To the Editor:

Capillary malformations (CMs), the most common vascular malformations that can affect the skin,¹ present clinically as macules and patches of various colors, shapes, and sizes. Congenital structural abnormalities are associated with conditions such as Klippel-Trenaunay syndrome (KTS), cutis marmorata telangiectatica congenita (CMTC), and megalencephaly–capillary malformation syndrome.² Diffuse CM with overgrowth (DCMO) of the soft tissue and bones is an established association of CMs; however, diffuse capillary malformation with undergrowth (DCMU) is a more recent term that describes the lesser-recognized counterpart to DCMO.³ Herein, we describe a case of CM with left-sided undergrowth.

An 11-year-old boy presented to our clinic with asymptomatic vascular patterning on the left side of the body that had been present since birth. He previously was diagnosed with congenital right hemihypertrophy. He reported that the areas gradually lightened over time, and he denied any history of ulceration or venous or lymphatic malformations. Additionally, he explained how the left arm and leg have been noticeably smaller than the right extremities throughout his life. Physical examination revealed superficial, violaceous, reticulated patches along the left upper back tracking down the arm, abdomen (Figure 1A), and anterior thigh (Figure 1B) without crossing the midline. A few dilated veins were noted in the same region as the patches. There was no evidence of scarring or depression found in the skin. The right arms and legs were visibly larger compared to the left side (Figure 2A), and there also was macrodactyly of the third digit of the left hand (Figure 2B). Radiography confirmed the limb length discrepancy and showed the right and left legs to measure 73.2 cm and 71.3 cm, respectively. Given the patient’s multifocal reticulated CMs and ipsilateral undergrowth, a diagnosis of DCMU was rendered. The superficial vascular pattern is likely to fade over time, which will partially be hidden by his darker complexion. He also was advised to continue to see an orthopedist to monitor the limb length incongruity. Surgical intervention was not recommended.

It ordinarily is thought that vascular anomalies of a limb may result in hypertrophy due to increased blood flow such as in KTS, but there are occasions where the affected limb(s) are inexplicably smaller.^2,4 Cubiró et al³ observed that in 6 patients with unilateral CMs, all had ipsilateral limb undergrowth. They proposed the term diffuse capillary malformation with undergrowth as a distinct counterpart to DCMO. Diffuse capillary malformation with undergrowth is most similar to CMTC, as both can present with patchy or reticulated capillary staining with ipsilateral limb hypotrophy, but girth more often is affected than length; CMTC also may be associated with dermal atrophy and ulceration.² The lesions of CMTC typically diminish within the first few years of life whereas those in DCMU tend to persist. Patients with KTS also can exhibit soft-tissue and bony undergrowth, which is termed inverse Klippel-Trenaunay syndrome³; however, the lack of the triad of capillary-lymphatic-venous malformation in our patient made this condition less likely. Additionally, it appears that our patient had left-sided undergrowth rather than the previously diagnosed right hemihypertrophy. The ipsilateral macrodactyly of the third digit of the left hand was an interesting observation and contrasted the undergrowth apparent in the rest of the left limb, which could be caused by increased blood flow specifically to the third digit resembling DCMO.⁴

Of note, genetic mutations have been implicated as a cause of vascular malformations and growth abnormalities. Specifically, mutations in the phosphoinositide-3-kinase–AKT pathway have been reported in these cases likely due its role in cell growth, proliferation, and angiogenesis.^3,4 Future studies should investigate genetic associations in patients with DCMU to determine if there is a robust genotypic-phenotypic link.

Although CMs are a common occurrence in pediatric dermatology, CMs with concurrent limb undergrowth are rare. Our patient’s unique features included involvement of both an arm and leg as well as the presence of macrodactyly. We agree with the terminology for DCMU to describe multifocal reticulated vascular patterning with ipsilateral undergrowth.³

To the Editor:

Capillary malformations (CMs), the most common vascular malformations that can affect the skin,¹ present clinically as macules and patches of various colors, shapes, and sizes. Congenital structural abnormalities are associated with conditions such as Klippel-Trenaunay syndrome (KTS), cutis marmorata telangiectatica congenita (CMTC), and megalencephaly–capillary malformation syndrome.² Diffuse CM with overgrowth (DCMO) of the soft tissue and bones is an established association of CMs; however, diffuse capillary malformation with undergrowth (DCMU) is a more recent term that describes the lesser-recognized counterpart to DCMO.³ Herein, we describe a case of CM with left-sided undergrowth.

An 11-year-old boy presented to our clinic with asymptomatic vascular patterning on the left side of the body that had been present since birth. He previously was diagnosed with congenital right hemihypertrophy. He reported that the areas gradually lightened over time, and he denied any history of ulceration or venous or lymphatic malformations. Additionally, he explained how the left arm and leg have been noticeably smaller than the right extremities throughout his life. Physical examination revealed superficial, violaceous, reticulated patches along the left upper back tracking down the arm, abdomen (Figure 1A), and anterior thigh (Figure 1B) without crossing the midline. A few dilated veins were noted in the same region as the patches. There was no evidence of scarring or depression found in the skin. The right arms and legs were visibly larger compared to the left side (Figure 2A), and there also was macrodactyly of the third digit of the left hand (Figure 2B). Radiography confirmed the limb length discrepancy and showed the right and left legs to measure 73.2 cm and 71.3 cm, respectively. Given the patient’s multifocal reticulated CMs and ipsilateral undergrowth, a diagnosis of DCMU was rendered. The superficial vascular pattern is likely to fade over time, which will partially be hidden by his darker complexion. He also was advised to continue to see an orthopedist to monitor the limb length incongruity. Surgical intervention was not recommended.

It ordinarily is thought that vascular anomalies of a limb may result in hypertrophy due to increased blood flow such as in KTS, but there are occasions where the affected limb(s) are inexplicably smaller.^2,4 Cubiró et al³ observed that in 6 patients with unilateral CMs, all had ipsilateral limb undergrowth. They proposed the term diffuse capillary malformation with undergrowth as a distinct counterpart to DCMO. Diffuse capillary malformation with undergrowth is most similar to CMTC, as both can present with patchy or reticulated capillary staining with ipsilateral limb hypotrophy, but girth more often is affected than length; CMTC also may be associated with dermal atrophy and ulceration.² The lesions of CMTC typically diminish within the first few years of life whereas those in DCMU tend to persist. Patients with KTS also can exhibit soft-tissue and bony undergrowth, which is termed inverse Klippel-Trenaunay syndrome³; however, the lack of the triad of capillary-lymphatic-venous malformation in our patient made this condition less likely. Additionally, it appears that our patient had left-sided undergrowth rather than the previously diagnosed right hemihypertrophy. The ipsilateral macrodactyly of the third digit of the left hand was an interesting observation and contrasted the undergrowth apparent in the rest of the left limb, which could be caused by increased blood flow specifically to the third digit resembling DCMO.⁴

Of note, genetic mutations have been implicated as a cause of vascular malformations and growth abnormalities. Specifically, mutations in the phosphoinositide-3-kinase–AKT pathway have been reported in these cases likely due its role in cell growth, proliferation, and angiogenesis.^3,4 Future studies should investigate genetic associations in patients with DCMU to determine if there is a robust genotypic-phenotypic link.

Although CMs are a common occurrence in pediatric dermatology, CMs with concurrent limb undergrowth are rare. Our patient’s unique features included involvement of both an arm and leg as well as the presence of macrodactyly. We agree with the terminology for DCMU to describe multifocal reticulated vascular patterning with ipsilateral undergrowth.³

To the Editor:

Capillary malformations (CMs), the most common vascular malformations that can affect the skin,¹ present clinically as macules and patches of various colors, shapes, and sizes. Congenital structural abnormalities are associated with conditions such as Klippel-Trenaunay syndrome (KTS), cutis marmorata telangiectatica congenita (CMTC), and megalencephaly–capillary malformation syndrome.² Diffuse CM with overgrowth (DCMO) of the soft tissue and bones is an established association of CMs; however, diffuse capillary malformation with undergrowth (DCMU) is a more recent term that describes the lesser-recognized counterpart to DCMO.³ Herein, we describe a case of CM with left-sided undergrowth.

An 11-year-old boy presented to our clinic with asymptomatic vascular patterning on the left side of the body that had been present since birth. He previously was diagnosed with congenital right hemihypertrophy. He reported that the areas gradually lightened over time, and he denied any history of ulceration or venous or lymphatic malformations. Additionally, he explained how the left arm and leg have been noticeably smaller than the right extremities throughout his life. Physical examination revealed superficial, violaceous, reticulated patches along the left upper back tracking down the arm, abdomen (Figure 1A), and anterior thigh (Figure 1B) without crossing the midline. A few dilated veins were noted in the same region as the patches. There was no evidence of scarring or depression found in the skin. The right arms and legs were visibly larger compared to the left side (Figure 2A), and there also was macrodactyly of the third digit of the left hand (Figure 2B). Radiography confirmed the limb length discrepancy and showed the right and left legs to measure 73.2 cm and 71.3 cm, respectively. Given the patient’s multifocal reticulated CMs and ipsilateral undergrowth, a diagnosis of DCMU was rendered. The superficial vascular pattern is likely to fade over time, which will partially be hidden by his darker complexion. He also was advised to continue to see an orthopedist to monitor the limb length incongruity. Surgical intervention was not recommended.

It ordinarily is thought that vascular anomalies of a limb may result in hypertrophy due to increased blood flow such as in KTS, but there are occasions where the affected limb(s) are inexplicably smaller.^2,4 Cubiró et al³ observed that in 6 patients with unilateral CMs, all had ipsilateral limb undergrowth. They proposed the term diffuse capillary malformation with undergrowth as a distinct counterpart to DCMO. Diffuse capillary malformation with undergrowth is most similar to CMTC, as both can present with patchy or reticulated capillary staining with ipsilateral limb hypotrophy, but girth more often is affected than length; CMTC also may be associated with dermal atrophy and ulceration.² The lesions of CMTC typically diminish within the first few years of life whereas those in DCMU tend to persist. Patients with KTS also can exhibit soft-tissue and bony undergrowth, which is termed inverse Klippel-Trenaunay syndrome³; however, the lack of the triad of capillary-lymphatic-venous malformation in our patient made this condition less likely. Additionally, it appears that our patient had left-sided undergrowth rather than the previously diagnosed right hemihypertrophy. The ipsilateral macrodactyly of the third digit of the left hand was an interesting observation and contrasted the undergrowth apparent in the rest of the left limb, which could be caused by increased blood flow specifically to the third digit resembling DCMO.⁴

Of note, genetic mutations have been implicated as a cause of vascular malformations and growth abnormalities. Specifically, mutations in the phosphoinositide-3-kinase–AKT pathway have been reported in these cases likely due its role in cell growth, proliferation, and angiogenesis.^3,4 Future studies should investigate genetic associations in patients with DCMU to determine if there is a robust genotypic-phenotypic link.

Although CMs are a common occurrence in pediatric dermatology, CMs with concurrent limb undergrowth are rare. Our patient’s unique features included involvement of both an arm and leg as well as the presence of macrodactyly. We agree with the terminology for DCMU to describe multifocal reticulated vascular patterning with ipsilateral undergrowth.³

A multicomponent exercise program that includes strength, aerobic, agility, and balance training exercises is cost-effective and results in improved cognition among stroke survivors, compared with a balance and tone control group, according to a new analysis.

On the other hand, a program consisting of cognitive and social enrichment activities that includes memory, brain training, and group social games entailed higher costs, compared with the balance and tone group, which included stretches, deep breathing and relaxation techniques, posture education, and core control exercises.

“Cognitive impairment is experienced in approximately one-third of stroke survivors,” study author Jennifer Davis, PhD, a Canada research chair in applied health economics and assistant professor of management at the University of British Columbia in Kelowna, said in an interview.

“The economic evaluation of the exercise intervention demonstrated that the multicomponent exercise program provided good value for the money when comparing costs and cognitive outcomes,” she said. However, “impacts on health-related quality of life were not observed.”

The study was published online November 30 in JAMA Network Open. 
 

Comparing Three Approaches

Despite improved care, patients with stroke often face challenges with physical function, cognitive abilities, and quality of life, the authors wrote. Among older adults, in particular, cognitive deficits remain prevalent and are associated with increased risks for dementia, mortality, and increased burdens for patients, caregivers, and health systems.

Numerous interventions have shown promise for post-stroke cognitive rehabilitation, including exercise and cognitive training, the authors wrote. Research hasn’t indicated which programs offer the most efficient or cost-effective options, however.

Dr. Davis and colleagues conducted an economic evaluation alongside the Vitality study, a three-group randomized clinical trial that examined the efficacy of improving cognitive function among patients with chronic stroke through a multicomponent exercise program, cognitive and social enrichment activities, or a control group with balance and tone activities. 

The economic evaluation team included a cost-effectiveness analysis (based on incremental cost per cognitive function change) and a cost-utility analysis (incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained). The researchers used a cost-effectiveness threshold of CAD $50,000 (Canadian dollars) per QALY for the cost-utility analysis, which was based on precedent treatment in Canada.

The clinical trial included 120 community-dwelling adults aged 55 years and older who had a stroke at least 12 months before the study. Based in the Vancouver metropolitan area, participants were randomly assigned to twice-weekly, 60-minute classes led by trained instructors for 26 weeks. The mean age was 71 years, and 62% of participants were men.

Exercise Effective

Overall, the balance and tone control group had the lowest delivery cost at CAD $777 per person, followed by CAD $1090 per person for the exercise group and CAD $1492 per person for the cognitive and social enrichment group.

After the 6-month intervention, the mean cognitive scores were –0.192 for the exercise group, –0.184 for the cognitive and social enrichment group, and –0.171 for the balance and tone group, indicating better cognitive function across all three groups.

In the cost-effectiveness analysis, the exercise intervention was costlier but more effective than the control group, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CAD –$8823.

