Mixed Topics

CASE Pregnant woman’s husband is ill after traveling

A 29-year-old primigravid woman at 18 weeks’ gestation just returned from a 10-day trip to Nigeria with her husband. While in Nigeria, the couple went on safari. On several occasions during the safari, they consumed bushmeat prepared by their guides. Her husband now has severe malaise, fever, chills, myalgias, cough, and prominent submandibular, cervical, and inguinal adenopathy. In addition, he has developed a diffuse papular-vesicular rash on his trunk and extremities.

• What is the most likely diagnosis?
• Does this condition pose a danger to his wife?
• What treatment is indicated for his wife?

What we know

In recent weeks, the specter of another poorly understood biological threat has emerged in the medical literature and lay press: monkeypox. This article will first review the epidemiology, clinical manifestations, and diagnosis of this infection, followed by a discussion of how to prevent and treat the condition, with special emphasis on the risks that this infection poses in pregnant women.

Virology

The monkeypox virus is a member of the orthopoxvirus genus. The variola (smallpox) virus and vaccinia virus are included in this genus. It is one of the largest of all viruses, measuring 200-250 nm. It is enveloped and contains double-stranded DNA. Its natural reservoir is probably African rodents. Two distinct strains of monkeypox exist in different geographical regions of Africa: the Central African clade and the West African clade. The Central African clade is significantly more virulent than the latter, with a mortality rate approaching 10%, versus 1% in the West African clade. The incubation period of the virus ranges from 4-20 days and averages 12 days.^1,2

Epidemiology

Monkeypox was first discovered in 1958 by Preben von Magnus in a colony of research monkeys in Copenhagen, Denmark. The first case of monkeypox in humans occurred in the Democratic Republic of Congo in 1970 in a 9-year-old boy. Subsequently, cases were reported in the Ivory Coast, Liberia, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone. The infection was limited to the rain forests of central and western Africa until 2003. At that time, the first cases in the United States were reported. The US cases occurred in the Midwest and were traced to exposure to pet prairie dogs. These animals all came from a single distributor, and they apparently were infected when they were housed in the same space with Gambian rats, which are well recognized reservoirs of monkeypox in their native habitat in Africa.^1-3

A limited outbreak of monkeypox occurred in the United Kingdom in 2018. Seventy-one cases, with no fatalities, were reported. In 2021 another US case of monkeypox was reported in Dallas, Texas, in an individual who had recently traveled to the United States from Nigeria. A second US case was reported in November 2021 from a patient in Maryland who had returned from a visit to Nigeria. Those were the only 2 reported cases of monkeypox in the United States in 2021.^1-3

Then in early May 2022, the United Kingdom reported 9 cases of monkeypox. The first infected patient had recently traveled to Nigeria and, subsequently, infected 2 members of his family.⁴ On May 18, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health confirmed a case of monkeypox in an adult man who had recently traveled to Canada. As of July 7, 6,027 cases have been reported from at least 39 countries.⁵ Eight states in the United States reported cases. To date, 73 deaths have occurred in this recent outbreak of infections (case fatality rate, 4.5%).^4-6

The current outbreak is unusual in that, previously, almost all cases occurred in western and central Africa in remote tropical rain forests. Infection usually resulted from close exposure to rats, rabbits, squirrels, monkeys, porcupines, and gazelles. Exposure occurred when persons captured, slaughtered, prepared, and then ate these animals for food without properly cooking the flesh.

The leading theory is that the present outbreak originated among men who had sex with men at 2 raves held in Spain and Belgium. The virus appears to have been spread by skin-to-skin contact, by respiratory droplets, by contact with contaminated bedding, and probably by sperm.^2,4,6

Continue to: Clinical manifestations...

Clinical manifestations

Monkeypox evolves through 2 stages: a pre-eruptive stage and an eruptive stage. Prodromal symptoms include malaise, severe headache, myalgias, fever, drenching sweats, backache, fatigue, sore throat, dyspnea, and cough. Within 2-3 days, the characteristic skin eruption develops. The lesions usually begin on the face and then spread in a centrifugal manner to the trunk and extremities, including the palms of the hands and soles of the feet. The lesions typically progress from macules to papules to vesicles to pustules. They then crust and scab over. An interesting additional finding is the presence of prominent lymphadenopathy behind the ear, beneath the mandible, in the neck, and in the groin.¹

Several different illnesses must be considered in the differential diagnosis of monkeypox infection. They include measles, scabies, secondary syphilis, and medication-associated allergic reactions. However, the 2 conditions most likely to be confused with monkeypox are chickenpox (varicella) and smallpox. Lymphadenopathy is much more prominent in monkeypox compared with chickenpox. Moreover, with monkeypox, all lesions tend to be at the same stage of evolution as opposed to appearing in crops as they do in chickenpox. Smallpox would be extremely unlikely in the absence of a recognized laboratory accident or a bioterrorism incident.⁷

Diagnosis

The presumptive diagnosis of monkeypox infection is made primarily based on clinical examination. However, laboratory testing is indicated to definitively differentiate monkeypox from other orthopoxvirus infections such as varicella and smallpox.

In specialized laboratories that employ highly trained personnel and maintain strict safety precautions, the virus can be isolated in mammalian cell cultures. Electron microscopy is a valuable tool for identifying the characteristic brick-shaped poxvirus virions. Routine histologic examination of a lesion will show ballooning degeneration of keratinocytes, prominent spongiosis, dermal edema, and acute inflammation, although these findings are not unique to monkeypox.¹

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has developed serologic tests that detect immunoglobulin (Ig) M- and IgG-specific antibody. However, the most useful and practical diagnostic test is assessment of a skin scraping by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). This test is more sensitive than assessment of serum PCR.¹

When the diagnosis of monkeypox is being considered, the clinician should coordinate testing through the local and state public health departments and through the CDC. Effective communication with all agencies will ensure that laboratory specimens are processed in a timely and efficient manner. The CDC website presents information on specimen collection.⁸

How do we manage monkeypox?

Prevention

The first step in prevention of infection is to isolate infected individuals until all lesions have dried and crusted over. Susceptible people should avoid close contact with skin lesions, respiratory and genital secretions, and bedding of patients who are infected.

