-the-art production facility built and supported through a multiyear public-private partnership between Seqirus and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.

“Pandemic influenza viruses can be deadly and spread rapidly, making production of safe, effective vaccines essential in saving lives,” BARDA Director Rick Bright, PhD, said in a company news release.

“With this licensure – the latest FDA-approved vaccine to prevent H5N1 influenza — we celebrate a decade-long partnership to achieve health security goals set by the National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza and the 2019 Executive Order to speed the availability of influenza vaccine. Ultimately, this latest licensure means we can protect more people in an influenza pandemic,” said Bright.

“The approval of Audenz represents a key advance in influenza prevention and pandemic preparedness, combining leading-edge, cell-based manufacturing and adjuvant technologies,” Russell Basser, MD, chief scientist and senior vice president of research and development at Seqirus, said in the news release. “This pandemic influenza vaccine exemplifies our commitment to developing innovative technologies that can help provide rapid response during a pandemic emergency.”

Audenz had FDA fast track designation, a process designed to facilitate the development and expedite the review of drugs to treat serious conditions and fill an unmet medical need.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first and only adjuvanted, cell-based pandemic vaccine to provide active immunization against the influenza A virus H5N1 strain.
 

Influenza A (H5N1) monovalent vaccine, adjuvanted (Audenz, Seqirus) is for use in individuals aged 6 months and older.  It’s designed to be rapidly deployed to help protect the U.S. population and can be stockpiled for first responders in the event of a pandemic.

The vaccine and formulated prefilled syringes used in the vaccine are produced in a state-of-the-art production facility built and supported through a multiyear public-private partnership between Seqirus and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.

“Pandemic influenza viruses can be deadly and spread rapidly, making production of safe, effective vaccines essential in saving lives,” BARDA Director Rick Bright, PhD, said in a company news release.

“With this licensure – the latest FDA-approved vaccine to prevent H5N1 influenza — we celebrate a decade-long partnership to achieve health security goals set by the National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza and the 2019 Executive Order to speed the availability of influenza vaccine. Ultimately, this latest licensure means we can protect more people in an influenza pandemic,” said Bright.

“The approval of Audenz represents a key advance in influenza prevention and pandemic preparedness, combining leading-edge, cell-based manufacturing and adjuvant technologies,” Russell Basser, MD, chief scientist and senior vice president of research and development at Seqirus, said in the news release. “This pandemic influenza vaccine exemplifies our commitment to developing innovative technologies that can help provide rapid response during a pandemic emergency.”

Audenz had FDA fast track designation, a process designed to facilitate the development and expedite the review of drugs to treat serious conditions and fill an unmet medical need.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Preoperative computerized tomography (CT) demonstrated limited value in the clinical management of patients with early-stage vulvar squamous cell carcinoma (VSCC) analyzed in a single-center study.

The findings suggest preoperative CT imaging could be excluded prior to sentinel inguinal lymph node biopsy or staging surgery in patients with early-stage disease.

“In this study, we aimed to investigate if preoperative CT scan influences the overall course of VSCC management in patients without clinical evidence of groin lymphadenopathy,” wrote Rachel Pounds, MD, of the University of Birmingham (England) and colleagues. The study was published in Gynecologic Oncology.

The researchers prospectively studied a cohort of 225 patients with primary or recurrent VSCC who underwent staging surgery at a single institution in the United Kingdom. The patients’ mean age was 67 years (range, 54-79 years), and most had stage 1B disease (57.8%).

The researchers compared preoperative imaging findings with histological results from sentinel inguinal lymph node biopsy. Other clinical information, including surgery type, evidence of groin node involvement, and age at diagnosis was collected from patient files and included in the analysis.

In all, 51.6% of patients underwent preoperative CT imaging. Among these patients, 37.9% had a positive report of radiological groin lymphatic metastases.

“True groin node metastases, confirmed histologically, were observed in 26 patients (22.4%) with a radiologically positive scan report (true positives) and in 18 patients (15.5%) with a radiological negative scan report (false negatives),” the researchers wrote.

The specificity and sensitivity of preoperative CT to detect groin lymphatic metastasis were 77.8% and 59.1%, respectively. The positive and negative predictive values were 61.9% and 75.7%, respectively.

There was no significant difference in overall survival, disease-specific or disease-free survival, or groin node recurrence between patients who underwent preoperative CT and patients who did not.