In the cost-utility analysis, the exercise intervention was cost saving (less costly and more effective), compared with the control group, with an ICER of CAD –$3381 per QALY gained at the end of the intervention and an ICER of CAD –$154,198 per QALY gained at the end of the 12-month follow-up period. The cognitive and social enrichment program was more costly and more effective than the control group, with an ICER of CAD $101,687 per QALY gained at the end of the intervention and an ICER of CAD $331,306 per QALY gained at the end of the follow-up period.

In additional analyses, the exercise group had the lowest healthcare resource utilization due to lower healthcare costs for physician visits and lab tests.

“This study provides initial data that suggests multicomponent exercise may be a cost-effective solution for combating cognitive decline among stroke survivors,” said Dr. Davis.

Overall, exercise was cost-effective for improving cognitive function but not quality of life among participants. The clinical trial was powered to detect changes in cognitive function rather than quality of life, so it lacked statistical power to detect differences in quality of life, said Dr. Davis.

Exercise programs and cognitive and social enrichment programs show promise for improving cognitive function after stroke, the authors wrote, though future research should focus on optimizing cost-effectiveness and enhancing health-related quality of life.

Considering Additional Benefits

Commenting on the study, Alan Tam, MD, a physiatrist at the Toronto Rehabilitation Institute’s Brain Rehabilitation Program, said, “The authors show that within the timeframe of their analysis, there is a trend to cost-effectiveness for the cognitive intervention being offered.” Dr. Tam did not participate in the research.

“However, the finding is not robust, as less than 50% of their simulations would meet their acceptability level they have defined,” he said. “Given that most of the cost of the intervention is up front, but the benefits are likely lifelong, potentially taking the 12-month analysis to a lifetime analysis would show more significant findings.”

Dr. Tam researches factors associated with brain injury rehabilitation and has explored the cost-effectiveness of a high-intensity outpatient stroke rehabilitation program.

“Presenting this type of work is important,” he said. “While there are interventions that do not meet our definition of statistical significance, especially in the rehabilitation world, there can still be a benefit for patients and health systems.”

The primary study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and the Jack Brown and Family Alzheimer Research Foundation Society. Dr. Davis reported receiving grants from the CIHR and Michael Smith Health Research BC during the conduct of the study. Dr. Tam reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A multicomponent exercise program that includes strength, aerobic, agility, and balance training exercises is cost-effective and results in improved cognition among stroke survivors, compared with a balance and tone control group, according to a new analysis.

On the other hand, a program consisting of cognitive and social enrichment activities that includes memory, brain training, and group social games entailed higher costs, compared with the balance and tone group, which included stretches, deep breathing and relaxation techniques, posture education, and core control exercises.

“Cognitive impairment is experienced in approximately one-third of stroke survivors,” study author Jennifer Davis, PhD, a Canada research chair in applied health economics and assistant professor of management at the University of British Columbia in Kelowna, said in an interview.

“The economic evaluation of the exercise intervention demonstrated that the multicomponent exercise program provided good value for the money when comparing costs and cognitive outcomes,” she said. However, “impacts on health-related quality of life were not observed.”

The study was published online November 30 in JAMA Network Open. 
 

Comparing Three Approaches

Despite improved care, patients with stroke often face challenges with physical function, cognitive abilities, and quality of life, the authors wrote. Among older adults, in particular, cognitive deficits remain prevalent and are associated with increased risks for dementia, mortality, and increased burdens for patients, caregivers, and health systems.

Numerous interventions have shown promise for post-stroke cognitive rehabilitation, including exercise and cognitive training, the authors wrote. Research hasn’t indicated which programs offer the most efficient or cost-effective options, however.

Dr. Davis and colleagues conducted an economic evaluation alongside the Vitality study, a three-group randomized clinical trial that examined the efficacy of improving cognitive function among patients with chronic stroke through a multicomponent exercise program, cognitive and social enrichment activities, or a control group with balance and tone activities. 

The economic evaluation team included a cost-effectiveness analysis (based on incremental cost per cognitive function change) and a cost-utility analysis (incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained). The researchers used a cost-effectiveness threshold of CAD $50,000 (Canadian dollars) per QALY for the cost-utility analysis, which was based on precedent treatment in Canada.

The clinical trial included 120 community-dwelling adults aged 55 years and older who had a stroke at least 12 months before the study. Based in the Vancouver metropolitan area, participants were randomly assigned to twice-weekly, 60-minute classes led by trained instructors for 26 weeks. The mean age was 71 years, and 62% of participants were men.

Exercise Effective

Overall, the balance and tone control group had the lowest delivery cost at CAD $777 per person, followed by CAD $1090 per person for the exercise group and CAD $1492 per person for the cognitive and social enrichment group.

After the 6-month intervention, the mean cognitive scores were –0.192 for the exercise group, –0.184 for the cognitive and social enrichment group, and –0.171 for the balance and tone group, indicating better cognitive function across all three groups.

In the cost-effectiveness analysis, the exercise intervention was costlier but more effective than the control group, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CAD –$8823.

In the cost-utility analysis, the exercise intervention was cost saving (less costly and more effective), compared with the control group, with an ICER of CAD –$3381 per QALY gained at the end of the intervention and an ICER of CAD –$154,198 per QALY gained at the end of the 12-month follow-up period. The cognitive and social enrichment program was more costly and more effective than the control group, with an ICER of CAD $101,687 per QALY gained at the end of the intervention and an ICER of CAD $331,306 per QALY gained at the end of the follow-up period.

In additional analyses, the exercise group had the lowest healthcare resource utilization due to lower healthcare costs for physician visits and lab tests.

“This study provides initial data that suggests multicomponent exercise may be a cost-effective solution for combating cognitive decline among stroke survivors,” said Dr. Davis.

Overall, exercise was cost-effective for improving cognitive function but not quality of life among participants. The clinical trial was powered to detect changes in cognitive function rather than quality of life, so it lacked statistical power to detect differences in quality of life, said Dr. Davis.

Exercise programs and cognitive and social enrichment programs show promise for improving cognitive function after stroke, the authors wrote, though future research should focus on optimizing cost-effectiveness and enhancing health-related quality of life.

Considering Additional Benefits

Commenting on the study, Alan Tam, MD, a physiatrist at the Toronto Rehabilitation Institute’s Brain Rehabilitation Program, said, “The authors show that within the timeframe of their analysis, there is a trend to cost-effectiveness for the cognitive intervention being offered.” Dr. Tam did not participate in the research.

“However, the finding is not robust, as less than 50% of their simulations would meet their acceptability level they have defined,” he said. “Given that most of the cost of the intervention is up front, but the benefits are likely lifelong, potentially taking the 12-month analysis to a lifetime analysis would show more significant findings.”

Dr. Tam researches factors associated with brain injury rehabilitation and has explored the cost-effectiveness of a high-intensity outpatient stroke rehabilitation program.

“Presenting this type of work is important,” he said. “While there are interventions that do not meet our definition of statistical significance, especially in the rehabilitation world, there can still be a benefit for patients and health systems.”

The primary study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and the Jack Brown and Family Alzheimer Research Foundation Society. Dr. Davis reported receiving grants from the CIHR and Michael Smith Health Research BC during the conduct of the study. Dr. Tam reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A multicomponent exercise program that includes strength, aerobic, agility, and balance training exercises is cost-effective and results in improved cognition among stroke survivors, compared with a balance and tone control group, according to a new analysis.

On the other hand, a program consisting of cognitive and social enrichment activities that includes memory, brain training, and group social games entailed higher costs, compared with the balance and tone group, which included stretches, deep breathing and relaxation techniques, posture education, and core control exercises.

“Cognitive impairment is experienced in approximately one-third of stroke survivors,” study author Jennifer Davis, PhD, a Canada research chair in applied health economics and assistant professor of management at the University of British Columbia in Kelowna, said in an interview.

“The economic evaluation of the exercise intervention demonstrated that the multicomponent exercise program provided good value for the money when comparing costs and cognitive outcomes,” she said. However, “impacts on health-related quality of life were not observed.”

The study was published online November 30 in JAMA Network Open. 
 

Comparing Three Approaches

Despite improved care, patients with stroke often face challenges with physical function, cognitive abilities, and quality of life, the authors wrote. Among older adults, in particular, cognitive deficits remain prevalent and are associated with increased risks for dementia, mortality, and increased burdens for patients, caregivers, and health systems.

Numerous interventions have shown promise for post-stroke cognitive rehabilitation, including exercise and cognitive training, the authors wrote. Research hasn’t indicated which programs offer the most efficient or cost-effective options, however.

Dr. Davis and colleagues conducted an economic evaluation alongside the Vitality study, a three-group randomized clinical trial that examined the efficacy of improving cognitive function among patients with chronic stroke through a multicomponent exercise program, cognitive and social enrichment activities, or a control group with balance and tone activities. 

The economic evaluation team included a cost-effectiveness analysis (based on incremental cost per cognitive function change) and a cost-utility analysis (incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained). The researchers used a cost-effectiveness threshold of CAD $50,000 (Canadian dollars) per QALY for the cost-utility analysis, which was based on precedent treatment in Canada.

The clinical trial included 120 community-dwelling adults aged 55 years and older who had a stroke at least 12 months before the study. Based in the Vancouver metropolitan area, participants were randomly assigned to twice-weekly, 60-minute classes led by trained instructors for 26 weeks. The mean age was 71 years, and 62% of participants were men.

Exercise Effective

Overall, the balance and tone control group had the lowest delivery cost at CAD $777 per person, followed by CAD $1090 per person for the exercise group and CAD $1492 per person for the cognitive and social enrichment group.

After the 6-month intervention, the mean cognitive scores were –0.192 for the exercise group, –0.184 for the cognitive and social enrichment group, and –0.171 for the balance and tone group, indicating better cognitive function across all three groups.

In the cost-effectiveness analysis, the exercise intervention was costlier but more effective than the control group, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CAD –$8823.

In the cost-utility analysis, the exercise intervention was cost saving (less costly and more effective), compared with the control group, with an ICER of CAD –$3381 per QALY gained at the end of the intervention and an ICER of CAD –$154,198 per QALY gained at the end of the 12-month follow-up period. The cognitive and social enrichment program was more costly and more effective than the control group, with an ICER of CAD $101,687 per QALY gained at the end of the intervention and an ICER of CAD $331,306 per QALY gained at the end of the follow-up period.

In additional analyses, the exercise group had the lowest healthcare resource utilization due to lower healthcare costs for physician visits and lab tests.

“This study provides initial data that suggests multicomponent exercise may be a cost-effective solution for combating cognitive decline among stroke survivors,” said Dr. Davis.

Overall, exercise was cost-effective for improving cognitive function but not quality of life among participants. The clinical trial was powered to detect changes in cognitive function rather than quality of life, so it lacked statistical power to detect differences in quality of life, said Dr. Davis.

Exercise programs and cognitive and social enrichment programs show promise for improving cognitive function after stroke, the authors wrote, though future research should focus on optimizing cost-effectiveness and enhancing health-related quality of life.

Considering Additional Benefits

Commenting on the study, Alan Tam, MD, a physiatrist at the Toronto Rehabilitation Institute’s Brain Rehabilitation Program, said, “The authors show that within the timeframe of their analysis, there is a trend to cost-effectiveness for the cognitive intervention being offered.” Dr. Tam did not participate in the research.

“However, the finding is not robust, as less than 50% of their simulations would meet their acceptability level they have defined,” he said. “Given that most of the cost of the intervention is up front, but the benefits are likely lifelong, potentially taking the 12-month analysis to a lifetime analysis would show more significant findings.”

Dr. Tam researches factors associated with brain injury rehabilitation and has explored the cost-effectiveness of a high-intensity outpatient stroke rehabilitation program.

“Presenting this type of work is important,” he said. “While there are interventions that do not meet our definition of statistical significance, especially in the rehabilitation world, there can still be a benefit for patients and health systems.”

The primary study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and the Jack Brown and Family Alzheimer Research Foundation Society. Dr. Davis reported receiving grants from the CIHR and Michael Smith Health Research BC during the conduct of the study. Dr. Tam reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A significant number of patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) failed to achieve adequate disease control with systemic therapies over 12 months in a study of patient registry data, indicating a substantial degree of “therapeutic inertia,” the study’s lead author, Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, reported.

The findings come from an analysis of real-world outcomes from the TARGET-DERM AD registry, which Dr. Silverberg, professor and director of clinical research and contact dermatitis in the department of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, presented during a late-breaking abstract session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis (RAD) Virtual Conference. He characterized the findings as “patients just getting stuck with a therapy and not advancing when they need to.”

TARGET-DERM AD is a longitudinal observational study of people with AD at 39 academic centers in the United States and Canada. Dr. Silverberg and his coinvestigators evaluated the proportion of patients who were experiencing an inadequate response after receiving systemic therapy and continuing on the same treatment for 3-12 months. “These are patients who are receiving their first or advanced systemic therapy, and the question is, how long did they stay on it, even if they’re not doing so well?” Dr. Silverberg said.

The researchers identified and compared the proportions of patients not achieving moderate or optimal clinician-reported outcome targets on patients with AD treated with their first systemic therapy. Advanced systemic therapy (AST) included abrocitinib, dupilumab, tralokinumab, or upadacitinib, while conventional systemic therapy (CST) included methotrexate, cyclosporine, mycophenolate mofetil, azathioprine, and systemic corticosteroids.

Patients in TARGET-DERM AD were treated and maintained on their first systemic therapy (either advanced or conventional) for up to 12 months. They had a validated Investigator’s Global Assessment of AD (vIGA-AD) score of 3 or 4 less than 45 days prior to initiation of systemic therapy or up to 14 days afterward. They also had at least one vIGA-AD assessment 3-12 months after initiating treatment. Outcome measures included IGA (defined as a score of 2 or less, with an optional target of 0 or 1), BSA (defined as a 50% BSA improvement, with an optimal target BSA of 2% or less), and the Worst-Itch Numeric Rating Scale (defined as at least a 4-point reduction, with an optimal target of 1 or less).

The analysis included 445 patients with a mean age of 31 years at enrollment. More than half (62%) were female and 45% were non-Hispanic Whites. Most patients (92%) were on an AST, mainly dupilumab, with smaller proportions treated with either tralokinumab, upadacitinib, or abrocitinib. Fewer than 10% of patients in the registry were being treated with CSTs.