The ultimate preventive measure, however, is vaccination of susceptible people either immediately before exposure (eg, military personnel, first responders, infection control investigators, health care workers) or immediately after exposure (general population). Older individuals who received the original smallpox vaccine likely have immunity to monkeypox infection. Unfortunately, very few women who currently are of reproductive age received this vaccine because its use was discontinued in the United States in the early 1970s. Therefore, the vast majority of our patients are uniquely susceptible to this infection and should be vaccinated if there is an outbreak of monkeypox in their locality.^7,9

The current preferred vaccine for prevention of both smallpox and monkeypox is the Jynneos (Bavarian Nordic A/S) vaccine.¹⁰ This agent incorporates a replication-deficient live virus and does not pose the same risk for adverse events as the original versions of the smallpox vaccine. Jynneos is administered subcutaneously rather than by scarification. Two 0.5-mL doses, delivered 28 days apart, are required for optimal effect. The vaccine must be obtained from local and state health departments, in consultation with the CDC.^7,9

There is very little published information on the safety of the Jynneos vaccine in pregnant or lactating women, although animal data are reassuring. Moreover, the dangers of monkeypox infection are significant, and in the event of an outbreak, vaccination of susceptible individuals, including pregnant women, is indicated.

Continue to: Treatment...

Treatment

Infected pregnant women should receive acetaminophen 1,000 mg orally every 8 hours, to control fever and provide analgesia. An antihistamine such as diphenhydramine 25 mg orally every 6-8 hours, may be used to control pruritus and provide mild sedation. Adequate fluid intake and optimal nutrition should be encouraged. Skin lesions should be inspected regularly to detect signs of superimposed bacterial infections. Small, localized bacterial skin infections can be treated with topical application of mupirocin ointment 2%, 3 times daily for 7-14 days. For diffuse and more severe bacterial skin infections, a systemic antibiotic may be necessary. Reasonable choices include amoxicillin-clavulanate 875 mg/125 mg orally every 12 hours, or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole double strength 800 mg/160 mg orally every 12 hours.¹¹ The latter agent should be avoided in the first trimester of pregnancy because of potential teratogenic effects.

Several specific agents are available through the CDC for treatment of orthopoxvirus infections such as smallpox and monkeypox. Information about these agents is summarized in the TABLE.^12-16

Unique considerations in pregnancy

Because monkeypox is so rare, there is very little information about the effects of this infection in pregnant women. The report most commonly cited in the literature is that by Mbala et al, which was published in 2017.¹⁷ These authors described 4 pregnant patients in the Democratic Republic of Congo who contracted monkeypox infection over a 4-year period. All 4 women were hospitalized and treated with systemic antibiotics, antiparasitic medications, and analgesics. One patient delivered a healthy infant. Two women had spontaneous abortions in the first trimester. The fourth patient experienced a stillbirth at 22 weeks’ gestation. At postmortem examination, the fetus had diffuse cutaneous lesions, prominent hepatomegaly, and hydrops. No structural malformations were noted. The placenta demonstrated numerous punctate hemorrhages, and high concentrations of virus were recovered from the placenta and from fetal tissue.

Although the information on pregnancy outcome is quite limited, it seems clear that the virus can cross the placenta and cause adverse effects such as spontaneous abortion and fetal death. Accordingly, I think the following guidelines are a reasonable approach to a pregnant patient who has been exposed to monkeypox or who has developed manifestations of infection.^3,7,9

• In the event of a community outbreak, bioterrorism event, or exposure to a person with suspected or confirmed monkeypox infection, the pregnant patient should receive the Jynneos vaccine.
• The pregnant patient should be isolated from any individual with suspected or confirmed monkeypox.
• If infection develops despite these measures, the patient should be treated with either tecovirimat or vaccinia immune globulin IV. Hospitalization may be necessary for seriously ill individuals.

• Within 2 weeks of infection, a comprehensive ultrasound examination should be performed to assess for structural abnormalities in the fetus.

• Subsequently, serial ultrasound examinations should be performed at intervals of 4-6 weeks to assess fetal growth and re-evaluate fetal anatomy.
• Following delivery, a detailed neonatal examination should be performed to assess for evidence of viral injury. Neonatal skin lesions and neonatal serum can be assessed by PCR for monkeypox virus. The newborn should be isolated from the mother until all the mother’s lesions have dried and crusted over.

CASE Resolved

Given the husband’s recent travel to Nigeria and consumption of bushmeat, he most likely has monkeypox. The infection can be spread from person to person by close contact; thus, his wife is at risk. The couple should isolate until all of his lesions have dried and crusted over. The woman also should receive the Jynneos vaccine. If she becomes symptomatic, she should be treated with tecovirimat or vaccinia immune globulin IV. ●

CASE Pregnant woman’s husband is ill after traveling

A 29-year-old primigravid woman at 18 weeks’ gestation just returned from a 10-day trip to Nigeria with her husband. While in Nigeria, the couple went on safari. On several occasions during the safari, they consumed bushmeat prepared by their guides. Her husband now has severe malaise, fever, chills, myalgias, cough, and prominent submandibular, cervical, and inguinal adenopathy. In addition, he has developed a diffuse papular-vesicular rash on his trunk and extremities.

• What is the most likely diagnosis?
• Does this condition pose a danger to his wife?
• What treatment is indicated for his wife?

What we know

In recent weeks, the specter of another poorly understood biological threat has emerged in the medical literature and lay press: monkeypox. This article will first review the epidemiology, clinical manifestations, and diagnosis of this infection, followed by a discussion of how to prevent and treat the condition, with special emphasis on the risks that this infection poses in pregnant women.