Groin node recurrence was observed in 10.3% of patients with preoperative CT and 11.5% of patients without it (P = .7768). Disease-specific death occurred in 16.4% of patients with preoperative CT and 13.5% of patients without it (P = .5451).

“Our results highlight the poor reliability of preoperative CT scans in detecting inguinal lymphatic metastasis,” the researchers wrote. “Preoperative CT scan may be omitted in early stage VSCC prior to surgical staging as it does not affect overall management and surgical outcomes.”

No funding sources were reported for this study. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Pounds R et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2020 Jan 24. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.01.031.

Preoperative computerized tomography (CT) demonstrated limited value in the clinical management of patients with early-stage vulvar squamous cell carcinoma (VSCC) analyzed in a single-center study.

The findings suggest preoperative CT imaging could be excluded prior to sentinel inguinal lymph node biopsy or staging surgery in patients with early-stage disease.

“In this study, we aimed to investigate if preoperative CT scan influences the overall course of VSCC management in patients without clinical evidence of groin lymphadenopathy,” wrote Rachel Pounds, MD, of the University of Birmingham (England) and colleagues. The study was published in Gynecologic Oncology.

The researchers prospectively studied a cohort of 225 patients with primary or recurrent VSCC who underwent staging surgery at a single institution in the United Kingdom. The patients’ mean age was 67 years (range, 54-79 years), and most had stage 1B disease (57.8%).

The researchers compared preoperative imaging findings with histological results from sentinel inguinal lymph node biopsy. Other clinical information, including surgery type, evidence of groin node involvement, and age at diagnosis was collected from patient files and included in the analysis.

In all, 51.6% of patients underwent preoperative CT imaging. Among these patients, 37.9% had a positive report of radiological groin lymphatic metastases.

“True groin node metastases, confirmed histologically, were observed in 26 patients (22.4%) with a radiologically positive scan report (true positives) and in 18 patients (15.5%) with a radiological negative scan report (false negatives),” the researchers wrote.

The specificity and sensitivity of preoperative CT to detect groin lymphatic metastasis were 77.8% and 59.1%, respectively. The positive and negative predictive values were 61.9% and 75.7%, respectively.

There was no significant difference in overall survival, disease-specific or disease-free survival, or groin node recurrence between patients who underwent preoperative CT and patients who did not.

Groin node recurrence was observed in 10.3% of patients with preoperative CT and 11.5% of patients without it (P = .7768). Disease-specific death occurred in 16.4% of patients with preoperative CT and 13.5% of patients without it (P = .5451).

“Our results highlight the poor reliability of preoperative CT scans in detecting inguinal lymphatic metastasis,” the researchers wrote. “Preoperative CT scan may be omitted in early stage VSCC prior to surgical staging as it does not affect overall management and surgical outcomes.”

No funding sources were reported for this study. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Pounds R et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2020 Jan 24. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.01.031.

Preoperative computerized tomography (CT) demonstrated limited value in the clinical management of patients with early-stage vulvar squamous cell carcinoma (VSCC) analyzed in a single-center study.

The findings suggest preoperative CT imaging could be excluded prior to sentinel inguinal lymph node biopsy or staging surgery in patients with early-stage disease.

“In this study, we aimed to investigate if preoperative CT scan influences the overall course of VSCC management in patients without clinical evidence of groin lymphadenopathy,” wrote Rachel Pounds, MD, of the University of Birmingham (England) and colleagues. The study was published in Gynecologic Oncology.

The researchers prospectively studied a cohort of 225 patients with primary or recurrent VSCC who underwent staging surgery at a single institution in the United Kingdom. The patients’ mean age was 67 years (range, 54-79 years), and most had stage 1B disease (57.8%).

The researchers compared preoperative imaging findings with histological results from sentinel inguinal lymph node biopsy. Other clinical information, including surgery type, evidence of groin node involvement, and age at diagnosis was collected from patient files and included in the analysis.

In all, 51.6% of patients underwent preoperative CT imaging. Among these patients, 37.9% had a positive report of radiological groin lymphatic metastases.

“True groin node metastases, confirmed histologically, were observed in 26 patients (22.4%) with a radiologically positive scan report (true positives) and in 18 patients (15.5%) with a radiological negative scan report (false negatives),” the researchers wrote.