At 6 months, 37% and approximately 67% of the AST-treated patients had inadequate responses in terms of skin clearance and itch outcomes, respectively. At 12 months, these figures were about 30% and 66%, respectively. CST-treated patients showed a similar trend. For patients starting an AST on or after Sept. 21, 2021, when three additional AST options were available (tralokinumab, upadacitinib, and abrocitinib), the proportion of patients demonstrating an adequate response over 12 months was generally similar to the overall cohort of those on ASTs.

“These findings suggest a need for alternative therapies and management strategies in AD treatment,” concluded Dr. Silverberg, who chaired the RAD symposium.

Dr. Silverberg reported being a consultant and/or an adviser for many pharmaceutical companies, and has received grant or research support from Galderma and Pfizer. The TARGET-DERM study is sponsored by Target PharmaSolutions.

A significant number of patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) failed to achieve adequate disease control with systemic therapies over 12 months in a study of patient registry data, indicating a substantial degree of “therapeutic inertia,” the study’s lead author, Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, reported.

The findings come from an analysis of real-world outcomes from the TARGET-DERM AD registry, which Dr. Silverberg, professor and director of clinical research and contact dermatitis in the department of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, presented during a late-breaking abstract session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis (RAD) Virtual Conference. He characterized the findings as “patients just getting stuck with a therapy and not advancing when they need to.”

TARGET-DERM AD is a longitudinal observational study of people with AD at 39 academic centers in the United States and Canada. Dr. Silverberg and his coinvestigators evaluated the proportion of patients who were experiencing an inadequate response after receiving systemic therapy and continuing on the same treatment for 3-12 months. “These are patients who are receiving their first or advanced systemic therapy, and the question is, how long did they stay on it, even if they’re not doing so well?” Dr. Silverberg said.

The researchers identified and compared the proportions of patients not achieving moderate or optimal clinician-reported outcome targets on patients with AD treated with their first systemic therapy. Advanced systemic therapy (AST) included abrocitinib, dupilumab, tralokinumab, or upadacitinib, while conventional systemic therapy (CST) included methotrexate, cyclosporine, mycophenolate mofetil, azathioprine, and systemic corticosteroids.

Patients in TARGET-DERM AD were treated and maintained on their first systemic therapy (either advanced or conventional) for up to 12 months. They had a validated Investigator’s Global Assessment of AD (vIGA-AD) score of 3 or 4 less than 45 days prior to initiation of systemic therapy or up to 14 days afterward. They also had at least one vIGA-AD assessment 3-12 months after initiating treatment. Outcome measures included IGA (defined as a score of 2 or less, with an optional target of 0 or 1), BSA (defined as a 50% BSA improvement, with an optimal target BSA of 2% or less), and the Worst-Itch Numeric Rating Scale (defined as at least a 4-point reduction, with an optimal target of 1 or less).

The analysis included 445 patients with a mean age of 31 years at enrollment. More than half (62%) were female and 45% were non-Hispanic Whites. Most patients (92%) were on an AST, mainly dupilumab, with smaller proportions treated with either tralokinumab, upadacitinib, or abrocitinib. Fewer than 10% of patients in the registry were being treated with CSTs.

At 6 months, 37% and approximately 67% of the AST-treated patients had inadequate responses in terms of skin clearance and itch outcomes, respectively. At 12 months, these figures were about 30% and 66%, respectively. CST-treated patients showed a similar trend. For patients starting an AST on or after Sept. 21, 2021, when three additional AST options were available (tralokinumab, upadacitinib, and abrocitinib), the proportion of patients demonstrating an adequate response over 12 months was generally similar to the overall cohort of those on ASTs.

“These findings suggest a need for alternative therapies and management strategies in AD treatment,” concluded Dr. Silverberg, who chaired the RAD symposium.

Dr. Silverberg reported being a consultant and/or an adviser for many pharmaceutical companies, and has received grant or research support from Galderma and Pfizer. The TARGET-DERM study is sponsored by Target PharmaSolutions.

A significant number of patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) failed to achieve adequate disease control with systemic therapies over 12 months in a study of patient registry data, indicating a substantial degree of “therapeutic inertia,” the study’s lead author, Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, reported.

The findings come from an analysis of real-world outcomes from the TARGET-DERM AD registry, which Dr. Silverberg, professor and director of clinical research and contact dermatitis in the department of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, presented during a late-breaking abstract session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis (RAD) Virtual Conference. He characterized the findings as “patients just getting stuck with a therapy and not advancing when they need to.”

TARGET-DERM AD is a longitudinal observational study of people with AD at 39 academic centers in the United States and Canada. Dr. Silverberg and his coinvestigators evaluated the proportion of patients who were experiencing an inadequate response after receiving systemic therapy and continuing on the same treatment for 3-12 months. “These are patients who are receiving their first or advanced systemic therapy, and the question is, how long did they stay on it, even if they’re not doing so well?” Dr. Silverberg said.

The researchers identified and compared the proportions of patients not achieving moderate or optimal clinician-reported outcome targets on patients with AD treated with their first systemic therapy. Advanced systemic therapy (AST) included abrocitinib, dupilumab, tralokinumab, or upadacitinib, while conventional systemic therapy (CST) included methotrexate, cyclosporine, mycophenolate mofetil, azathioprine, and systemic corticosteroids.

Patients in TARGET-DERM AD were treated and maintained on their first systemic therapy (either advanced or conventional) for up to 12 months. They had a validated Investigator’s Global Assessment of AD (vIGA-AD) score of 3 or 4 less than 45 days prior to initiation of systemic therapy or up to 14 days afterward. They also had at least one vIGA-AD assessment 3-12 months after initiating treatment. Outcome measures included IGA (defined as a score of 2 or less, with an optional target of 0 or 1), BSA (defined as a 50% BSA improvement, with an optimal target BSA of 2% or less), and the Worst-Itch Numeric Rating Scale (defined as at least a 4-point reduction, with an optimal target of 1 or less).

The analysis included 445 patients with a mean age of 31 years at enrollment. More than half (62%) were female and 45% were non-Hispanic Whites. Most patients (92%) were on an AST, mainly dupilumab, with smaller proportions treated with either tralokinumab, upadacitinib, or abrocitinib. Fewer than 10% of patients in the registry were being treated with CSTs.

At 6 months, 37% and approximately 67% of the AST-treated patients had inadequate responses in terms of skin clearance and itch outcomes, respectively. At 12 months, these figures were about 30% and 66%, respectively. CST-treated patients showed a similar trend. For patients starting an AST on or after Sept. 21, 2021, when three additional AST options were available (tralokinumab, upadacitinib, and abrocitinib), the proportion of patients demonstrating an adequate response over 12 months was generally similar to the overall cohort of those on ASTs.

“These findings suggest a need for alternative therapies and management strategies in AD treatment,” concluded Dr. Silverberg, who chaired the RAD symposium.

Dr. Silverberg reported being a consultant and/or an adviser for many pharmaceutical companies, and has received grant or research support from Galderma and Pfizer. The TARGET-DERM study is sponsored by Target PharmaSolutions.

SAN ANTONIO — Fertility preservation and/or assisted reproductive technologies do not increase the risk for short-term cancer recurrence in young women with early hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer who pause endocrine therapy to conceive, according to new data from the POSITIVE trial.

“We believe these data are of vital importance for the oncofertility counseling of young breast cancer patients,” Hatem A. Azim Jr., MD, PhD, adjunct professor, School of Medicine and Breast Cancer Center, Monterrey Institute of Technology, Mexico, said in a presentation at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

As reported previously by this news organization, the primary results of the POSITIVE trial showed that interrupting endocrine therapy to allow pregnancy does not increase the risk of recurrence at 41 months follow-up. 

Yet, there is concern that use of fertility preservation or assisted reproductive technology methods — especially those that entail the use of hormones — could have harmful effects on patients with HR-positive breast cancers, Dr. Azim explained. 

To investigate, Dr. Azim and colleagues did a secondary analysis of outcomes from the POSITIVE trial, focusing on resumption of menstruation and use of fertility preservation and assisted reproductive technologies. 

Among 516 women evaluated for the menstruation analysis, two thirds were aged 35 and older and a little more than half (53%) reported amenorrhea at enrollment, “which is not surprising,” Dr. Azim said. 

“What is encouraging,” he said, is that 85% of women recovered menses within 6 months and 94% within 12 months of pausing endocrine therapy.

Among 497 evaluable participants who paused endocrine therapy to attempt pregnancy, 368 (74%) became pregnant.

Looking at time to pregnancy, there was a clear association between younger age at enrollment and shorter time to pregnancy. The cumulative incidence of pregnancy at 12 months was 64% in women younger than age 35 years, 54% in those aged 35-39, and 38% in those age 40-42. In a multivariable model, age < 35 was the only factor independently associated with a shorter time to pregnancy. 
 

No Harmful Impact on Breast Cancer Outcomes

Turning to fertility preservation and use of assisted reproductive technologies, roughly half of the women (51%) underwent some form of fertility preservation at breast cancer diagnosis and before trial enrollment, most commonly ovarian stimulation for embryo or oocyte cryopreservation.

After enrollment, 43% of women underwent some form of assisted reproductive technology to attempt pregnancy, most commonly ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization (IVF) and cryopreserved embryo transfer.

In the multivariable model, cryopreserved embryo transfer was the only assisted reproductive technology significantly associated with a greater chance of becoming pregnant, more than doubling patients’ odds (odds ratio, 2.4).

“This means that at breast cancer diagnosis, we should consider cryopreservation of embryos for future use if desired,” Dr. Azim said. 

Again, age mattered. Women younger than 35 undergoing assisted reproductive technologies had a 50% higher chance of becoming pregnant compared with peers aged 35-39, and an 84% higher chance than women aged 40-42. 

Importantly, there was no apparent short-term detrimental impact of fertility preservation and/or assisted reproductive technologies on breast cancer outcomes, Dr. Azim reported. At 3 years, the breast cancer-free interval was almost identical between women who underwent ovarian stimulation for cryopreservation and those who did not (9.7% vs 8.7%).

“POSITIVE showed positive results that emphasize the importance of active oncofertility counseling with the patient starting at diagnosis,” said Hee Jeong Kim, MD, PhD, professor, Division of Breast Surgery, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea, and discussant for the study. 

“These data are reassuring for our young patients with a diagnosis of breast cancer and shows that assisted reproductive technology is an option and is probably safe to do with the caveat that it needs longer follow-up,” added SABCS codirector Carlos Arteaga, MD, director, Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

Dr. Azim has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Arteaga is a scientific adviser to Novartis, Lilly, Merck, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, OrigiMed, Immunomedics, PUMA Biotechnology, TAIHO Oncology, Sanofi, and the Susan G. Komen Foundation. He has received grant support from Pfizer, Lilly, and Takeda. Dr. Kim reports no relevant financial relationships. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN ANTONIO — Fertility preservation and/or assisted reproductive technologies do not increase the risk for short-term cancer recurrence in young women with early hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer who pause endocrine therapy to conceive, according to new data from the POSITIVE trial.

“We believe these data are of vital importance for the oncofertility counseling of young breast cancer patients,” Hatem A. Azim Jr., MD, PhD, adjunct professor, School of Medicine and Breast Cancer Center, Monterrey Institute of Technology, Mexico, said in a presentation at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

As reported previously by this news organization, the primary results of the POSITIVE trial showed that interrupting endocrine therapy to allow pregnancy does not increase the risk of recurrence at 41 months follow-up. 

Yet, there is concern that use of fertility preservation or assisted reproductive technology methods — especially those that entail the use of hormones — could have harmful effects on patients with HR-positive breast cancers, Dr. Azim explained. 

To investigate, Dr. Azim and colleagues did a secondary analysis of outcomes from the POSITIVE trial, focusing on resumption of menstruation and use of fertility preservation and assisted reproductive technologies. 

Among 516 women evaluated for the menstruation analysis, two thirds were aged 35 and older and a little more than half (53%) reported amenorrhea at enrollment, “which is not surprising,” Dr. Azim said. 

“What is encouraging,” he said, is that 85% of women recovered menses within 6 months and 94% within 12 months of pausing endocrine therapy.

Among 497 evaluable participants who paused endocrine therapy to attempt pregnancy, 368 (74%) became pregnant.

Looking at time to pregnancy, there was a clear association between younger age at enrollment and shorter time to pregnancy. The cumulative incidence of pregnancy at 12 months was 64% in women younger than age 35 years, 54% in those aged 35-39, and 38% in those age 40-42. In a multivariable model, age < 35 was the only factor independently associated with a shorter time to pregnancy. 
 

No Harmful Impact on Breast Cancer Outcomes

Turning to fertility preservation and use of assisted reproductive technologies, roughly half of the women (51%) underwent some form of fertility preservation at breast cancer diagnosis and before trial enrollment, most commonly ovarian stimulation for embryo or oocyte cryopreservation.

After enrollment, 43% of women underwent some form of assisted reproductive technology to attempt pregnancy, most commonly ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization (IVF) and cryopreserved embryo transfer.

In the multivariable model, cryopreserved embryo transfer was the only assisted reproductive technology significantly associated with a greater chance of becoming pregnant, more than doubling patients’ odds (odds ratio, 2.4).

“This means that at breast cancer diagnosis, we should consider cryopreservation of embryos for future use if desired,” Dr. Azim said. 

Again, age mattered. Women younger than 35 undergoing assisted reproductive technologies had a 50% higher chance of becoming pregnant compared with peers aged 35-39, and an 84% higher chance than women aged 40-42. 

Importantly, there was no apparent short-term detrimental impact of fertility preservation and/or assisted reproductive technologies on breast cancer outcomes, Dr. Azim reported. At 3 years, the breast cancer-free interval was almost identical between women who underwent ovarian stimulation for cryopreservation and those who did not (9.7% vs 8.7%).

“POSITIVE showed positive results that emphasize the importance of active oncofertility counseling with the patient starting at diagnosis,” said Hee Jeong Kim, MD, PhD, professor, Division of Breast Surgery, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea, and discussant for the study. 