Virology

The monkeypox virus is a member of the orthopoxvirus genus. The variola (smallpox) virus and vaccinia virus are included in this genus. It is one of the largest of all viruses, measuring 200-250 nm. It is enveloped and contains double-stranded DNA. Its natural reservoir is probably African rodents. Two distinct strains of monkeypox exist in different geographical regions of Africa: the Central African clade and the West African clade. The Central African clade is significantly more virulent than the latter, with a mortality rate approaching 10%, versus 1% in the West African clade. The incubation period of the virus ranges from 4-20 days and averages 12 days.^1,2

Epidemiology

Monkeypox was first discovered in 1958 by Preben von Magnus in a colony of research monkeys in Copenhagen, Denmark. The first case of monkeypox in humans occurred in the Democratic Republic of Congo in 1970 in a 9-year-old boy. Subsequently, cases were reported in the Ivory Coast, Liberia, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone. The infection was limited to the rain forests of central and western Africa until 2003. At that time, the first cases in the United States were reported. The US cases occurred in the Midwest and were traced to exposure to pet prairie dogs. These animals all came from a single distributor, and they apparently were infected when they were housed in the same space with Gambian rats, which are well recognized reservoirs of monkeypox in their native habitat in Africa.^1-3

A limited outbreak of monkeypox occurred in the United Kingdom in 2018. Seventy-one cases, with no fatalities, were reported. In 2021 another US case of monkeypox was reported in Dallas, Texas, in an individual who had recently traveled to the United States from Nigeria. A second US case was reported in November 2021 from a patient in Maryland who had returned from a visit to Nigeria. Those were the only 2 reported cases of monkeypox in the United States in 2021.^1-3

Then in early May 2022, the United Kingdom reported 9 cases of monkeypox. The first infected patient had recently traveled to Nigeria and, subsequently, infected 2 members of his family.⁴ On May 18, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health confirmed a case of monkeypox in an adult man who had recently traveled to Canada. As of July 7, 6,027 cases have been reported from at least 39 countries.⁵ Eight states in the United States reported cases. To date, 73 deaths have occurred in this recent outbreak of infections (case fatality rate, 4.5%).^4-6

The current outbreak is unusual in that, previously, almost all cases occurred in western and central Africa in remote tropical rain forests. Infection usually resulted from close exposure to rats, rabbits, squirrels, monkeys, porcupines, and gazelles. Exposure occurred when persons captured, slaughtered, prepared, and then ate these animals for food without properly cooking the flesh.

The leading theory is that the present outbreak originated among men who had sex with men at 2 raves held in Spain and Belgium. The virus appears to have been spread by skin-to-skin contact, by respiratory droplets, by contact with contaminated bedding, and probably by sperm.^2,4,6

Continue to: Clinical manifestations...

Clinical manifestations

Monkeypox evolves through 2 stages: a pre-eruptive stage and an eruptive stage. Prodromal symptoms include malaise, severe headache, myalgias, fever, drenching sweats, backache, fatigue, sore throat, dyspnea, and cough. Within 2-3 days, the characteristic skin eruption develops. The lesions usually begin on the face and then spread in a centrifugal manner to the trunk and extremities, including the palms of the hands and soles of the feet. The lesions typically progress from macules to papules to vesicles to pustules. They then crust and scab over. An interesting additional finding is the presence of prominent lymphadenopathy behind the ear, beneath the mandible, in the neck, and in the groin.¹

Several different illnesses must be considered in the differential diagnosis of monkeypox infection. They include measles, scabies, secondary syphilis, and medication-associated allergic reactions. However, the 2 conditions most likely to be confused with monkeypox are chickenpox (varicella) and smallpox. Lymphadenopathy is much more prominent in monkeypox compared with chickenpox. Moreover, with monkeypox, all lesions tend to be at the same stage of evolution as opposed to appearing in crops as they do in chickenpox. Smallpox would be extremely unlikely in the absence of a recognized laboratory accident or a bioterrorism incident.⁷

Diagnosis

The presumptive diagnosis of monkeypox infection is made primarily based on clinical examination. However, laboratory testing is indicated to definitively differentiate monkeypox from other orthopoxvirus infections such as varicella and smallpox.

In specialized laboratories that employ highly trained personnel and maintain strict safety precautions, the virus can be isolated in mammalian cell cultures. Electron microscopy is a valuable tool for identifying the characteristic brick-shaped poxvirus virions. Routine histologic examination of a lesion will show ballooning degeneration of keratinocytes, prominent spongiosis, dermal edema, and acute inflammation, although these findings are not unique to monkeypox.¹

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has developed serologic tests that detect immunoglobulin (Ig) M- and IgG-specific antibody. However, the most useful and practical diagnostic test is assessment of a skin scraping by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). This test is more sensitive than assessment of serum PCR.¹

When the diagnosis of monkeypox is being considered, the clinician should coordinate testing through the local and state public health departments and through the CDC. Effective communication with all agencies will ensure that laboratory specimens are processed in a timely and efficient manner. The CDC website presents information on specimen collection.⁸

How do we manage monkeypox?

Prevention

The first step in prevention of infection is to isolate infected individuals until all lesions have dried and crusted over. Susceptible people should avoid close contact with skin lesions, respiratory and genital secretions, and bedding of patients who are infected.

The ultimate preventive measure, however, is vaccination of susceptible people either immediately before exposure (eg, military personnel, first responders, infection control investigators, health care workers) or immediately after exposure (general population). Older individuals who received the original smallpox vaccine likely have immunity to monkeypox infection. Unfortunately, very few women who currently are of reproductive age received this vaccine because its use was discontinued in the United States in the early 1970s. Therefore, the vast majority of our patients are uniquely susceptible to this infection and should be vaccinated if there is an outbreak of monkeypox in their locality.^7,9

The current preferred vaccine for prevention of both smallpox and monkeypox is the Jynneos (Bavarian Nordic A/S) vaccine.¹⁰ This agent incorporates a replication-deficient live virus and does not pose the same risk for adverse events as the original versions of the smallpox vaccine. Jynneos is administered subcutaneously rather than by scarification. Two 0.5-mL doses, delivered 28 days apart, are required for optimal effect. The vaccine must be obtained from local and state health departments, in consultation with the CDC.^7,9

There is very little published information on the safety of the Jynneos vaccine in pregnant or lactating women, although animal data are reassuring. Moreover, the dangers of monkeypox infection are significant, and in the event of an outbreak, vaccination of susceptible individuals, including pregnant women, is indicated.

Continue to: Treatment...

Treatment

Infected pregnant women should receive acetaminophen 1,000 mg orally every 8 hours, to control fever and provide analgesia. An antihistamine such as diphenhydramine 25 mg orally every 6-8 hours, may be used to control pruritus and provide mild sedation. Adequate fluid intake and optimal nutrition should be encouraged. Skin lesions should be inspected regularly to detect signs of superimposed bacterial infections. Small, localized bacterial skin infections can be treated with topical application of mupirocin ointment 2%, 3 times daily for 7-14 days. For diffuse and more severe bacterial skin infections, a systemic antibiotic may be necessary. Reasonable choices include amoxicillin-clavulanate 875 mg/125 mg orally every 12 hours, or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole double strength 800 mg/160 mg orally every 12 hours.¹¹ The latter agent should be avoided in the first trimester of pregnancy because of potential teratogenic effects.