The specificity and sensitivity of preoperative CT to detect groin lymphatic metastasis were 77.8% and 59.1%, respectively. The positive and negative predictive values were 61.9% and 75.7%, respectively.

There was no significant difference in overall survival, disease-specific or disease-free survival, or groin node recurrence between patients who underwent preoperative CT and patients who did not.

Groin node recurrence was observed in 10.3% of patients with preoperative CT and 11.5% of patients without it (P = .7768). Disease-specific death occurred in 16.4% of patients with preoperative CT and 13.5% of patients without it (P = .5451).

“Our results highlight the poor reliability of preoperative CT scans in detecting inguinal lymphatic metastasis,” the researchers wrote. “Preoperative CT scan may be omitted in early stage VSCC prior to surgical staging as it does not affect overall management and surgical outcomes.”

No funding sources were reported for this study. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Pounds R et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2020 Jan 24. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.01.031.

People with neurologic disorders have a higher rate of suicide, compared with people without neurologic conditions, according to a population-based study in Denmark.

The absolute risk difference is small, but statistically significant. “These findings do not necessarily warrant changing the management of treatment for individual patients,” wrote Annette Erlangsen, PhD, a researcher at the Danish Research Institute for Suicide Prevention in Hellerup, and colleagues. “As with all patients, physicians should be aware of the potential for depression, demoralization, and suicide.”

In addition, dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, and intellectual disabilities may be associated with lower suicide rates, according to the study, which was published in JAMA.

“Plausible mechanisms” could underlie the association between neurologic disease and suicide, the authors wrote. A neurologic diagnosis “may constitute a distressing life event,” and the diseases may have psychological, physical, and psychiatric effects. Patients may see themselves as a burden or have less financial security. In addition, the diseases may entail “communication difficulties, poor sleep, and pain.” Neurologic diseases may alter brain circuitry and functioning and influence aggression and impulsivity. “People with neurologic disorders may also have easier access to toxic medication,” they added.
 

More than a dozen conditions examined

Prior studies have found associations between neurologic conditions and rates of suicide, but data have been inconclusive or inconsistent for some of the disorders. To examine whether people with neurologic disorders have higher suicide rates, relative to people without these disorders, the researchers conducted a retrospective study. They analyzed data from more than 7.3 million people aged 15 years or older who lived in Denmark between 1980 and 2016. The cohort included more than 1.2 million people with neurologic disorders. The investigators identified neurologic disorders using ICD codes for head injury, stroke, epilepsy, polyneuropathy, diseases of the myoneural junction, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, CNS infections, meningitis, encephalitis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Huntington’s disease, dementia, intellectual disability, and other brain disorders. They compared incidence rates using a Poisson regression model and adjusted for time period, sex, age, region, socioeconomic status, comorbidity, self-harm or psychiatric hospitalization prior to a neurologic diagnosis, and whether a person lived alone.

In all, 35,483 people in the cohort died by suicide at an average age of about 52 years; 77.4% were male. About 15% of those who died by suicide had a neurologic disorder. The suicide incidence rate among people with a neurologic disorder was 44.0 per 100,000 person-years, whereas the rate among people without a neurologic disorder was 20.1 per 100,000 person-years.

The adjusted incidence rate ratio for people with a neurologic disorder was 1.8. The rate ratio was highest during the 3 months after diagnosis, at 3.1. Huntington’s disease and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis were associated with “the largest excess adjusted [incidence rate ratios] of suicide mortality,” with a rate ratio of 4.9 for each condition, the researchers reported. The adjusted incidence rate ratio was 1.7 for head injury, 1.3 for stroke, 1.7 for epilepsy, 1.4 for intracerebral hemorrhage, 1.3 for cerebral infarction, 1.3 for subarachnoid hemorrhage, 1.7 for polyneuropathy and peripheral neuropathy, 2.2 for Guillain-Barré syndrome, 1.9 for diseases of myoneural junction and muscle, 1.8 for other brain disorders, 1.7 for Parkinson’s disease, 2.2 for multiple sclerosis, and 1.6 for CNS infection.

Compared with people without a neurologic condition, people with dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, and intellectual disabilities had lower suicide rates, with adjusted incidence rate ratios of 0.8, 0.2, and 0.6, respectively. “However, the adjusted [incidence rate ratio] for people with dementia during the first month after diagnosis was 3.0,” the researchers wrote.