“These data are reassuring for our young patients with a diagnosis of breast cancer and shows that assisted reproductive technology is an option and is probably safe to do with the caveat that it needs longer follow-up,” added SABCS codirector Carlos Arteaga, MD, director, Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

Dr. Azim has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Arteaga is a scientific adviser to Novartis, Lilly, Merck, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, OrigiMed, Immunomedics, PUMA Biotechnology, TAIHO Oncology, Sanofi, and the Susan G. Komen Foundation. He has received grant support from Pfizer, Lilly, and Takeda. Dr. Kim reports no relevant financial relationships. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN ANTONIO — Fertility preservation and/or assisted reproductive technologies do not increase the risk for short-term cancer recurrence in young women with early hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer who pause endocrine therapy to conceive, according to new data from the POSITIVE trial.

“We believe these data are of vital importance for the oncofertility counseling of young breast cancer patients,” Hatem A. Azim Jr., MD, PhD, adjunct professor, School of Medicine and Breast Cancer Center, Monterrey Institute of Technology, Mexico, said in a presentation at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

As reported previously by this news organization, the primary results of the POSITIVE trial showed that interrupting endocrine therapy to allow pregnancy does not increase the risk of recurrence at 41 months follow-up. 

Yet, there is concern that use of fertility preservation or assisted reproductive technology methods — especially those that entail the use of hormones — could have harmful effects on patients with HR-positive breast cancers, Dr. Azim explained. 

To investigate, Dr. Azim and colleagues did a secondary analysis of outcomes from the POSITIVE trial, focusing on resumption of menstruation and use of fertility preservation and assisted reproductive technologies. 

Among 516 women evaluated for the menstruation analysis, two thirds were aged 35 and older and a little more than half (53%) reported amenorrhea at enrollment, “which is not surprising,” Dr. Azim said. 

“What is encouraging,” he said, is that 85% of women recovered menses within 6 months and 94% within 12 months of pausing endocrine therapy.

Among 497 evaluable participants who paused endocrine therapy to attempt pregnancy, 368 (74%) became pregnant.

Looking at time to pregnancy, there was a clear association between younger age at enrollment and shorter time to pregnancy. The cumulative incidence of pregnancy at 12 months was 64% in women younger than age 35 years, 54% in those aged 35-39, and 38% in those age 40-42. In a multivariable model, age < 35 was the only factor independently associated with a shorter time to pregnancy. 
 

No Harmful Impact on Breast Cancer Outcomes

Turning to fertility preservation and use of assisted reproductive technologies, roughly half of the women (51%) underwent some form of fertility preservation at breast cancer diagnosis and before trial enrollment, most commonly ovarian stimulation for embryo or oocyte cryopreservation.

After enrollment, 43% of women underwent some form of assisted reproductive technology to attempt pregnancy, most commonly ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization (IVF) and cryopreserved embryo transfer.

In the multivariable model, cryopreserved embryo transfer was the only assisted reproductive technology significantly associated with a greater chance of becoming pregnant, more than doubling patients’ odds (odds ratio, 2.4).

“This means that at breast cancer diagnosis, we should consider cryopreservation of embryos for future use if desired,” Dr. Azim said. 

Again, age mattered. Women younger than 35 undergoing assisted reproductive technologies had a 50% higher chance of becoming pregnant compared with peers aged 35-39, and an 84% higher chance than women aged 40-42. 

Importantly, there was no apparent short-term detrimental impact of fertility preservation and/or assisted reproductive technologies on breast cancer outcomes, Dr. Azim reported. At 3 years, the breast cancer-free interval was almost identical between women who underwent ovarian stimulation for cryopreservation and those who did not (9.7% vs 8.7%).

“POSITIVE showed positive results that emphasize the importance of active oncofertility counseling with the patient starting at diagnosis,” said Hee Jeong Kim, MD, PhD, professor, Division of Breast Surgery, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea, and discussant for the study. 

“These data are reassuring for our young patients with a diagnosis of breast cancer and shows that assisted reproductive technology is an option and is probably safe to do with the caveat that it needs longer follow-up,” added SABCS codirector Carlos Arteaga, MD, director, Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

Dr. Azim has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Arteaga is a scientific adviser to Novartis, Lilly, Merck, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, OrigiMed, Immunomedics, PUMA Biotechnology, TAIHO Oncology, Sanofi, and the Susan G. Komen Foundation. He has received grant support from Pfizer, Lilly, and Takeda. Dr. Kim reports no relevant financial relationships. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN ANTONIO — Women with early breast cancer who have less extensive axillary surgery see no effect on their 10-year rates of locoregional recurrence and mortality than do those who have more extensive surgery, according to findings from a large meta-analysis.

Less extensive surgery also reduced patients’ risk for lymphedema, according to research (abstract GS02-05) presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

These results, which included data from more than 20,000 women, may “reassure” patients and clinicians that more extensive axillary lymph node dissection “does not improve outcomes in many women with early-stage breast cancer,” said Andrea V. Barrio, MD, a breast surgeon at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, who was not involved in the study.

Gurdeep S. Mannu, DPhil, of the University of Oxford, United Kingdom, who presented the findings at SABCS, explained that the optimal surgical management of the axilla remains uncertain in this patient population. 

To better understand the long-term risks and benefits of more vs less aggressive axillary surgery in early breast cancer, Dr. Mannu and colleagues performed a meta-analysis of 29 randomized trials conducted over six decades, which included data on 20,285 women. The trials compared more vs less extensive axillary surgery as well as axillary surgery vs axillary radiotherapy.

In trials comparing more vs less extensive axillary surgery, researchers found that 83% of locoregional recurrences occurred in the breast or in multiple sites/unspecified locations, and the remaining 17% occurred in isolated axilla or other local recurrences, such as in the supraclavicular fossa or internal mammary chain. 

Those with recurrences in the breast or multiple sites/unspecified locations did not benefit from more extensive surgery, demonstrating similar recurrence rates (RR) (RR for breast, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.92-1.40; RR for other, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.67-1.18).

The group with recurrences in isolated axilla or other local recurrences tended to do better with more extensive surgery (RR, 0.43 and 0.41, respectively).

Overall though, after a median follow-up of 10 years, differences in locoregional recurrence rates at any site did not differ among patients who had more vs less extensive axillary surgery (RR, 0.91; P = .22). This finding held even when restricting the analysis to women with node-positive disease/unknown nodal status (RR, 1.00; P = .98) and for node-negative women (RR, 0.88; P = .15).

Dr. Mannu and colleagues observed similar findings for distant recurrence, breast cancer mortality, and death from any cause.

“But where there was quite a striking difference was in morbidity,” said Dr. Mannu.

To examine rates of lymphedema — the surgical complication that has been “one of the main motivations” for the deescalation trials of the past few decades — the researchers focused on more recent trials, which “are most relevant to women treated today,” Dr. Mannu explained. 

These showed that more extensive axillary surgery was associated with almost 2.5-times the rate of lymphedema compared with less extensive treatment (odds ratio [OR], 2.43).

Finally, the team compared axillary dissection with axillary radiotherapy across five trials and found no significant differences in the treatment approaches in terms of locoregional occurrence, distant recurrence, breast cancer mortality, and death from any cause.

However, once again, a notable difference in rates of lymphedema occurred, with axillary dissection associated with higher rates compared with radiotherapy (OR, 1.79).

This is “probably the largest meta-analysis comparing more vs less axillary surgery,” Dr. Barrio said in an interview. 

“When we have one or two positive sentinel nodes, anywhere from 30%-50% of women will have additional positive lymph nodes that we’re not removing” with less extensive surgery, she explained. This study shows that, even then, this “doesn’t seem to impact on survival.”

This is “likely related to better medical treatment and radiation techniques that can treat that disease just as well as big surgery, but with less lymphedema,” she added. 

Nevertheless, Dr. Barrio believes that there are “situations where we still feel that axillary lymph node dissection is important: in women with advanced cancer, like inflammatory breast cancer, and in women who’ve received chemotherapy upfront, then had surgery, and still have positive nodes after the chemo.”

The study was funded by Cancer Research UK, British Heart Foundation, Medical Research Council.

No relevant financial relationships have been declared.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN ANTONIO — Women with early breast cancer who have less extensive axillary surgery see no effect on their 10-year rates of locoregional recurrence and mortality than do those who have more extensive surgery, according to findings from a large meta-analysis.

Less extensive surgery also reduced patients’ risk for lymphedema, according to research (abstract GS02-05) presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

These results, which included data from more than 20,000 women, may “reassure” patients and clinicians that more extensive axillary lymph node dissection “does not improve outcomes in many women with early-stage breast cancer,” said Andrea V. Barrio, MD, a breast surgeon at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, who was not involved in the study.

Gurdeep S. Mannu, DPhil, of the University of Oxford, United Kingdom, who presented the findings at SABCS, explained that the optimal surgical management of the axilla remains uncertain in this patient population. 

To better understand the long-term risks and benefits of more vs less aggressive axillary surgery in early breast cancer, Dr. Mannu and colleagues performed a meta-analysis of 29 randomized trials conducted over six decades, which included data on 20,285 women. The trials compared more vs less extensive axillary surgery as well as axillary surgery vs axillary radiotherapy.

In trials comparing more vs less extensive axillary surgery, researchers found that 83% of locoregional recurrences occurred in the breast or in multiple sites/unspecified locations, and the remaining 17% occurred in isolated axilla or other local recurrences, such as in the supraclavicular fossa or internal mammary chain. 

Those with recurrences in the breast or multiple sites/unspecified locations did not benefit from more extensive surgery, demonstrating similar recurrence rates (RR) (RR for breast, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.92-1.40; RR for other, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.67-1.18).

The group with recurrences in isolated axilla or other local recurrences tended to do better with more extensive surgery (RR, 0.43 and 0.41, respectively).

Overall though, after a median follow-up of 10 years, differences in locoregional recurrence rates at any site did not differ among patients who had more vs less extensive axillary surgery (RR, 0.91; P = .22). This finding held even when restricting the analysis to women with node-positive disease/unknown nodal status (RR, 1.00; P = .98) and for node-negative women (RR, 0.88; P = .15).

Dr. Mannu and colleagues observed similar findings for distant recurrence, breast cancer mortality, and death from any cause.

“But where there was quite a striking difference was in morbidity,” said Dr. Mannu.

To examine rates of lymphedema — the surgical complication that has been “one of the main motivations” for the deescalation trials of the past few decades — the researchers focused on more recent trials, which “are most relevant to women treated today,” Dr. Mannu explained. 

These showed that more extensive axillary surgery was associated with almost 2.5-times the rate of lymphedema compared with less extensive treatment (odds ratio [OR], 2.43).

Finally, the team compared axillary dissection with axillary radiotherapy across five trials and found no significant differences in the treatment approaches in terms of locoregional occurrence, distant recurrence, breast cancer mortality, and death from any cause.

However, once again, a notable difference in rates of lymphedema occurred, with axillary dissection associated with higher rates compared with radiotherapy (OR, 1.79).

This is “probably the largest meta-analysis comparing more vs less axillary surgery,” Dr. Barrio said in an interview. 

“When we have one or two positive sentinel nodes, anywhere from 30%-50% of women will have additional positive lymph nodes that we’re not removing” with less extensive surgery, she explained. This study shows that, even then, this “doesn’t seem to impact on survival.”

This is “likely related to better medical treatment and radiation techniques that can treat that disease just as well as big surgery, but with less lymphedema,” she added. 

Nevertheless, Dr. Barrio believes that there are “situations where we still feel that axillary lymph node dissection is important: in women with advanced cancer, like inflammatory breast cancer, and in women who’ve received chemotherapy upfront, then had surgery, and still have positive nodes after the chemo.”

The study was funded by Cancer Research UK, British Heart Foundation, Medical Research Council.

No relevant financial relationships have been declared.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN ANTONIO — Women with early breast cancer who have less extensive axillary surgery see no effect on their 10-year rates of locoregional recurrence and mortality than do those who have more extensive surgery, according to findings from a large meta-analysis.

Less extensive surgery also reduced patients’ risk for lymphedema, according to research (abstract GS02-05) presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

These results, which included data from more than 20,000 women, may “reassure” patients and clinicians that more extensive axillary lymph node dissection “does not improve outcomes in many women with early-stage breast cancer,” said Andrea V. Barrio, MD, a breast surgeon at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, who was not involved in the study.

Gurdeep S. Mannu, DPhil, of the University of Oxford, United Kingdom, who presented the findings at SABCS, explained that the optimal surgical management of the axilla remains uncertain in this patient population. 

To better understand the long-term risks and benefits of more vs less aggressive axillary surgery in early breast cancer, Dr. Mannu and colleagues performed a meta-analysis of 29 randomized trials conducted over six decades, which included data on 20,285 women. The trials compared more vs less extensive axillary surgery as well as axillary surgery vs axillary radiotherapy.

In trials comparing more vs less extensive axillary surgery, researchers found that 83% of locoregional recurrences occurred in the breast or in multiple sites/unspecified locations, and the remaining 17% occurred in isolated axilla or other local recurrences, such as in the supraclavicular fossa or internal mammary chain. 

Those with recurrences in the breast or multiple sites/unspecified locations did not benefit from more extensive surgery, demonstrating similar recurrence rates (RR) (RR for breast, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.92-1.40; RR for other, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.67-1.18).

The group with recurrences in isolated axilla or other local recurrences tended to do better with more extensive surgery (RR, 0.43 and 0.41, respectively).

Overall though, after a median follow-up of 10 years, differences in locoregional recurrence rates at any site did not differ among patients who had more vs less extensive axillary surgery (RR, 0.91; P = .22). This finding held even when restricting the analysis to women with node-positive disease/unknown nodal status (RR, 1.00; P = .98) and for node-negative women (RR, 0.88; P = .15).

Dr. Mannu and colleagues observed similar findings for distant recurrence, breast cancer mortality, and death from any cause.

“But where there was quite a striking difference was in morbidity,” said Dr. Mannu.