Several specific agents are available through the CDC for treatment of orthopoxvirus infections such as smallpox and monkeypox. Information about these agents is summarized in the TABLE.^12-16

Unique considerations in pregnancy

Because monkeypox is so rare, there is very little information about the effects of this infection in pregnant women. The report most commonly cited in the literature is that by Mbala et al, which was published in 2017.¹⁷ These authors described 4 pregnant patients in the Democratic Republic of Congo who contracted monkeypox infection over a 4-year period. All 4 women were hospitalized and treated with systemic antibiotics, antiparasitic medications, and analgesics. One patient delivered a healthy infant. Two women had spontaneous abortions in the first trimester. The fourth patient experienced a stillbirth at 22 weeks’ gestation. At postmortem examination, the fetus had diffuse cutaneous lesions, prominent hepatomegaly, and hydrops. No structural malformations were noted. The placenta demonstrated numerous punctate hemorrhages, and high concentrations of virus were recovered from the placenta and from fetal tissue.

Although the information on pregnancy outcome is quite limited, it seems clear that the virus can cross the placenta and cause adverse effects such as spontaneous abortion and fetal death. Accordingly, I think the following guidelines are a reasonable approach to a pregnant patient who has been exposed to monkeypox or who has developed manifestations of infection.^3,7,9

• In the event of a community outbreak, bioterrorism event, or exposure to a person with suspected or confirmed monkeypox infection, the pregnant patient should receive the Jynneos vaccine.
• The pregnant patient should be isolated from any individual with suspected or confirmed monkeypox.
• If infection develops despite these measures, the patient should be treated with either tecovirimat or vaccinia immune globulin IV. Hospitalization may be necessary for seriously ill individuals.

• Within 2 weeks of infection, a comprehensive ultrasound examination should be performed to assess for structural abnormalities in the fetus.

• Subsequently, serial ultrasound examinations should be performed at intervals of 4-6 weeks to assess fetal growth and re-evaluate fetal anatomy.
• Following delivery, a detailed neonatal examination should be performed to assess for evidence of viral injury. Neonatal skin lesions and neonatal serum can be assessed by PCR for monkeypox virus. The newborn should be isolated from the mother until all the mother’s lesions have dried and crusted over.

CASE Resolved

Given the husband’s recent travel to Nigeria and consumption of bushmeat, he most likely has monkeypox. The infection can be spread from person to person by close contact; thus, his wife is at risk. The couple should isolate until all of his lesions have dried and crusted over. The woman also should receive the Jynneos vaccine. If she becomes symptomatic, she should be treated with tecovirimat or vaccinia immune globulin IV. ●

CASE Pregnant woman’s husband is ill after traveling

A 29-year-old primigravid woman at 18 weeks’ gestation just returned from a 10-day trip to Nigeria with her husband. While in Nigeria, the couple went on safari. On several occasions during the safari, they consumed bushmeat prepared by their guides. Her husband now has severe malaise, fever, chills, myalgias, cough, and prominent submandibular, cervical, and inguinal adenopathy. In addition, he has developed a diffuse papular-vesicular rash on his trunk and extremities.

• What is the most likely diagnosis?
• Does this condition pose a danger to his wife?
• What treatment is indicated for his wife?

What we know

In recent weeks, the specter of another poorly understood biological threat has emerged in the medical literature and lay press: monkeypox. This article will first review the epidemiology, clinical manifestations, and diagnosis of this infection, followed by a discussion of how to prevent and treat the condition, with special emphasis on the risks that this infection poses in pregnant women.

Virology

The monkeypox virus is a member of the orthopoxvirus genus. The variola (smallpox) virus and vaccinia virus are included in this genus. It is one of the largest of all viruses, measuring 200-250 nm. It is enveloped and contains double-stranded DNA. Its natural reservoir is probably African rodents. Two distinct strains of monkeypox exist in different geographical regions of Africa: the Central African clade and the West African clade. The Central African clade is significantly more virulent than the latter, with a mortality rate approaching 10%, versus 1% in the West African clade. The incubation period of the virus ranges from 4-20 days and averages 12 days.^1,2

Epidemiology

Monkeypox was first discovered in 1958 by Preben von Magnus in a colony of research monkeys in Copenhagen, Denmark. The first case of monkeypox in humans occurred in the Democratic Republic of Congo in 1970 in a 9-year-old boy. Subsequently, cases were reported in the Ivory Coast, Liberia, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone. The infection was limited to the rain forests of central and western Africa until 2003. At that time, the first cases in the United States were reported. The US cases occurred in the Midwest and were traced to exposure to pet prairie dogs. These animals all came from a single distributor, and they apparently were infected when they were housed in the same space with Gambian rats, which are well recognized reservoirs of monkeypox in their native habitat in Africa.^1-3

A limited outbreak of monkeypox occurred in the United Kingdom in 2018. Seventy-one cases, with no fatalities, were reported. In 2021 another US case of monkeypox was reported in Dallas, Texas, in an individual who had recently traveled to the United States from Nigeria. A second US case was reported in November 2021 from a patient in Maryland who had returned from a visit to Nigeria. Those were the only 2 reported cases of monkeypox in the United States in 2021.^1-3

Then in early May 2022, the United Kingdom reported 9 cases of monkeypox. The first infected patient had recently traveled to Nigeria and, subsequently, infected 2 members of his family.⁴ On May 18, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health confirmed a case of monkeypox in an adult man who had recently traveled to Canada. As of July 7, 6,027 cases have been reported from at least 39 countries.⁵ Eight states in the United States reported cases. To date, 73 deaths have occurred in this recent outbreak of infections (case fatality rate, 4.5%).^4-6

The current outbreak is unusual in that, previously, almost all cases occurred in western and central Africa in remote tropical rain forests. Infection usually resulted from close exposure to rats, rabbits, squirrels, monkeys, porcupines, and gazelles. Exposure occurred when persons captured, slaughtered, prepared, and then ate these animals for food without properly cooking the flesh.

The leading theory is that the present outbreak originated among men who had sex with men at 2 raves held in Spain and Belgium. The virus appears to have been spread by skin-to-skin contact, by respiratory droplets, by contact with contaminated bedding, and probably by sperm.^2,4,6

Continue to: Clinical manifestations...