In addition, the suicide rate increased with an increasing cumulative number of hospital contacts for neurologic conditions.

Overall incidence rates declined

“Over the study period, the suicide incidence rate for people with neurological disorders decreased from 78.6 per 100,000 person-years during the 1980-1999 years to 27.3 per 100,000 person-years during the 2000-2016 years,” wrote Dr. Erlangsen and colleagues. “The suicide incidence rate for those without a disorder decreased from 26.3 to 12.7 during the same time spans. ... The decline in the overall suicide rate over time did not affect the relative risk pattern.”

The decline in the general suicide rate in Denmark “has largely been attributed to means restriction, such as efforts to limit availability of firearms and particularly toxic medication,” the authors added.

In those time spans, the adjusted incidence rate ratio for suicide among those with dementia decreased from 2.4 to 1.0, and among those with multiple sclerosis from 2.0 to 1.0. “It is possible that the improvements observed for dementia and multiple sclerosis may be related to improvements in treatment and intensified community-based support,” Dr. Erlangsen and coauthors wrote.

When the researchers used people with rheumatoid arthritis as a reference group, those with a neurologic disorder had a higher suicide rate per 100,000 person-years, 30.2 versus 18.4. The adjusted incidence rate ratio for that comparison was 1.4.

In patients with Huntington’s disease, depression mediated by hyperactivity in the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis may contribute to the risk of suicide. “Witnessing the course of the disease in one’s parent” also may contribute the risk, the researchers wrote.

The analysis may have missed people with neurologic disorders diagnosed before 1977 if they did not have subsequent contact with a hospital, the investigators noted. In addition, diagnoses given in primary care were not included, suicide deaths may be underrecorded, and “adjusting for preexisting mental disorders could be viewed as overadjusting,” they wrote.

The study was supported by a grant from the Psychiatric Research Foundation in Denmark. The authors reported that they had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Erlangsen A et al. JAMA. 2020 Feb 4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.21834.

People with neurologic disorders have a higher rate of suicide, compared with people without neurologic conditions, according to a population-based study in Denmark.

The absolute risk difference is small, but statistically significant. “These findings do not necessarily warrant changing the management of treatment for individual patients,” wrote Annette Erlangsen, PhD, a researcher at the Danish Research Institute for Suicide Prevention in Hellerup, and colleagues. “As with all patients, physicians should be aware of the potential for depression, demoralization, and suicide.”

In addition, dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, and intellectual disabilities may be associated with lower suicide rates, according to the study, which was published in JAMA.

“Plausible mechanisms” could underlie the association between neurologic disease and suicide, the authors wrote. A neurologic diagnosis “may constitute a distressing life event,” and the diseases may have psychological, physical, and psychiatric effects. Patients may see themselves as a burden or have less financial security. In addition, the diseases may entail “communication difficulties, poor sleep, and pain.” Neurologic diseases may alter brain circuitry and functioning and influence aggression and impulsivity. “People with neurologic disorders may also have easier access to toxic medication,” they added.
 

More than a dozen conditions examined

Prior studies have found associations between neurologic conditions and rates of suicide, but data have been inconclusive or inconsistent for some of the disorders. To examine whether people with neurologic disorders have higher suicide rates, relative to people without these disorders, the researchers conducted a retrospective study. They analyzed data from more than 7.3 million people aged 15 years or older who lived in Denmark between 1980 and 2016. The cohort included more than 1.2 million people with neurologic disorders. The investigators identified neurologic disorders using ICD codes for head injury, stroke, epilepsy, polyneuropathy, diseases of the myoneural junction, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, CNS infections, meningitis, encephalitis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Huntington’s disease, dementia, intellectual disability, and other brain disorders. They compared incidence rates using a Poisson regression model and adjusted for time period, sex, age, region, socioeconomic status, comorbidity, self-harm or psychiatric hospitalization prior to a neurologic diagnosis, and whether a person lived alone.

In all, 35,483 people in the cohort died by suicide at an average age of about 52 years; 77.4% were male. About 15% of those who died by suicide had a neurologic disorder. The suicide incidence rate among people with a neurologic disorder was 44.0 per 100,000 person-years, whereas the rate among people without a neurologic disorder was 20.1 per 100,000 person-years.