To examine rates of lymphedema — the surgical complication that has been “one of the main motivations” for the deescalation trials of the past few decades — the researchers focused on more recent trials, which “are most relevant to women treated today,” Dr. Mannu explained. 

These showed that more extensive axillary surgery was associated with almost 2.5-times the rate of lymphedema compared with less extensive treatment (odds ratio [OR], 2.43).

Finally, the team compared axillary dissection with axillary radiotherapy across five trials and found no significant differences in the treatment approaches in terms of locoregional occurrence, distant recurrence, breast cancer mortality, and death from any cause.

However, once again, a notable difference in rates of lymphedema occurred, with axillary dissection associated with higher rates compared with radiotherapy (OR, 1.79).

This is “probably the largest meta-analysis comparing more vs less axillary surgery,” Dr. Barrio said in an interview. 

“When we have one or two positive sentinel nodes, anywhere from 30%-50% of women will have additional positive lymph nodes that we’re not removing” with less extensive surgery, she explained. This study shows that, even then, this “doesn’t seem to impact on survival.”

This is “likely related to better medical treatment and radiation techniques that can treat that disease just as well as big surgery, but with less lymphedema,” she added. 

Nevertheless, Dr. Barrio believes that there are “situations where we still feel that axillary lymph node dissection is important: in women with advanced cancer, like inflammatory breast cancer, and in women who’ve received chemotherapy upfront, then had surgery, and still have positive nodes after the chemo.”

The study was funded by Cancer Research UK, British Heart Foundation, Medical Research Council.

No relevant financial relationships have been declared.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has already demonstrated its potential in various areas of healthcare, from early disease detection and drug discovery to genomics and personalized care. OpenAI’s ChatGPT, a large language model, is one AI tool that has been transforming practices across the globe, including mine.

Why should you consider using ChatGPT in your practice, and more important, why should you even consider the paid version? Let me walk you through it.

ChatGPT is essentially an AI-fueled assistant, capable of interpreting and generating human-like text in response to user inputs. Imagine a well-informed and competent trainee working with you, ready to tackle tasks from handling patient inquiries to summarizing intricate medical literature.

Currently, ChatGPT works on the “freemium” pricing model; there is a free version built upon GPT-3.5 as well as a subscription “ChatGPT Plus” version based on GPT-4 which offers additional features such as the use of third-party plug-ins.

Now, you may ask, “Isn’t the free version enough?” The free version is indeed impressive, but upgrading to the paid version for $20 per month unlocks the full potential of this tool, particularly if we add plug-ins.

Here are some of the best ways to incorporate ChatGPT Plus into your practice.

Time saver and efficiency multiplier. The paid version of ChatGPT is an extraordinary time-saving tool. It can help you sort through vast amounts of medical literature in a fraction of the time it would normally take. Imagine having to sift through hundreds of articles to find the latest research relevant to a patient’s case. With the paid version of ChatGPT, you can simply ask it to provide summaries of the most recent and relevant studies, all in seconds.

Did you forget about that PowerPoint you need to make but know the potential papers you would use? No problem. ChatGPT can create slides in a few minutes. It becomes your on-demand research assistant.

Of course, you need to provide the source you find most relevant to you. Using plug-ins such as ScholarAI and Link Reader are great.

Improved patient communication. Explaining complex medical terminology and procedures to patients can sometimes be a challenge. ChatGPT can generate simplified and personalized explanations for your patients, fostering their understanding and involvement in their care process.

Epic is currently collaborating with Nuance Communications, Microsoft’s speech recognition subsidiary, to use generative AI tools for medical note-taking in the electronic health record. However, you do not need to wait for it; it just takes a prompt in ChatGPT and then copying/pasting the results into the chart.

Smoother administrative management. The premium version of ChatGPT can automate administrative tasks such as creating letters of medical necessity, clearance to other physicians for services, or even communications to staff on specific topics. This frees you to focus more on your core work: providing patient care.

Precision medicine aid. ChatGPT can be a powerful ally in the field of precision medicine. Its capabilities for analyzing large datasets and unearthing valuable insights can help deliver more personalized and potentially effective treatment plans. For example, one can prompt ChatGPT to query the reported frequency of certain genomic variants and their implications; with the upgraded version and plug-ins, the results will have fewer hallucinations — inaccurate results — and key data references.

Unlimited accessibility. Uninterrupted access is a compelling reason to upgrade. While the free version may have usage limitations, the premium version provides unrestricted, round-the-clock access. Be it a late-night research quest or an early-morning patient query, your AI assistant will always be available.

Strengthened privacy and security. The premium version of ChatGPT includes heightened privacy and security measures. Just make sure to follow HIPAA and not include identifiers when making queries.

Embracing AI tools like ChatGPT in your practice can help you stay at the cutting edge of medical care, saving you time, enhancing patient communication, and supporting you in providing personalized care.

While the free version can serve as a good starting point (there are apps for both iOS and Android), upgrading to the paid version opens up a world of possibilities that can truly supercharge your practice.

I would love to hear your comments on this column or on future topics. Contact me at [email protected].
 

Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla, MD, MSEd, is the cofounder and chief medical officer at Massive Bio, a company connecting patients to clinical trials using artificial intelligence. His research and professional interests focus on precision medicine, clinical trial design, digital health, entrepreneurship, and patient advocacy. Dr. Loaiza-Bonilla is Assistant Professor of Medicine, Drexel University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and serves as medical director of oncology research at Capital Health in New Jersey, where he maintains a connection to patient care by attending to patients 2 days a week. He has financial relationships with Verify, PSI CRO, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Cardinal Health, BrightInsight, The Lynx Group, Fresenius, Pfizer, Ipsen, Guardant, Amgen, Eisai, Natera, Merck, and Bristol Myers Squibb.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has already demonstrated its potential in various areas of healthcare, from early disease detection and drug discovery to genomics and personalized care. OpenAI’s ChatGPT, a large language model, is one AI tool that has been transforming practices across the globe, including mine.

Why should you consider using ChatGPT in your practice, and more important, why should you even consider the paid version? Let me walk you through it.

ChatGPT is essentially an AI-fueled assistant, capable of interpreting and generating human-like text in response to user inputs. Imagine a well-informed and competent trainee working with you, ready to tackle tasks from handling patient inquiries to summarizing intricate medical literature.

Currently, ChatGPT works on the “freemium” pricing model; there is a free version built upon GPT-3.5 as well as a subscription “ChatGPT Plus” version based on GPT-4 which offers additional features such as the use of third-party plug-ins.

Now, you may ask, “Isn’t the free version enough?” The free version is indeed impressive, but upgrading to the paid version for $20 per month unlocks the full potential of this tool, particularly if we add plug-ins.

Here are some of the best ways to incorporate ChatGPT Plus into your practice.

Time saver and efficiency multiplier. The paid version of ChatGPT is an extraordinary time-saving tool. It can help you sort through vast amounts of medical literature in a fraction of the time it would normally take. Imagine having to sift through hundreds of articles to find the latest research relevant to a patient’s case. With the paid version of ChatGPT, you can simply ask it to provide summaries of the most recent and relevant studies, all in seconds.

Did you forget about that PowerPoint you need to make but know the potential papers you would use? No problem. ChatGPT can create slides in a few minutes. It becomes your on-demand research assistant.

Of course, you need to provide the source you find most relevant to you. Using plug-ins such as ScholarAI and Link Reader are great.

Improved patient communication. Explaining complex medical terminology and procedures to patients can sometimes be a challenge. ChatGPT can generate simplified and personalized explanations for your patients, fostering their understanding and involvement in their care process.

Epic is currently collaborating with Nuance Communications, Microsoft’s speech recognition subsidiary, to use generative AI tools for medical note-taking in the electronic health record. However, you do not need to wait for it; it just takes a prompt in ChatGPT and then copying/pasting the results into the chart.

Smoother administrative management. The premium version of ChatGPT can automate administrative tasks such as creating letters of medical necessity, clearance to other physicians for services, or even communications to staff on specific topics. This frees you to focus more on your core work: providing patient care.

Precision medicine aid. ChatGPT can be a powerful ally in the field of precision medicine. Its capabilities for analyzing large datasets and unearthing valuable insights can help deliver more personalized and potentially effective treatment plans. For example, one can prompt ChatGPT to query the reported frequency of certain genomic variants and their implications; with the upgraded version and plug-ins, the results will have fewer hallucinations — inaccurate results — and key data references.

Unlimited accessibility. Uninterrupted access is a compelling reason to upgrade. While the free version may have usage limitations, the premium version provides unrestricted, round-the-clock access. Be it a late-night research quest or an early-morning patient query, your AI assistant will always be available.

Strengthened privacy and security. The premium version of ChatGPT includes heightened privacy and security measures. Just make sure to follow HIPAA and not include identifiers when making queries.

Embracing AI tools like ChatGPT in your practice can help you stay at the cutting edge of medical care, saving you time, enhancing patient communication, and supporting you in providing personalized care.

While the free version can serve as a good starting point (there are apps for both iOS and Android), upgrading to the paid version opens up a world of possibilities that can truly supercharge your practice.

I would love to hear your comments on this column or on future topics. Contact me at [email protected].
 

Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla, MD, MSEd, is the cofounder and chief medical officer at Massive Bio, a company connecting patients to clinical trials using artificial intelligence. His research and professional interests focus on precision medicine, clinical trial design, digital health, entrepreneurship, and patient advocacy. Dr. Loaiza-Bonilla is Assistant Professor of Medicine, Drexel University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and serves as medical director of oncology research at Capital Health in New Jersey, where he maintains a connection to patient care by attending to patients 2 days a week. He has financial relationships with Verify, PSI CRO, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Cardinal Health, BrightInsight, The Lynx Group, Fresenius, Pfizer, Ipsen, Guardant, Amgen, Eisai, Natera, Merck, and Bristol Myers Squibb.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has already demonstrated its potential in various areas of healthcare, from early disease detection and drug discovery to genomics and personalized care. OpenAI’s ChatGPT, a large language model, is one AI tool that has been transforming practices across the globe, including mine.

Why should you consider using ChatGPT in your practice, and more important, why should you even consider the paid version? Let me walk you through it.

ChatGPT is essentially an AI-fueled assistant, capable of interpreting and generating human-like text in response to user inputs. Imagine a well-informed and competent trainee working with you, ready to tackle tasks from handling patient inquiries to summarizing intricate medical literature.

Currently, ChatGPT works on the “freemium” pricing model; there is a free version built upon GPT-3.5 as well as a subscription “ChatGPT Plus” version based on GPT-4 which offers additional features such as the use of third-party plug-ins.

Now, you may ask, “Isn’t the free version enough?” The free version is indeed impressive, but upgrading to the paid version for $20 per month unlocks the full potential of this tool, particularly if we add plug-ins.

Here are some of the best ways to incorporate ChatGPT Plus into your practice.

Time saver and efficiency multiplier. The paid version of ChatGPT is an extraordinary time-saving tool. It can help you sort through vast amounts of medical literature in a fraction of the time it would normally take. Imagine having to sift through hundreds of articles to find the latest research relevant to a patient’s case. With the paid version of ChatGPT, you can simply ask it to provide summaries of the most recent and relevant studies, all in seconds.

Did you forget about that PowerPoint you need to make but know the potential papers you would use? No problem. ChatGPT can create slides in a few minutes. It becomes your on-demand research assistant.

Of course, you need to provide the source you find most relevant to you. Using plug-ins such as ScholarAI and Link Reader are great.

Improved patient communication. Explaining complex medical terminology and procedures to patients can sometimes be a challenge. ChatGPT can generate simplified and personalized explanations for your patients, fostering their understanding and involvement in their care process.

Epic is currently collaborating with Nuance Communications, Microsoft’s speech recognition subsidiary, to use generative AI tools for medical note-taking in the electronic health record. However, you do not need to wait for it; it just takes a prompt in ChatGPT and then copying/pasting the results into the chart.

Smoother administrative management. The premium version of ChatGPT can automate administrative tasks such as creating letters of medical necessity, clearance to other physicians for services, or even communications to staff on specific topics. This frees you to focus more on your core work: providing patient care.

Precision medicine aid. ChatGPT can be a powerful ally in the field of precision medicine. Its capabilities for analyzing large datasets and unearthing valuable insights can help deliver more personalized and potentially effective treatment plans. For example, one can prompt ChatGPT to query the reported frequency of certain genomic variants and their implications; with the upgraded version and plug-ins, the results will have fewer hallucinations — inaccurate results — and key data references.

Unlimited accessibility. Uninterrupted access is a compelling reason to upgrade. While the free version may have usage limitations, the premium version provides unrestricted, round-the-clock access. Be it a late-night research quest or an early-morning patient query, your AI assistant will always be available.

Strengthened privacy and security. The premium version of ChatGPT includes heightened privacy and security measures. Just make sure to follow HIPAA and not include identifiers when making queries.

Embracing AI tools like ChatGPT in your practice can help you stay at the cutting edge of medical care, saving you time, enhancing patient communication, and supporting you in providing personalized care.

While the free version can serve as a good starting point (there are apps for both iOS and Android), upgrading to the paid version opens up a world of possibilities that can truly supercharge your practice.

I would love to hear your comments on this column or on future topics. Contact me at [email protected].
 

Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla, MD, MSEd, is the cofounder and chief medical officer at Massive Bio, a company connecting patients to clinical trials using artificial intelligence. His research and professional interests focus on precision medicine, clinical trial design, digital health, entrepreneurship, and patient advocacy. Dr. Loaiza-Bonilla is Assistant Professor of Medicine, Drexel University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and serves as medical director of oncology research at Capital Health in New Jersey, where he maintains a connection to patient care by attending to patients 2 days a week. He has financial relationships with Verify, PSI CRO, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Cardinal Health, BrightInsight, The Lynx Group, Fresenius, Pfizer, Ipsen, Guardant, Amgen, Eisai, Natera, Merck, and Bristol Myers Squibb.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As revolutionary as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) drugs are, they still last for only so long in the body. Patients with diabetes typically must be injected once or twice a day (liraglutide) or once a week (semaglutide). This could hinder proper diabetes management, as adherence tends to go down the more frequent the dose. 