Clinical manifestations

Monkeypox evolves through 2 stages: a pre-eruptive stage and an eruptive stage. Prodromal symptoms include malaise, severe headache, myalgias, fever, drenching sweats, backache, fatigue, sore throat, dyspnea, and cough. Within 2-3 days, the characteristic skin eruption develops. The lesions usually begin on the face and then spread in a centrifugal manner to the trunk and extremities, including the palms of the hands and soles of the feet. The lesions typically progress from macules to papules to vesicles to pustules. They then crust and scab over. An interesting additional finding is the presence of prominent lymphadenopathy behind the ear, beneath the mandible, in the neck, and in the groin.¹

Several different illnesses must be considered in the differential diagnosis of monkeypox infection. They include measles, scabies, secondary syphilis, and medication-associated allergic reactions. However, the 2 conditions most likely to be confused with monkeypox are chickenpox (varicella) and smallpox. Lymphadenopathy is much more prominent in monkeypox compared with chickenpox. Moreover, with monkeypox, all lesions tend to be at the same stage of evolution as opposed to appearing in crops as they do in chickenpox. Smallpox would be extremely unlikely in the absence of a recognized laboratory accident or a bioterrorism incident.⁷

Diagnosis

The presumptive diagnosis of monkeypox infection is made primarily based on clinical examination. However, laboratory testing is indicated to definitively differentiate monkeypox from other orthopoxvirus infections such as varicella and smallpox.

In specialized laboratories that employ highly trained personnel and maintain strict safety precautions, the virus can be isolated in mammalian cell cultures. Electron microscopy is a valuable tool for identifying the characteristic brick-shaped poxvirus virions. Routine histologic examination of a lesion will show ballooning degeneration of keratinocytes, prominent spongiosis, dermal edema, and acute inflammation, although these findings are not unique to monkeypox.¹

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has developed serologic tests that detect immunoglobulin (Ig) M- and IgG-specific antibody. However, the most useful and practical diagnostic test is assessment of a skin scraping by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). This test is more sensitive than assessment of serum PCR.¹

When the diagnosis of monkeypox is being considered, the clinician should coordinate testing through the local and state public health departments and through the CDC. Effective communication with all agencies will ensure that laboratory specimens are processed in a timely and efficient manner. The CDC website presents information on specimen collection.⁸

How do we manage monkeypox?

Prevention

The first step in prevention of infection is to isolate infected individuals until all lesions have dried and crusted over. Susceptible people should avoid close contact with skin lesions, respiratory and genital secretions, and bedding of patients who are infected.

The ultimate preventive measure, however, is vaccination of susceptible people either immediately before exposure (eg, military personnel, first responders, infection control investigators, health care workers) or immediately after exposure (general population). Older individuals who received the original smallpox vaccine likely have immunity to monkeypox infection. Unfortunately, very few women who currently are of reproductive age received this vaccine because its use was discontinued in the United States in the early 1970s. Therefore, the vast majority of our patients are uniquely susceptible to this infection and should be vaccinated if there is an outbreak of monkeypox in their locality.^7,9

The current preferred vaccine for prevention of both smallpox and monkeypox is the Jynneos (Bavarian Nordic A/S) vaccine.¹⁰ This agent incorporates a replication-deficient live virus and does not pose the same risk for adverse events as the original versions of the smallpox vaccine. Jynneos is administered subcutaneously rather than by scarification. Two 0.5-mL doses, delivered 28 days apart, are required for optimal effect. The vaccine must be obtained from local and state health departments, in consultation with the CDC.^7,9

There is very little published information on the safety of the Jynneos vaccine in pregnant or lactating women, although animal data are reassuring. Moreover, the dangers of monkeypox infection are significant, and in the event of an outbreak, vaccination of susceptible individuals, including pregnant women, is indicated.

Continue to: Treatment...

Treatment

Infected pregnant women should receive acetaminophen 1,000 mg orally every 8 hours, to control fever and provide analgesia. An antihistamine such as diphenhydramine 25 mg orally every 6-8 hours, may be used to control pruritus and provide mild sedation. Adequate fluid intake and optimal nutrition should be encouraged. Skin lesions should be inspected regularly to detect signs of superimposed bacterial infections. Small, localized bacterial skin infections can be treated with topical application of mupirocin ointment 2%, 3 times daily for 7-14 days. For diffuse and more severe bacterial skin infections, a systemic antibiotic may be necessary. Reasonable choices include amoxicillin-clavulanate 875 mg/125 mg orally every 12 hours, or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole double strength 800 mg/160 mg orally every 12 hours.¹¹ The latter agent should be avoided in the first trimester of pregnancy because of potential teratogenic effects.

Several specific agents are available through the CDC for treatment of orthopoxvirus infections such as smallpox and monkeypox. Information about these agents is summarized in the TABLE.^12-16

Unique considerations in pregnancy

Because monkeypox is so rare, there is very little information about the effects of this infection in pregnant women. The report most commonly cited in the literature is that by Mbala et al, which was published in 2017.¹⁷ These authors described 4 pregnant patients in the Democratic Republic of Congo who contracted monkeypox infection over a 4-year period. All 4 women were hospitalized and treated with systemic antibiotics, antiparasitic medications, and analgesics. One patient delivered a healthy infant. Two women had spontaneous abortions in the first trimester. The fourth patient experienced a stillbirth at 22 weeks’ gestation. At postmortem examination, the fetus had diffuse cutaneous lesions, prominent hepatomegaly, and hydrops. No structural malformations were noted. The placenta demonstrated numerous punctate hemorrhages, and high concentrations of virus were recovered from the placenta and from fetal tissue.

Although the information on pregnancy outcome is quite limited, it seems clear that the virus can cross the placenta and cause adverse effects such as spontaneous abortion and fetal death. Accordingly, I think the following guidelines are a reasonable approach to a pregnant patient who has been exposed to monkeypox or who has developed manifestations of infection.^3,7,9

• In the event of a community outbreak, bioterrorism event, or exposure to a person with suspected or confirmed monkeypox infection, the pregnant patient should receive the Jynneos vaccine.
• The pregnant patient should be isolated from any individual with suspected or confirmed monkeypox.
• If infection develops despite these measures, the patient should be treated with either tecovirimat or vaccinia immune globulin IV. Hospitalization may be necessary for seriously ill individuals.