The adjusted incidence rate ratio for people with a neurologic disorder was 1.8. The rate ratio was highest during the 3 months after diagnosis, at 3.1. Huntington’s disease and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis were associated with “the largest excess adjusted [incidence rate ratios] of suicide mortality,” with a rate ratio of 4.9 for each condition, the researchers reported. The adjusted incidence rate ratio was 1.7 for head injury, 1.3 for stroke, 1.7 for epilepsy, 1.4 for intracerebral hemorrhage, 1.3 for cerebral infarction, 1.3 for subarachnoid hemorrhage, 1.7 for polyneuropathy and peripheral neuropathy, 2.2 for Guillain-Barré syndrome, 1.9 for diseases of myoneural junction and muscle, 1.8 for other brain disorders, 1.7 for Parkinson’s disease, 2.2 for multiple sclerosis, and 1.6 for CNS infection.

Compared with people without a neurologic condition, people with dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, and intellectual disabilities had lower suicide rates, with adjusted incidence rate ratios of 0.8, 0.2, and 0.6, respectively. “However, the adjusted [incidence rate ratio] for people with dementia during the first month after diagnosis was 3.0,” the researchers wrote.

In addition, the suicide rate increased with an increasing cumulative number of hospital contacts for neurologic conditions.

Overall incidence rates declined

“Over the study period, the suicide incidence rate for people with neurological disorders decreased from 78.6 per 100,000 person-years during the 1980-1999 years to 27.3 per 100,000 person-years during the 2000-2016 years,” wrote Dr. Erlangsen and colleagues. “The suicide incidence rate for those without a disorder decreased from 26.3 to 12.7 during the same time spans. ... The decline in the overall suicide rate over time did not affect the relative risk pattern.”

The decline in the general suicide rate in Denmark “has largely been attributed to means restriction, such as efforts to limit availability of firearms and particularly toxic medication,” the authors added.

In those time spans, the adjusted incidence rate ratio for suicide among those with dementia decreased from 2.4 to 1.0, and among those with multiple sclerosis from 2.0 to 1.0. “It is possible that the improvements observed for dementia and multiple sclerosis may be related to improvements in treatment and intensified community-based support,” Dr. Erlangsen and coauthors wrote.

When the researchers used people with rheumatoid arthritis as a reference group, those with a neurologic disorder had a higher suicide rate per 100,000 person-years, 30.2 versus 18.4. The adjusted incidence rate ratio for that comparison was 1.4.

In patients with Huntington’s disease, depression mediated by hyperactivity in the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis may contribute to the risk of suicide. “Witnessing the course of the disease in one’s parent” also may contribute the risk, the researchers wrote.

The analysis may have missed people with neurologic disorders diagnosed before 1977 if they did not have subsequent contact with a hospital, the investigators noted. In addition, diagnoses given in primary care were not included, suicide deaths may be underrecorded, and “adjusting for preexisting mental disorders could be viewed as overadjusting,” they wrote.

The study was supported by a grant from the Psychiatric Research Foundation in Denmark. The authors reported that they had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Erlangsen A et al. JAMA. 2020 Feb 4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.21834.

People with neurologic disorders have a higher rate of suicide, compared with people without neurologic conditions, according to a population-based study in Denmark.

The absolute risk difference is small, but statistically significant. “These findings do not necessarily warrant changing the management of treatment for individual patients,” wrote Annette Erlangsen, PhD, a researcher at the Danish Research Institute for Suicide Prevention in Hellerup, and colleagues. “As with all patients, physicians should be aware of the potential for depression, demoralization, and suicide.”

In addition, dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, and intellectual disabilities may be associated with lower suicide rates, according to the study, which was published in JAMA.

“Plausible mechanisms” could underlie the association between neurologic disease and suicide, the authors wrote. A neurologic diagnosis “may constitute a distressing life event,” and the diseases may have psychological, physical, and psychiatric effects. Patients may see themselves as a burden or have less financial security. In addition, the diseases may entail “communication difficulties, poor sleep, and pain.” Neurologic diseases may alter brain circuitry and functioning and influence aggression and impulsivity. “People with neurologic disorders may also have easier access to toxic medication,” they added.
 