But what if a single GLP-1 injection could last for 4 months?

Stanford engineers have developed an injectable hydrogel depot that releases GLP-1 slowly as the hydrogel gradually “melts away like a sugar cube dissolving in water, molecule by molecule,” said Eric Appel, PhD, the project’s principal investigator and an associate professor of materials science and engineering at Stanford (Calif.) University.

So far, the team has tested the new drug delivery system in rats, and they say human clinical trials could start within 2 years.

Mathematical modeling indicated that one shot of liraglutide could maintain exposure in humans for 120 days, or about 4 months, according to their study in Cell Reports Medicine.

“Patient adherence is of critical importance to diabetes care,” said Alex Abramson, PhD, assistant professor in the chemical and biomolecular engineering department at Georgia Tech, who was not involved in the study. “It’s very exciting to have a potential new system that can last 4 months on a single injection.”

Long-Acting Injectables Have Come a Long Way

The first long-acting injectable — Lupron Depot, a monthly treatment for advanced prostate cancer — was approved in 1989. Since then, long-acting injectable depots have revolutionized the treatment and management of conditions ranging from osteoarthritis knee pain to schizophrenia to opioid use disorder. In 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration approved Apretude — an injectable treatment for HIV pre-exposure prevention that needs to be given every 2 months, compared with daily for the pill equivalent. Other new and innovative developments are underway: Researchers at the University of Connecticut are working on a transdermal microneedle patch — with many tiny vaccine-loaded needles — that could provide multiple doses of a vaccine over time, no boosters needed.

At Stanford, Appel’s lab has spent years developing gels for drug delivery. His team uses a class of hydrogel called polymer-nanoparticle (PNP), which features weakly bound polymers and nanoparticles that can dissipate slowly over time.

The goal is to address a longstanding challenge with long-acting formulations: Achieving steady release. Because the hydrogel is “self-healing” — able to repair damages and restore its shape — it’s less likely to burst and release its drug cargo too early. 

“Our PNP hydrogels possess a number of really unique characteristics,” Dr. Appel said. They have “excellent” biocompatibility, based on animal studies, and could work with a wide range of drugs. In proof-of-concept mouse studies, Dr. Appel and his team have shown that these hydrogels could also be used to make vaccines last longer, ferry cancer immunotherapies directly to tumors, and deliver antibodies for the prevention of infectious diseases like SARS-CoV-2.

Though the recent study on GLP-1s focused on treating type 2 diabetes, the same formulation could also be used to treat obesity, said Dr. Appel.

The researchers tested the tech using two GLP-1 receptor agonists — semaglutide and liraglutide. In rats, one shot maintained therapeutic serum concentrations of semaglutide or liraglutide over 42 days. With semaglutide, a significant portion was released quickly, followed by controlled release. Liraglutide, on the other hand, was released gradually as the hydrogel dissolved. This suggests the liraglutide hydrogel may be better tolerated, as a sudden peak in drug serum concentration is associated with adverse effects.

The researchers used pharmacokinetic modeling to predict how liraglutide would behave in humans with a larger injection volume, finding that a single dose could maintain therapeutic levels for about 4 months.

“Moving forward, it will be important to determine whether a burst release from the formulation causes any side effects,” Dr. Abramson noted. “Furthermore, it will be important to minimize the injection volumes in humans.”

But first, more studies in larger animals are needed. Next, Dr. Appel and his team plan to test the technology in pigs, whose skin and endocrine systems are most like humans’. If those trials go well, Dr. Appel said, human clinical trials could start within 2 years.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As revolutionary as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) drugs are, they still last for only so long in the body. Patients with diabetes typically must be injected once or twice a day (liraglutide) or once a week (semaglutide). This could hinder proper diabetes management, as adherence tends to go down the more frequent the dose. 

But what if a single GLP-1 injection could last for 4 months?

Stanford engineers have developed an injectable hydrogel depot that releases GLP-1 slowly as the hydrogel gradually “melts away like a sugar cube dissolving in water, molecule by molecule,” said Eric Appel, PhD, the project’s principal investigator and an associate professor of materials science and engineering at Stanford (Calif.) University.

So far, the team has tested the new drug delivery system in rats, and they say human clinical trials could start within 2 years.

Mathematical modeling indicated that one shot of liraglutide could maintain exposure in humans for 120 days, or about 4 months, according to their study in Cell Reports Medicine.

“Patient adherence is of critical importance to diabetes care,” said Alex Abramson, PhD, assistant professor in the chemical and biomolecular engineering department at Georgia Tech, who was not involved in the study. “It’s very exciting to have a potential new system that can last 4 months on a single injection.”

Long-Acting Injectables Have Come a Long Way

The first long-acting injectable — Lupron Depot, a monthly treatment for advanced prostate cancer — was approved in 1989. Since then, long-acting injectable depots have revolutionized the treatment and management of conditions ranging from osteoarthritis knee pain to schizophrenia to opioid use disorder. In 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration approved Apretude — an injectable treatment for HIV pre-exposure prevention that needs to be given every 2 months, compared with daily for the pill equivalent. Other new and innovative developments are underway: Researchers at the University of Connecticut are working on a transdermal microneedle patch — with many tiny vaccine-loaded needles — that could provide multiple doses of a vaccine over time, no boosters needed.

At Stanford, Appel’s lab has spent years developing gels for drug delivery. His team uses a class of hydrogel called polymer-nanoparticle (PNP), which features weakly bound polymers and nanoparticles that can dissipate slowly over time.

The goal is to address a longstanding challenge with long-acting formulations: Achieving steady release. Because the hydrogel is “self-healing” — able to repair damages and restore its shape — it’s less likely to burst and release its drug cargo too early. 

“Our PNP hydrogels possess a number of really unique characteristics,” Dr. Appel said. They have “excellent” biocompatibility, based on animal studies, and could work with a wide range of drugs. In proof-of-concept mouse studies, Dr. Appel and his team have shown that these hydrogels could also be used to make vaccines last longer, ferry cancer immunotherapies directly to tumors, and deliver antibodies for the prevention of infectious diseases like SARS-CoV-2.

Though the recent study on GLP-1s focused on treating type 2 diabetes, the same formulation could also be used to treat obesity, said Dr. Appel.

The researchers tested the tech using two GLP-1 receptor agonists — semaglutide and liraglutide. In rats, one shot maintained therapeutic serum concentrations of semaglutide or liraglutide over 42 days. With semaglutide, a significant portion was released quickly, followed by controlled release. Liraglutide, on the other hand, was released gradually as the hydrogel dissolved. This suggests the liraglutide hydrogel may be better tolerated, as a sudden peak in drug serum concentration is associated with adverse effects.

The researchers used pharmacokinetic modeling to predict how liraglutide would behave in humans with a larger injection volume, finding that a single dose could maintain therapeutic levels for about 4 months.

“Moving forward, it will be important to determine whether a burst release from the formulation causes any side effects,” Dr. Abramson noted. “Furthermore, it will be important to minimize the injection volumes in humans.”

But first, more studies in larger animals are needed. Next, Dr. Appel and his team plan to test the technology in pigs, whose skin and endocrine systems are most like humans’. If those trials go well, Dr. Appel said, human clinical trials could start within 2 years.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As revolutionary as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) drugs are, they still last for only so long in the body. Patients with diabetes typically must be injected once or twice a day (liraglutide) or once a week (semaglutide). This could hinder proper diabetes management, as adherence tends to go down the more frequent the dose. 

But what if a single GLP-1 injection could last for 4 months?

Stanford engineers have developed an injectable hydrogel depot that releases GLP-1 slowly as the hydrogel gradually “melts away like a sugar cube dissolving in water, molecule by molecule,” said Eric Appel, PhD, the project’s principal investigator and an associate professor of materials science and engineering at Stanford (Calif.) University.

So far, the team has tested the new drug delivery system in rats, and they say human clinical trials could start within 2 years.

Mathematical modeling indicated that one shot of liraglutide could maintain exposure in humans for 120 days, or about 4 months, according to their study in Cell Reports Medicine.

“Patient adherence is of critical importance to diabetes care,” said Alex Abramson, PhD, assistant professor in the chemical and biomolecular engineering department at Georgia Tech, who was not involved in the study. “It’s very exciting to have a potential new system that can last 4 months on a single injection.”

Long-Acting Injectables Have Come a Long Way

The first long-acting injectable — Lupron Depot, a monthly treatment for advanced prostate cancer — was approved in 1989. Since then, long-acting injectable depots have revolutionized the treatment and management of conditions ranging from osteoarthritis knee pain to schizophrenia to opioid use disorder. In 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration approved Apretude — an injectable treatment for HIV pre-exposure prevention that needs to be given every 2 months, compared with daily for the pill equivalent. Other new and innovative developments are underway: Researchers at the University of Connecticut are working on a transdermal microneedle patch — with many tiny vaccine-loaded needles — that could provide multiple doses of a vaccine over time, no boosters needed.

At Stanford, Appel’s lab has spent years developing gels for drug delivery. His team uses a class of hydrogel called polymer-nanoparticle (PNP), which features weakly bound polymers and nanoparticles that can dissipate slowly over time.

The goal is to address a longstanding challenge with long-acting formulations: Achieving steady release. Because the hydrogel is “self-healing” — able to repair damages and restore its shape — it’s less likely to burst and release its drug cargo too early. 

“Our PNP hydrogels possess a number of really unique characteristics,” Dr. Appel said. They have “excellent” biocompatibility, based on animal studies, and could work with a wide range of drugs. In proof-of-concept mouse studies, Dr. Appel and his team have shown that these hydrogels could also be used to make vaccines last longer, ferry cancer immunotherapies directly to tumors, and deliver antibodies for the prevention of infectious diseases like SARS-CoV-2.

Though the recent study on GLP-1s focused on treating type 2 diabetes, the same formulation could also be used to treat obesity, said Dr. Appel.

The researchers tested the tech using two GLP-1 receptor agonists — semaglutide and liraglutide. In rats, one shot maintained therapeutic serum concentrations of semaglutide or liraglutide over 42 days. With semaglutide, a significant portion was released quickly, followed by controlled release. Liraglutide, on the other hand, was released gradually as the hydrogel dissolved. This suggests the liraglutide hydrogel may be better tolerated, as a sudden peak in drug serum concentration is associated with adverse effects.

The researchers used pharmacokinetic modeling to predict how liraglutide would behave in humans with a larger injection volume, finding that a single dose could maintain therapeutic levels for about 4 months.

“Moving forward, it will be important to determine whether a burst release from the formulation causes any side effects,” Dr. Abramson noted. “Furthermore, it will be important to minimize the injection volumes in humans.”

But first, more studies in larger animals are needed. Next, Dr. Appel and his team plan to test the technology in pigs, whose skin and endocrine systems are most like humans’. If those trials go well, Dr. Appel said, human clinical trials could start within 2 years.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN ANTONIO — Guideline-concordant care is associated with improved overall survival in patients with inflammatory breast cancer. Yet, a retrospective study of patients with inflammatory breast carcinoma shows that the majority of patients don’t receive it. 

The study also showed that overall survival was lowest for Black women who didn’t receive guideline-concordant care, said Brian Diskin, MD, with the Division of Breast Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, here at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

The results highlight the importance of adhering to guidelines in inflammatory breast carcinoma and suggest that improving the rates among Black patients “may help to mitigate racial disparities and survival,” Dr.Diskin told the conference. 

Inflammatory breast carcinoma is an aggressive form of breast cancer associated with worse survival outcomes compared with other subtypes of breast cancer. Yet, it’s unclear how often and consistently guideline-concordant care — defined as treatment with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by modified radical mastectomy without immediate reconstruction, and postmastectomy radiotherapy — is received and what factors play a role in receiving recommended care. 

To investigate, Dr. Diskin and colleagues identified 6945 women from the National Cancer Database with nonmetastatic inflammatory breast cancer treated from 2010-2018. Guideline-concordant care was defined as trimodality treatment administered in the correct sequence, with neoadjuvant chemotherapy started within 60 days of diagnosis. 

Most patients (88%) did not start neoadjuvant chemotherapy within 60 days of diagnosis. 

Black and Asian patients were less likely than were White patients to start chemotherapy within 60 days (odds ratio [OR] 0.54 and 0.51, respectively; P < .001), while patients with Medicare or private insurance were more likely to receive chemotherapy within 60 days of diagnosis than uninsured patients (OR 1.37 and 1.87, respectively; P < .001).

Roughly half of all patients didn’t receive appropriate surgical treatment (modified radical mastectomy without immediate reconstruction and postmastectomy radiotherapy). 

Overall, only about one third of the cohort received guideline-concordant treatment, Dr. Diskin reported. 

Patients aged 60-69 were more likely than were patients aged 40-49 to receive guideline-concordant treatment (odds ratio [OR], 1.24; P < .001), as were patients with a higher clinical nodal burden (OR, 1.34 for N1; OR, 1.28 for N2; OR, 1.15 for N3 vs N0; P < .001 for N1 and N2). 

Patients treated between 2014 and 2018 were less likely to receive guideline-concordant treatment than patients treated between 2010 and 2013 (OR, 0.63; P <.001). 

Receiving guideline-concordant care and being privately insured were both positively associated with improved overall survival (OR, 0.75 and 0.62, respectively; P < .001). Conversely, triple-negative subtype and Black race were associated with worse overall survival (HR, 1.6 and 1.4, respectively; P < .001). 

However, timely receipt of guideline-concordant care for Black patients with triple-negative disease did lead to improved overall survival. Among recipients of guideline-based care with triple-negative disease, there was no racial disparity in overall survival. 

Study discussant Kathryn Hudson, MD, director of survivorship and medical oncologist at Texas Oncology, Austin, said it’s important to note that Black women have a 4% lower incidence of breast cancer than do White women but a 40% higher breast cancer death rate. 

“This study is important because it confirms that those who receive guideline-based care have better outcomes and that Black women have worse survival in [inflammatory breast cancer],” Dr. Hudson said. 

The finding that Black and Asian women in the study were less likely to have timely neoadjuvant chemotherapy, “likely reflects worse access to care, and this may play a role in why Black women had worse outcomes,” she added. 