• Within 2 weeks of infection, a comprehensive ultrasound examination should be performed to assess for structural abnormalities in the fetus.

• Subsequently, serial ultrasound examinations should be performed at intervals of 4-6 weeks to assess fetal growth and re-evaluate fetal anatomy.
• Following delivery, a detailed neonatal examination should be performed to assess for evidence of viral injury. Neonatal skin lesions and neonatal serum can be assessed by PCR for monkeypox virus. The newborn should be isolated from the mother until all the mother’s lesions have dried and crusted over.

CASE Resolved

Given the husband’s recent travel to Nigeria and consumption of bushmeat, he most likely has monkeypox. The infection can be spread from person to person by close contact; thus, his wife is at risk. The couple should isolate until all of his lesions have dried and crusted over. The woman also should receive the Jynneos vaccine. If she becomes symptomatic, she should be treated with tecovirimat or vaccinia immune globulin IV. ●

People who are severely ill with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) are often too sick to leave home, but clinicians can still support them in many ways, experts say.

Approximately 250,000 people in the United Kingdom (0.2%-0.4%) have ME/CFS – where it’s called “ME.” As many as 2.5 million in the United States have it. Those numbers are expected to dramatically increase with the addition of people with long COVID. An estimated 25% of patients with the condition are so severely impaired that they are housebound or bedbound to the point where they’re unable to attend medical office visits. There are very few data about them because they’re typically unable to participate in studies.

Speaking at the annual meeting of the International Association for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (IACFS/ME), patient advocate Helen Baxter, of the U.K. charity 25% ME Group, presented a case series of five patients bedbound with ME/CFS who became severely malnourished because of delays in the placement of feeding tubes. The delays occurred because it was not recognized that the patients were unable to eat. The inability to eat may be due to a variety of factors, including gastrointestinal dysfunction, dysphagia, nausea, or lack of sufficient energy to eat or drink.

A report of those cases was included in a special issue of Healthcare, devoted to the topic of severe and very severe ME/CFS. The issue, which was published in April 2021, included 25 articles on the pathophysiology of severe ME/CFS, ways that clinicians can support patients who are too sick to make office visits, and psychosocial aspects of the condition that result from physical debilitation.

Two additional articles by specialist physicians aim to counter the skepticism about ME/CFS that has long persisted among some in the medical community.

“ME/CFS is under-researched and has historically received insufficient funding for research, particularly when compared to other chronic conditions, such as multiple sclerosis. And most of the research that has been done about it has focused on patients who are able to attend clinics. Patients with severe ME/CFS have largely been excluded from research due to the severity of their illness and are often described as ‘hard to reach.’ Consequently, research into severe ME is very limited,” Ms. Baxter said.

Asked to comment, Lucinda Bateman, MD, founder and director of the Bateman Horne Center, Salt Lake City, told this news organization, “It’s a big gap, even in the knowledgeable community. The research is totally skewed towards people who can get up and go participate in research. ... I don’t think most clinicians have any idea how sick people can get with ME/CFS.”

Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET), which is commonly used in research, is intended to elicit objective biomarker responses. Such testing, which is considered the gold standard for determining disability, is impossible for the most severely ill patients with ME/CFS and is potentially harmful to these patients because of the hallmark postexertional malaise (PEM) phenomenon, Dr. Bateman noted.

“If we want to use CPET for research, we have to remember that it harms people to some degree and that we’re only studying the people who aren’t as sick. ... It’s one of the reasons I’ve been aggressively pursuing medical education about orthostatic testing, because it’s a clear objective marker, not as deleterious, and potentially leads to treatment options,” she said.

Misdiagnosis, treatment delays led to life-threatening malnutrition

The five patients that Ms. Baxter presented had become severely malnourished and dehydrated. There was evidence of clinical inertia for each of them.

“All were judged to have anorexia nervosa, and psychiatrists were involved, which was an added delay to starting tube feeding. ... In each case, the doctors resorted to making inappropriate psychological diagnoses without positive evidence of psychopathology, failing to recognize the significance of the malnutrition,” Ms. Baxter said. (Urgent tube feeding would have been warranted even had anorexia nervosa been the correct diagnosis, she pointed out.)

Once the problem was finally recognized, “all participants saw an improvement in their situation following the allocation of a home enteral nutrition dietician.”

At the IACFS/ME conference, Ms. Baxter described the painstaking methods used for gathering information, which were described in the same journal. These involved a combination of online, telephone, and text communications with patients or their caregivers. Efforts were made to avoid overtaxing the patients and triggering PEM.

“An early warning system needs to be put in place for patients with severe ME so that when they or their representatives become aware of the development of problems with oral intake, prompt action is taken, and tube feeding started, thereby avoiding undernutrition in patients with very severe ME,” Ms. Baxter and colleagues write.

Indeed, coauthor and semiretired pediatric ME/CFS specialist physician Nigel Speight, of Durham, United Kingdom, said in an interview, “In most of my patients, I used tube feeding early simply to avoid using unnecessary energy and causing stress to the patient.”

Dr. Speight added, “Patients can also die from sheer weakness leading to lack of respiratory drive. Also, and very understandably, some commit suicide.”
 

Caring for the patient with severe or very severe ME/CFS

Appearing in the special issue is an article entitled, “Caring for the Patient with Severe or Very Severe Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome”. It was authored by a multidisciplinary group led by Jose G. Montoya, MD, of the Jack S. Remington Laboratory for Specialty Diagnostics, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Calif.

In that article, four levels of severity are defined: mild, moderate, severe, and very severe. Included in the “severe” category are patients who are mostly homebound and whose activities of daily living are limited. They may have severe cognitive difficulties. Patients in the “very severe” caregory are bedbound and are unable to care for themselves.

Clinical features include more extreme versions of the core ME/CFS criteria: profound fatigue/weakness, PEM, unrefreshing sleep, orthostatic intolerance, and cognitive impairment. Additional symptoms in those with severe/very severe ME can include extreme hypersensitivity to light, sound, touch, and/or odors. Even small amounts of physical, mental, emotional, and orthostatic stressors can trigger PEM and increased weakness.

The authors recommend a “patient-centered, collaborative approach that is grounded in compassion and respect for the patient in all interactions,” and they provide lists of steps providers can take. These include seeing patients at home if possible and considerations regarding that care, such as partnering with the patient’s caregivers and other health care providers, who may include physical and occupational therapists, home health nurses, and social workers who understand the condition. Home visits by optometrists or ophthalmologists and dentists may be required.