More than a dozen conditions examined

Prior studies have found associations between neurologic conditions and rates of suicide, but data have been inconclusive or inconsistent for some of the disorders. To examine whether people with neurologic disorders have higher suicide rates, relative to people without these disorders, the researchers conducted a retrospective study. They analyzed data from more than 7.3 million people aged 15 years or older who lived in Denmark between 1980 and 2016. The cohort included more than 1.2 million people with neurologic disorders. The investigators identified neurologic disorders using ICD codes for head injury, stroke, epilepsy, polyneuropathy, diseases of the myoneural junction, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, CNS infections, meningitis, encephalitis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Huntington’s disease, dementia, intellectual disability, and other brain disorders. They compared incidence rates using a Poisson regression model and adjusted for time period, sex, age, region, socioeconomic status, comorbidity, self-harm or psychiatric hospitalization prior to a neurologic diagnosis, and whether a person lived alone.

In all, 35,483 people in the cohort died by suicide at an average age of about 52 years; 77.4% were male. About 15% of those who died by suicide had a neurologic disorder. The suicide incidence rate among people with a neurologic disorder was 44.0 per 100,000 person-years, whereas the rate among people without a neurologic disorder was 20.1 per 100,000 person-years.

The adjusted incidence rate ratio for people with a neurologic disorder was 1.8. The rate ratio was highest during the 3 months after diagnosis, at 3.1. Huntington’s disease and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis were associated with “the largest excess adjusted [incidence rate ratios] of suicide mortality,” with a rate ratio of 4.9 for each condition, the researchers reported. The adjusted incidence rate ratio was 1.7 for head injury, 1.3 for stroke, 1.7 for epilepsy, 1.4 for intracerebral hemorrhage, 1.3 for cerebral infarction, 1.3 for subarachnoid hemorrhage, 1.7 for polyneuropathy and peripheral neuropathy, 2.2 for Guillain-Barré syndrome, 1.9 for diseases of myoneural junction and muscle, 1.8 for other brain disorders, 1.7 for Parkinson’s disease, 2.2 for multiple sclerosis, and 1.6 for CNS infection.

Compared with people without a neurologic condition, people with dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, and intellectual disabilities had lower suicide rates, with adjusted incidence rate ratios of 0.8, 0.2, and 0.6, respectively. “However, the adjusted [incidence rate ratio] for people with dementia during the first month after diagnosis was 3.0,” the researchers wrote.

In addition, the suicide rate increased with an increasing cumulative number of hospital contacts for neurologic conditions.

Overall incidence rates declined

“Over the study period, the suicide incidence rate for people with neurological disorders decreased from 78.6 per 100,000 person-years during the 1980-1999 years to 27.3 per 100,000 person-years during the 2000-2016 years,” wrote Dr. Erlangsen and colleagues. “The suicide incidence rate for those without a disorder decreased from 26.3 to 12.7 during the same time spans. ... The decline in the overall suicide rate over time did not affect the relative risk pattern.”

The decline in the general suicide rate in Denmark “has largely been attributed to means restriction, such as efforts to limit availability of firearms and particularly toxic medication,” the authors added.

In those time spans, the adjusted incidence rate ratio for suicide among those with dementia decreased from 2.4 to 1.0, and among those with multiple sclerosis from 2.0 to 1.0. “It is possible that the improvements observed for dementia and multiple sclerosis may be related to improvements in treatment and intensified community-based support,” Dr. Erlangsen and coauthors wrote.

When the researchers used people with rheumatoid arthritis as a reference group, those with a neurologic disorder had a higher suicide rate per 100,000 person-years, 30.2 versus 18.4. The adjusted incidence rate ratio for that comparison was 1.4.

In patients with Huntington’s disease, depression mediated by hyperactivity in the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis may contribute to the risk of suicide. “Witnessing the course of the disease in one’s parent” also may contribute the risk, the researchers wrote.

The analysis may have missed people with neurologic disorders diagnosed before 1977 if they did not have subsequent contact with a hospital, the investigators noted. In addition, diagnoses given in primary care were not included, suicide deaths may be underrecorded, and “adjusting for preexisting mental disorders could be viewed as overadjusting,” they wrote.

The study was supported by a grant from the Psychiatric Research Foundation in Denmark. The authors reported that they had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Erlangsen A et al. JAMA. 2020 Feb 4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.21834.