Dr. Hudson said she found it “surprising” that only about one third of patients received guideline-concordant care.

In her view, “the take-home message is that improving guideline-concordant will improve outcomes for all patients with inflammatory breast cancer. And it’s really important, as a next step, to examine the barriers to guideline-concordant care in inflammatory breast cancer and continue to understand the reasons for worse [rates of] survival of Black women.”

Dr. Diskin has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hudson has received honoraria from the Menarini Group and Gilead.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN ANTONIO — Guideline-concordant care is associated with improved overall survival in patients with inflammatory breast cancer. Yet, a retrospective study of patients with inflammatory breast carcinoma shows that the majority of patients don’t receive it. 

The study also showed that overall survival was lowest for Black women who didn’t receive guideline-concordant care, said Brian Diskin, MD, with the Division of Breast Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, here at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

The results highlight the importance of adhering to guidelines in inflammatory breast carcinoma and suggest that improving the rates among Black patients “may help to mitigate racial disparities and survival,” Dr.Diskin told the conference. 

Inflammatory breast carcinoma is an aggressive form of breast cancer associated with worse survival outcomes compared with other subtypes of breast cancer. Yet, it’s unclear how often and consistently guideline-concordant care — defined as treatment with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by modified radical mastectomy without immediate reconstruction, and postmastectomy radiotherapy — is received and what factors play a role in receiving recommended care. 

To investigate, Dr. Diskin and colleagues identified 6945 women from the National Cancer Database with nonmetastatic inflammatory breast cancer treated from 2010-2018. Guideline-concordant care was defined as trimodality treatment administered in the correct sequence, with neoadjuvant chemotherapy started within 60 days of diagnosis. 

Most patients (88%) did not start neoadjuvant chemotherapy within 60 days of diagnosis. 

Black and Asian patients were less likely than were White patients to start chemotherapy within 60 days (odds ratio [OR] 0.54 and 0.51, respectively; P < .001), while patients with Medicare or private insurance were more likely to receive chemotherapy within 60 days of diagnosis than uninsured patients (OR 1.37 and 1.87, respectively; P < .001).

Roughly half of all patients didn’t receive appropriate surgical treatment (modified radical mastectomy without immediate reconstruction and postmastectomy radiotherapy). 

Overall, only about one third of the cohort received guideline-concordant treatment, Dr. Diskin reported. 

Patients aged 60-69 were more likely than were patients aged 40-49 to receive guideline-concordant treatment (odds ratio [OR], 1.24; P < .001), as were patients with a higher clinical nodal burden (OR, 1.34 for N1; OR, 1.28 for N2; OR, 1.15 for N3 vs N0; P < .001 for N1 and N2). 

Patients treated between 2014 and 2018 were less likely to receive guideline-concordant treatment than patients treated between 2010 and 2013 (OR, 0.63; P <.001). 

Receiving guideline-concordant care and being privately insured were both positively associated with improved overall survival (OR, 0.75 and 0.62, respectively; P < .001). Conversely, triple-negative subtype and Black race were associated with worse overall survival (HR, 1.6 and 1.4, respectively; P < .001). 

However, timely receipt of guideline-concordant care for Black patients with triple-negative disease did lead to improved overall survival. Among recipients of guideline-based care with triple-negative disease, there was no racial disparity in overall survival. 

Study discussant Kathryn Hudson, MD, director of survivorship and medical oncologist at Texas Oncology, Austin, said it’s important to note that Black women have a 4% lower incidence of breast cancer than do White women but a 40% higher breast cancer death rate. 

“This study is important because it confirms that those who receive guideline-based care have better outcomes and that Black women have worse survival in [inflammatory breast cancer],” Dr. Hudson said. 

The finding that Black and Asian women in the study were less likely to have timely neoadjuvant chemotherapy, “likely reflects worse access to care, and this may play a role in why Black women had worse outcomes,” she added. 

Dr. Hudson said she found it “surprising” that only about one third of patients received guideline-concordant care.

In her view, “the take-home message is that improving guideline-concordant will improve outcomes for all patients with inflammatory breast cancer. And it’s really important, as a next step, to examine the barriers to guideline-concordant care in inflammatory breast cancer and continue to understand the reasons for worse [rates of] survival of Black women.”

Dr. Diskin has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hudson has received honoraria from the Menarini Group and Gilead.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN ANTONIO — Guideline-concordant care is associated with improved overall survival in patients with inflammatory breast cancer. Yet, a retrospective study of patients with inflammatory breast carcinoma shows that the majority of patients don’t receive it. 

The study also showed that overall survival was lowest for Black women who didn’t receive guideline-concordant care, said Brian Diskin, MD, with the Division of Breast Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, here at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

The results highlight the importance of adhering to guidelines in inflammatory breast carcinoma and suggest that improving the rates among Black patients “may help to mitigate racial disparities and survival,” Dr.Diskin told the conference. 

Inflammatory breast carcinoma is an aggressive form of breast cancer associated with worse survival outcomes compared with other subtypes of breast cancer. Yet, it’s unclear how often and consistently guideline-concordant care — defined as treatment with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by modified radical mastectomy without immediate reconstruction, and postmastectomy radiotherapy — is received and what factors play a role in receiving recommended care. 

To investigate, Dr. Diskin and colleagues identified 6945 women from the National Cancer Database with nonmetastatic inflammatory breast cancer treated from 2010-2018. Guideline-concordant care was defined as trimodality treatment administered in the correct sequence, with neoadjuvant chemotherapy started within 60 days of diagnosis. 

Most patients (88%) did not start neoadjuvant chemotherapy within 60 days of diagnosis. 

Black and Asian patients were less likely than were White patients to start chemotherapy within 60 days (odds ratio [OR] 0.54 and 0.51, respectively; P < .001), while patients with Medicare or private insurance were more likely to receive chemotherapy within 60 days of diagnosis than uninsured patients (OR 1.37 and 1.87, respectively; P < .001).

Roughly half of all patients didn’t receive appropriate surgical treatment (modified radical mastectomy without immediate reconstruction and postmastectomy radiotherapy). 

Overall, only about one third of the cohort received guideline-concordant treatment, Dr. Diskin reported. 

Patients aged 60-69 were more likely than were patients aged 40-49 to receive guideline-concordant treatment (odds ratio [OR], 1.24; P < .001), as were patients with a higher clinical nodal burden (OR, 1.34 for N1; OR, 1.28 for N2; OR, 1.15 for N3 vs N0; P < .001 for N1 and N2). 

Patients treated between 2014 and 2018 were less likely to receive guideline-concordant treatment than patients treated between 2010 and 2013 (OR, 0.63; P <.001). 

Receiving guideline-concordant care and being privately insured were both positively associated with improved overall survival (OR, 0.75 and 0.62, respectively; P < .001). Conversely, triple-negative subtype and Black race were associated with worse overall survival (HR, 1.6 and 1.4, respectively; P < .001). 

However, timely receipt of guideline-concordant care for Black patients with triple-negative disease did lead to improved overall survival. Among recipients of guideline-based care with triple-negative disease, there was no racial disparity in overall survival. 

Study discussant Kathryn Hudson, MD, director of survivorship and medical oncologist at Texas Oncology, Austin, said it’s important to note that Black women have a 4% lower incidence of breast cancer than do White women but a 40% higher breast cancer death rate. 

“This study is important because it confirms that those who receive guideline-based care have better outcomes and that Black women have worse survival in [inflammatory breast cancer],” Dr. Hudson said. 

The finding that Black and Asian women in the study were less likely to have timely neoadjuvant chemotherapy, “likely reflects worse access to care, and this may play a role in why Black women had worse outcomes,” she added. 

Dr. Hudson said she found it “surprising” that only about one third of patients received guideline-concordant care.

In her view, “the take-home message is that improving guideline-concordant will improve outcomes for all patients with inflammatory breast cancer. And it’s really important, as a next step, to examine the barriers to guideline-concordant care in inflammatory breast cancer and continue to understand the reasons for worse [rates of] survival of Black women.”

Dr. Diskin has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hudson has received honoraria from the Menarini Group and Gilead.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Fleas (order Siphonaptera) are vectors for various diseases, such as plague (as carriers of Yersinia pestis) and rickettsial infections.^1-4 The sticktight flea (Echidnophaga gallinacea) commonly is seen on birds and mammals, including ground squirrels, dogs, cats, and rodents, and can attach to its host for days at a time by burrowing its head into the skin. Similar to other fleas, the sticktight flea needs a blood supply to reproduce.⁵ Therefore, it is important to study the sticktight flea, its habitat, and infection patterns to improve public health and prevent infestation.

Identification

Echidnophaga gallinacea is named for the female flea’s behavior—it “sticks tight” to the surface of the host by embedding its head into the skin for days at a time.⁵ The sticktight flea and the rat flea (Xenopsylla cheopis) can be differentiated by the sticktight’s reduced thorax and lack of a pleural rod (the vertical ridge that divides the mesosternum above the second pair of legs)(Figure, A and B). The sticktight flea can be differentiated from the dog flea (Ctenocephalides canis) and the cat flea (Ctenocephalides felis) by its lack of genal ctenidia (horizontal combs in the mustache area) and pronotal ctenidia (vertical combs behind the head)(Figure, B and C).^6,7 Other defining features of E gallinacea include 2 pairs of large postantennal setae (hairs) on its anteriorly flattened head; a C-shaped reproductive organ known as the spermatheca; and broad maxillary lacinia (Figure, C).⁸

Habitat, Seasonality, and Behavior

Echidnophaga gallinacea commonly infests the comb, wattles, and surrounding ears of chickens; the flea also has been found on dogs, cats, rodents, and other species of birds.⁹ The sticktight flea is more prevalent in summer and autumn, which may explain its predominance in warmer climates, including California, Florida, Mexico, Egypt, Africa, and Iran.^1,9-11

When a female sticktight flea begins to feed, it stays on the host for days at a time, waiting for a male.⁵ The female deposits its fertilized eggs in nests on the host or in lesions caused by infestation. Eventually, eggs hatch and fall into soil, where they lay dormant or grow to adulthood.⁵

Cutaneous Reaction to Infestation

Flea bites cause a hypersensitivity reaction, with pruritic pustules and erythematous papules that have a central punctum.¹² In a reported case in Los Angeles, California, a female sticktight flea buried itself into the cheek of a young boy for more than 12 hours. The lesion was not marked by surrounding erythema, tenderness, pruritus, or swelling; however, several days after the flea was removed, erythema developed at the site then spontaneously resolved.⁷ In a study of dogs that were infested with E gallinacea, the flea never disengaged to attach to a human; when the flea was deliberately placed on a human, it fed and left hastily.¹¹

Management

Because E gallinacea burrows its head into the skin, the best removal method is applying slow gentle traction under sterile conditions to ensure removal of mouthparts.⁷ An oral antihistamine can be administered or a topical antihistamine or corticosteroid can be applied to the affected area.¹² Flea infestation should be treated with an insecticide. Affected animals should be treated by a veterinarian using a pesticide, such as fipronil, selamectin, imidacloprid, metaflumizone, nitenpyram, lufenuron, methoprene, or pyriproxyfen.¹³

Fleas (order Siphonaptera) are vectors for various diseases, such as plague (as carriers of Yersinia pestis) and rickettsial infections.^1-4 The sticktight flea (Echidnophaga gallinacea) commonly is seen on birds and mammals, including ground squirrels, dogs, cats, and rodents, and can attach to its host for days at a time by burrowing its head into the skin. Similar to other fleas, the sticktight flea needs a blood supply to reproduce.⁵ Therefore, it is important to study the sticktight flea, its habitat, and infection patterns to improve public health and prevent infestation.

Identification

Echidnophaga gallinacea is named for the female flea’s behavior—it “sticks tight” to the surface of the host by embedding its head into the skin for days at a time.⁵ The sticktight flea and the rat flea (Xenopsylla cheopis) can be differentiated by the sticktight’s reduced thorax and lack of a pleural rod (the vertical ridge that divides the mesosternum above the second pair of legs)(Figure, A and B). The sticktight flea can be differentiated from the dog flea (Ctenocephalides canis) and the cat flea (Ctenocephalides felis) by its lack of genal ctenidia (horizontal combs in the mustache area) and pronotal ctenidia (vertical combs behind the head)(Figure, B and C).^6,7 Other defining features of E gallinacea include 2 pairs of large postantennal setae (hairs) on its anteriorly flattened head; a C-shaped reproductive organ known as the spermatheca; and broad maxillary lacinia (Figure, C).⁸

Habitat, Seasonality, and Behavior

Echidnophaga gallinacea commonly infests the comb, wattles, and surrounding ears of chickens; the flea also has been found on dogs, cats, rodents, and other species of birds.⁹ The sticktight flea is more prevalent in summer and autumn, which may explain its predominance in warmer climates, including California, Florida, Mexico, Egypt, Africa, and Iran.^1,9-11

When a female sticktight flea begins to feed, it stays on the host for days at a time, waiting for a male.⁵ The female deposits its fertilized eggs in nests on the host or in lesions caused by infestation. Eventually, eggs hatch and fall into soil, where they lay dormant or grow to adulthood.⁵

Cutaneous Reaction to Infestation

Flea bites cause a hypersensitivity reaction, with pruritic pustules and erythematous papules that have a central punctum.¹² In a reported case in Los Angeles, California, a female sticktight flea buried itself into the cheek of a young boy for more than 12 hours. The lesion was not marked by surrounding erythema, tenderness, pruritus, or swelling; however, several days after the flea was removed, erythema developed at the site then spontaneously resolved.⁷ In a study of dogs that were infested with E gallinacea, the flea never disengaged to attach to a human; when the flea was deliberately placed on a human, it fed and left hastily.¹¹

Management

Because E gallinacea burrows its head into the skin, the best removal method is applying slow gentle traction under sterile conditions to ensure removal of mouthparts.⁷ An oral antihistamine can be administered or a topical antihistamine or corticosteroid can be applied to the affected area.¹² Flea infestation should be treated with an insecticide. Affected animals should be treated by a veterinarian using a pesticide, such as fipronil, selamectin, imidacloprid, metaflumizone, nitenpyram, lufenuron, methoprene, or pyriproxyfen.¹³

Fleas (order Siphonaptera) are vectors for various diseases, such as plague (as carriers of Yersinia pestis) and rickettsial infections.^1-4 The sticktight flea (Echidnophaga gallinacea) commonly is seen on birds and mammals, including ground squirrels, dogs, cats, and rodents, and can attach to its host for days at a time by burrowing its head into the skin. Similar to other fleas, the sticktight flea needs a blood supply to reproduce.⁵ Therefore, it is important to study the sticktight flea, its habitat, and infection patterns to improve public health and prevent infestation.