Documenting limitations in activities of daily living is particularly important for helping patients to obtain homecare and disability benefits, Dr. Montoya and colleagues say.

Clinicians should investigate any medical problems that may be amenable to treatment, including orthostatic intolerance, pain, sleep difficulties, comorbidities, or gastrointestinal problems. For patients with pain, bloating, and diarrhea who are found on assessment to have mast cell activation disorder (MCAD), a trial of sodium cromoglicate may be tried, Ms. Baxter told this news organization.

Nonmedical problems that may be contributing to the patient’s morbidity should also be assessed, including a lack of caretaking, social services, transportation, food, and/or supportive devices, such as wheelchairs, bedpans, feeding tubes, and catheters.

The article provides additional detailed recommendations regarding pharmacologic treatments, follow-up visits – in-person or virtual – and hospitalization, as well as recommendations for energy conservation and management.

A section titled Practical Considerations for Busy Providers includes advice to be aware of any regulatory or insurance requirements for providing home visits and to maximize reimbursement by diagnosing any comorbidities, such as postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, or MCAD.

Dr. Speight, who authored an article in the special issue on the management of ME in children, called the article by Dr. Montoya and colleagues “absolutely excellent,” and added his own advice, which included not “overinvestigating to cover your back but at the expense of causing stress to the patient” and considering a trial of immunoglobulin.

Importantly, Dr. Speight stressed, “avoid referral to psychiatrists unless specifically indicated for additional psychiatric morbidity; in which case, make clear that the psychiatrist accepts [that the] basic illness is medical.”

He also advised that clinicians stop using the term “chronic fatigue syndrome” because it suggests the illness is mild and/or psychosomatic. “Maybe the United States should embrace the term ME once and for all,” he said.

Dr. Baxter, Dr. Speight, and Dr. Montoya have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bateman is conducting research for Terra Biological.

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

People who are severely ill with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) are often too sick to leave home, but clinicians can still support them in many ways, experts say.

Approximately 250,000 people in the United Kingdom (0.2%-0.4%) have ME/CFS – where it’s called “ME.” As many as 2.5 million in the United States have it. Those numbers are expected to dramatically increase with the addition of people with long COVID. An estimated 25% of patients with the condition are so severely impaired that they are housebound or bedbound to the point where they’re unable to attend medical office visits. There are very few data about them because they’re typically unable to participate in studies.

Speaking at the annual meeting of the International Association for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (IACFS/ME), patient advocate Helen Baxter, of the U.K. charity 25% ME Group, presented a case series of five patients bedbound with ME/CFS who became severely malnourished because of delays in the placement of feeding tubes. The delays occurred because it was not recognized that the patients were unable to eat. The inability to eat may be due to a variety of factors, including gastrointestinal dysfunction, dysphagia, nausea, or lack of sufficient energy to eat or drink.

A report of those cases was included in a special issue of Healthcare, devoted to the topic of severe and very severe ME/CFS. The issue, which was published in April 2021, included 25 articles on the pathophysiology of severe ME/CFS, ways that clinicians can support patients who are too sick to make office visits, and psychosocial aspects of the condition that result from physical debilitation.

Two additional articles by specialist physicians aim to counter the skepticism about ME/CFS that has long persisted among some in the medical community.

“ME/CFS is under-researched and has historically received insufficient funding for research, particularly when compared to other chronic conditions, such as multiple sclerosis. And most of the research that has been done about it has focused on patients who are able to attend clinics. Patients with severe ME/CFS have largely been excluded from research due to the severity of their illness and are often described as ‘hard to reach.’ Consequently, research into severe ME is very limited,” Ms. Baxter said.

Asked to comment, Lucinda Bateman, MD, founder and director of the Bateman Horne Center, Salt Lake City, told this news organization, “It’s a big gap, even in the knowledgeable community. The research is totally skewed towards people who can get up and go participate in research. ... I don’t think most clinicians have any idea how sick people can get with ME/CFS.”

Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET), which is commonly used in research, is intended to elicit objective biomarker responses. Such testing, which is considered the gold standard for determining disability, is impossible for the most severely ill patients with ME/CFS and is potentially harmful to these patients because of the hallmark postexertional malaise (PEM) phenomenon, Dr. Bateman noted.

“If we want to use CPET for research, we have to remember that it harms people to some degree and that we’re only studying the people who aren’t as sick. ... It’s one of the reasons I’ve been aggressively pursuing medical education about orthostatic testing, because it’s a clear objective marker, not as deleterious, and potentially leads to treatment options,” she said.

Misdiagnosis, treatment delays led to life-threatening malnutrition

The five patients that Ms. Baxter presented had become severely malnourished and dehydrated. There was evidence of clinical inertia for each of them.

“All were judged to have anorexia nervosa, and psychiatrists were involved, which was an added delay to starting tube feeding. ... In each case, the doctors resorted to making inappropriate psychological diagnoses without positive evidence of psychopathology, failing to recognize the significance of the malnutrition,” Ms. Baxter said. (Urgent tube feeding would have been warranted even had anorexia nervosa been the correct diagnosis, she pointed out.)

Once the problem was finally recognized, “all participants saw an improvement in their situation following the allocation of a home enteral nutrition dietician.”

At the IACFS/ME conference, Ms. Baxter described the painstaking methods used for gathering information, which were described in the same journal. These involved a combination of online, telephone, and text communications with patients or their caregivers. Efforts were made to avoid overtaxing the patients and triggering PEM.

“An early warning system needs to be put in place for patients with severe ME so that when they or their representatives become aware of the development of problems with oral intake, prompt action is taken, and tube feeding started, thereby avoiding undernutrition in patients with very severe ME,” Ms. Baxter and colleagues write.

Indeed, coauthor and semiretired pediatric ME/CFS specialist physician Nigel Speight, of Durham, United Kingdom, said in an interview, “In most of my patients, I used tube feeding early simply to avoid using unnecessary energy and causing stress to the patient.”

Dr. Speight added, “Patients can also die from sheer weakness leading to lack of respiratory drive. Also, and very understandably, some commit suicide.”
 

Caring for the patient with severe or very severe ME/CFS

Appearing in the special issue is an article entitled, “Caring for the Patient with Severe or Very Severe Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome”. It was authored by a multidisciplinary group led by Jose G. Montoya, MD, of the Jack S. Remington Laboratory for Specialty Diagnostics, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Calif.