Identification

Echidnophaga gallinacea is named for the female flea’s behavior—it “sticks tight” to the surface of the host by embedding its head into the skin for days at a time.⁵ The sticktight flea and the rat flea (Xenopsylla cheopis) can be differentiated by the sticktight’s reduced thorax and lack of a pleural rod (the vertical ridge that divides the mesosternum above the second pair of legs)(Figure, A and B). The sticktight flea can be differentiated from the dog flea (Ctenocephalides canis) and the cat flea (Ctenocephalides felis) by its lack of genal ctenidia (horizontal combs in the mustache area) and pronotal ctenidia (vertical combs behind the head)(Figure, B and C).^6,7 Other defining features of E gallinacea include 2 pairs of large postantennal setae (hairs) on its anteriorly flattened head; a C-shaped reproductive organ known as the spermatheca; and broad maxillary lacinia (Figure, C).⁸

Habitat, Seasonality, and Behavior

Echidnophaga gallinacea commonly infests the comb, wattles, and surrounding ears of chickens; the flea also has been found on dogs, cats, rodents, and other species of birds.⁹ The sticktight flea is more prevalent in summer and autumn, which may explain its predominance in warmer climates, including California, Florida, Mexico, Egypt, Africa, and Iran.^1,9-11

When a female sticktight flea begins to feed, it stays on the host for days at a time, waiting for a male.⁵ The female deposits its fertilized eggs in nests on the host or in lesions caused by infestation. Eventually, eggs hatch and fall into soil, where they lay dormant or grow to adulthood.⁵

Cutaneous Reaction to Infestation

Flea bites cause a hypersensitivity reaction, with pruritic pustules and erythematous papules that have a central punctum.¹² In a reported case in Los Angeles, California, a female sticktight flea buried itself into the cheek of a young boy for more than 12 hours. The lesion was not marked by surrounding erythema, tenderness, pruritus, or swelling; however, several days after the flea was removed, erythema developed at the site then spontaneously resolved.⁷ In a study of dogs that were infested with E gallinacea, the flea never disengaged to attach to a human; when the flea was deliberately placed on a human, it fed and left hastily.¹¹

Management

Because E gallinacea burrows its head into the skin, the best removal method is applying slow gentle traction under sterile conditions to ensure removal of mouthparts.⁷ An oral antihistamine can be administered or a topical antihistamine or corticosteroid can be applied to the affected area.¹² Flea infestation should be treated with an insecticide. Affected animals should be treated by a veterinarian using a pesticide, such as fipronil, selamectin, imidacloprid, metaflumizone, nitenpyram, lufenuron, methoprene, or pyriproxyfen.¹³

I have been writing about electronic health records since the mid-1990s. While the basic concept has always been sound, I have always been (and continue to be) a critic of its implementation, which I have compared to the work of the Underpants Gnomes from the television show South Park.

You may recall that Phase One of the Gnomes’ grand scheme was to collect underpants, and Phase Three was to reap enormous profits. Unfortunately, they never quite figured out Phase Two.

Ariel Skelley/DigitalVision/Getty Images

EHR’s problems have run a similar course, ever since George W. Bush introduced the EHR Incentive Program (later renamed the Promoting Interoperability Program) in 2000. “By computerizing health records,” the president said, “we can avoid dangerous medical mistakes, reduce costs, and improve care.” That was the ultimate goal — Phase Three, if you will — but nearly a quarter-century later, we are still struggling with Phase Two.

According to the results of a recent survey by this news organization, progress has been made, but issues with usability, reliability, and patient privacy remain.

The EHR is finally approaching the goal of universal use; 96% of physicians said in the survey they are using an EHR at least part of the time – up from 93% and 82% in the 2016 and 2012 surveys, respectively. But 56% of them continue to worry about harmful effects from incorrect or misdirected information as a result of inputs from multiple sources, and the rapid turnover of staff that is doing the inputting. Many doctors worry about the potential for incorrect medications and “rule out” diagnoses getting embedded in some patients’ records and undermining future care.

The lack of information sharing among different EHR systems has been the technology’s greatest unmet promise, according to the survey. A lack of interoperability was cited as the most common reason for switching EHR systems. Other reasons included difficulties in clinical documentation and extracting data for quality reporting, as well as the inability to merge inpatient and outpatient records.

A clear majority (72%) felt EHR systems are getting easier to use. The recent decrease in government mandates has freed vendors to work on improving ease of documentation and information retrieval. The incorporation of virtual assistants and other artificial intelligence–based features (as I discussed in two recent columns) have also contributed to improved overall usability. Some newer applications even allow users to build workarounds to compensate for inherent deficiencies in the system.

Physicians tended to be most praiseworthy of functions related to electronic prescribing and retrieval of individual patient data. They felt that much more improvement was needed in helpful prompt features, internal messaging, and communications from patients.

The survey found that 38% of physicians “always” or “often” copy and paste information in patient charts, with another 37% doing so “occasionally.” Noting some of the problems inherent in copy and paste, such as note bloat, internal inconsistencies, error propagation, and documentation in the wrong patient chart, the survey authors suggest that EHR developers could help by shifting away from timelines that appear as one long note. They could also add functionality to allow new information to be displayed as updates on a digital chart.

Improvement is also needed in the way the EHR affects patient interactions, according to the survey results. Physicians are still often forced to click to a different screen to find lab results, another for current medications, and still another for past notes, all while trying to communicate with the patient. Such issues are likely to decrease in the next few years as doctors gain the ability to give voice commands to AI-based system add-ons to obtain this information.

Security concerns seem to be decreasing. In this year’s survey, nearly half of all physicians voiced no EHR privacy problems or concerns, even though a recent review of medical literature concluded that security risks remain meaningful. Those who did have privacy concerns were mostly worried about hackers and other unauthorized access to patient information.

The survey found that around 40% of EHR systems are not using patient portals to post lab results, diagnoses and procedure notes, or prescriptions. However, other physicians complained that their systems were too prompt in posting results, so that patients often received them before the doctor did. This is certainly another area where improvement at both extremes is necessary.

Other areas in which physicians saw a need for improvement were in system reliability, user training, and ongoing customer service. And among the dwindling ranks of physicians with no EHR experience, the most common reasons given for refusing to invest in an EHR system were affordability and interference with the doctor-patient relationship.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

I have been writing about electronic health records since the mid-1990s. While the basic concept has always been sound, I have always been (and continue to be) a critic of its implementation, which I have compared to the work of the Underpants Gnomes from the television show South Park.

You may recall that Phase One of the Gnomes’ grand scheme was to collect underpants, and Phase Three was to reap enormous profits. Unfortunately, they never quite figured out Phase Two.

Ariel Skelley/DigitalVision/Getty Images

EHR’s problems have run a similar course, ever since George W. Bush introduced the EHR Incentive Program (later renamed the Promoting Interoperability Program) in 2000. “By computerizing health records,” the president said, “we can avoid dangerous medical mistakes, reduce costs, and improve care.” That was the ultimate goal — Phase Three, if you will — but nearly a quarter-century later, we are still struggling with Phase Two.

According to the results of a recent survey by this news organization, progress has been made, but issues with usability, reliability, and patient privacy remain.

The EHR is finally approaching the goal of universal use; 96% of physicians said in the survey they are using an EHR at least part of the time – up from 93% and 82% in the 2016 and 2012 surveys, respectively. But 56% of them continue to worry about harmful effects from incorrect or misdirected information as a result of inputs from multiple sources, and the rapid turnover of staff that is doing the inputting. Many doctors worry about the potential for incorrect medications and “rule out” diagnoses getting embedded in some patients’ records and undermining future care.

The lack of information sharing among different EHR systems has been the technology’s greatest unmet promise, according to the survey. A lack of interoperability was cited as the most common reason for switching EHR systems. Other reasons included difficulties in clinical documentation and extracting data for quality reporting, as well as the inability to merge inpatient and outpatient records.

A clear majority (72%) felt EHR systems are getting easier to use. The recent decrease in government mandates has freed vendors to work on improving ease of documentation and information retrieval. The incorporation of virtual assistants and other artificial intelligence–based features (as I discussed in two recent columns) have also contributed to improved overall usability. Some newer applications even allow users to build workarounds to compensate for inherent deficiencies in the system.

Physicians tended to be most praiseworthy of functions related to electronic prescribing and retrieval of individual patient data. They felt that much more improvement was needed in helpful prompt features, internal messaging, and communications from patients.

The survey found that 38% of physicians “always” or “often” copy and paste information in patient charts, with another 37% doing so “occasionally.” Noting some of the problems inherent in copy and paste, such as note bloat, internal inconsistencies, error propagation, and documentation in the wrong patient chart, the survey authors suggest that EHR developers could help by shifting away from timelines that appear as one long note. They could also add functionality to allow new information to be displayed as updates on a digital chart.

Improvement is also needed in the way the EHR affects patient interactions, according to the survey results. Physicians are still often forced to click to a different screen to find lab results, another for current medications, and still another for past notes, all while trying to communicate with the patient. Such issues are likely to decrease in the next few years as doctors gain the ability to give voice commands to AI-based system add-ons to obtain this information.

Security concerns seem to be decreasing. In this year’s survey, nearly half of all physicians voiced no EHR privacy problems or concerns, even though a recent review of medical literature concluded that security risks remain meaningful. Those who did have privacy concerns were mostly worried about hackers and other unauthorized access to patient information.

The survey found that around 40% of EHR systems are not using patient portals to post lab results, diagnoses and procedure notes, or prescriptions. However, other physicians complained that their systems were too prompt in posting results, so that patients often received them before the doctor did. This is certainly another area where improvement at both extremes is necessary.

Other areas in which physicians saw a need for improvement were in system reliability, user training, and ongoing customer service. And among the dwindling ranks of physicians with no EHR experience, the most common reasons given for refusing to invest in an EHR system were affordability and interference with the doctor-patient relationship.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

I have been writing about electronic health records since the mid-1990s. While the basic concept has always been sound, I have always been (and continue to be) a critic of its implementation, which I have compared to the work of the Underpants Gnomes from the television show South Park.

You may recall that Phase One of the Gnomes’ grand scheme was to collect underpants, and Phase Three was to reap enormous profits. Unfortunately, they never quite figured out Phase Two.

Ariel Skelley/DigitalVision/Getty Images

EHR’s problems have run a similar course, ever since George W. Bush introduced the EHR Incentive Program (later renamed the Promoting Interoperability Program) in 2000. “By computerizing health records,” the president said, “we can avoid dangerous medical mistakes, reduce costs, and improve care.” That was the ultimate goal — Phase Three, if you will — but nearly a quarter-century later, we are still struggling with Phase Two.

According to the results of a recent survey by this news organization, progress has been made, but issues with usability, reliability, and patient privacy remain.

The EHR is finally approaching the goal of universal use; 96% of physicians said in the survey they are using an EHR at least part of the time – up from 93% and 82% in the 2016 and 2012 surveys, respectively. But 56% of them continue to worry about harmful effects from incorrect or misdirected information as a result of inputs from multiple sources, and the rapid turnover of staff that is doing the inputting. Many doctors worry about the potential for incorrect medications and “rule out” diagnoses getting embedded in some patients’ records and undermining future care.

The lack of information sharing among different EHR systems has been the technology’s greatest unmet promise, according to the survey. A lack of interoperability was cited as the most common reason for switching EHR systems. Other reasons included difficulties in clinical documentation and extracting data for quality reporting, as well as the inability to merge inpatient and outpatient records.

A clear majority (72%) felt EHR systems are getting easier to use. The recent decrease in government mandates has freed vendors to work on improving ease of documentation and information retrieval. The incorporation of virtual assistants and other artificial intelligence–based features (as I discussed in two recent columns) have also contributed to improved overall usability. Some newer applications even allow users to build workarounds to compensate for inherent deficiencies in the system.

Physicians tended to be most praiseworthy of functions related to electronic prescribing and retrieval of individual patient data. They felt that much more improvement was needed in helpful prompt features, internal messaging, and communications from patients.

The survey found that 38% of physicians “always” or “often” copy and paste information in patient charts, with another 37% doing so “occasionally.” Noting some of the problems inherent in copy and paste, such as note bloat, internal inconsistencies, error propagation, and documentation in the wrong patient chart, the survey authors suggest that EHR developers could help by shifting away from timelines that appear as one long note. They could also add functionality to allow new information to be displayed as updates on a digital chart.

Improvement is also needed in the way the EHR affects patient interactions, according to the survey results. Physicians are still often forced to click to a different screen to find lab results, another for current medications, and still another for past notes, all while trying to communicate with the patient. Such issues are likely to decrease in the next few years as doctors gain the ability to give voice commands to AI-based system add-ons to obtain this information.

Security concerns seem to be decreasing. In this year’s survey, nearly half of all physicians voiced no EHR privacy problems or concerns, even though a recent review of medical literature concluded that security risks remain meaningful. Those who did have privacy concerns were mostly worried about hackers and other unauthorized access to patient information.

The survey found that around 40% of EHR systems are not using patient portals to post lab results, diagnoses and procedure notes, or prescriptions. However, other physicians complained that their systems were too prompt in posting results, so that patients often received them before the doctor did. This is certainly another area where improvement at both extremes is necessary.

Other areas in which physicians saw a need for improvement were in system reliability, user training, and ongoing customer service. And among the dwindling ranks of physicians with no EHR experience, the most common reasons given for refusing to invest in an EHR system were affordability and interference with the doctor-patient relationship.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].