In that article, four levels of severity are defined: mild, moderate, severe, and very severe. Included in the “severe” category are patients who are mostly homebound and whose activities of daily living are limited. They may have severe cognitive difficulties. Patients in the “very severe” caregory are bedbound and are unable to care for themselves.

Clinical features include more extreme versions of the core ME/CFS criteria: profound fatigue/weakness, PEM, unrefreshing sleep, orthostatic intolerance, and cognitive impairment. Additional symptoms in those with severe/very severe ME can include extreme hypersensitivity to light, sound, touch, and/or odors. Even small amounts of physical, mental, emotional, and orthostatic stressors can trigger PEM and increased weakness.

The authors recommend a “patient-centered, collaborative approach that is grounded in compassion and respect for the patient in all interactions,” and they provide lists of steps providers can take. These include seeing patients at home if possible and considerations regarding that care, such as partnering with the patient’s caregivers and other health care providers, who may include physical and occupational therapists, home health nurses, and social workers who understand the condition. Home visits by optometrists or ophthalmologists and dentists may be required.

Documenting limitations in activities of daily living is particularly important for helping patients to obtain homecare and disability benefits, Dr. Montoya and colleagues say.

Clinicians should investigate any medical problems that may be amenable to treatment, including orthostatic intolerance, pain, sleep difficulties, comorbidities, or gastrointestinal problems. For patients with pain, bloating, and diarrhea who are found on assessment to have mast cell activation disorder (MCAD), a trial of sodium cromoglicate may be tried, Ms. Baxter told this news organization.

Nonmedical problems that may be contributing to the patient’s morbidity should also be assessed, including a lack of caretaking, social services, transportation, food, and/or supportive devices, such as wheelchairs, bedpans, feeding tubes, and catheters.

The article provides additional detailed recommendations regarding pharmacologic treatments, follow-up visits – in-person or virtual – and hospitalization, as well as recommendations for energy conservation and management.

A section titled Practical Considerations for Busy Providers includes advice to be aware of any regulatory or insurance requirements for providing home visits and to maximize reimbursement by diagnosing any comorbidities, such as postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, or MCAD.

Dr. Speight, who authored an article in the special issue on the management of ME in children, called the article by Dr. Montoya and colleagues “absolutely excellent,” and added his own advice, which included not “overinvestigating to cover your back but at the expense of causing stress to the patient” and considering a trial of immunoglobulin.

Importantly, Dr. Speight stressed, “avoid referral to psychiatrists unless specifically indicated for additional psychiatric morbidity; in which case, make clear that the psychiatrist accepts [that the] basic illness is medical.”

He also advised that clinicians stop using the term “chronic fatigue syndrome” because it suggests the illness is mild and/or psychosomatic. “Maybe the United States should embrace the term ME once and for all,” he said.

Dr. Baxter, Dr. Speight, and Dr. Montoya have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bateman is conducting research for Terra Biological.

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

People who are severely ill with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) are often too sick to leave home, but clinicians can still support them in many ways, experts say.

Approximately 250,000 people in the United Kingdom (0.2%-0.4%) have ME/CFS – where it’s called “ME.” As many as 2.5 million in the United States have it. Those numbers are expected to dramatically increase with the addition of people with long COVID. An estimated 25% of patients with the condition are so severely impaired that they are housebound or bedbound to the point where they’re unable to attend medical office visits. There are very few data about them because they’re typically unable to participate in studies.

Speaking at the annual meeting of the International Association for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (IACFS/ME), patient advocate Helen Baxter, of the U.K. charity 25% ME Group, presented a case series of five patients bedbound with ME/CFS who became severely malnourished because of delays in the placement of feeding tubes. The delays occurred because it was not recognized that the patients were unable to eat. The inability to eat may be due to a variety of factors, including gastrointestinal dysfunction, dysphagia, nausea, or lack of sufficient energy to eat or drink.

A report of those cases was included in a special issue of Healthcare, devoted to the topic of severe and very severe ME/CFS. The issue, which was published in April 2021, included 25 articles on the pathophysiology of severe ME/CFS, ways that clinicians can support patients who are too sick to make office visits, and psychosocial aspects of the condition that result from physical debilitation.

Two additional articles by specialist physicians aim to counter the skepticism about ME/CFS that has long persisted among some in the medical community.

“ME/CFS is under-researched and has historically received insufficient funding for research, particularly when compared to other chronic conditions, such as multiple sclerosis. And most of the research that has been done about it has focused on patients who are able to attend clinics. Patients with severe ME/CFS have largely been excluded from research due to the severity of their illness and are often described as ‘hard to reach.’ Consequently, research into severe ME is very limited,” Ms. Baxter said.

Asked to comment, Lucinda Bateman, MD, founder and director of the Bateman Horne Center, Salt Lake City, told this news organization, “It’s a big gap, even in the knowledgeable community. The research is totally skewed towards people who can get up and go participate in research. ... I don’t think most clinicians have any idea how sick people can get with ME/CFS.”

Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET), which is commonly used in research, is intended to elicit objective biomarker responses. Such testing, which is considered the gold standard for determining disability, is impossible for the most severely ill patients with ME/CFS and is potentially harmful to these patients because of the hallmark postexertional malaise (PEM) phenomenon, Dr. Bateman noted.

“If we want to use CPET for research, we have to remember that it harms people to some degree and that we’re only studying the people who aren’t as sick. ... It’s one of the reasons I’ve been aggressively pursuing medical education about orthostatic testing, because it’s a clear objective marker, not as deleterious, and potentially leads to treatment options,” she said.

Misdiagnosis, treatment delays led to life-threatening malnutrition

The five patients that Ms. Baxter presented had become severely malnourished and dehydrated. There was evidence of clinical inertia for each of them.

“All were judged to have anorexia nervosa, and psychiatrists were involved, which was an added delay to starting tube feeding. ... In each case, the doctors resorted to making inappropriate psychological diagnoses without positive evidence of psychopathology, failing to recognize the significance of the malnutrition,” Ms. Baxter said. (Urgent tube feeding would have been warranted even had anorexia nervosa been the correct diagnosis, she pointed out.)

Once the problem was finally recognized, “all participants saw an improvement in their situation following the allocation of a home enteral nutrition dietician.”

At the IACFS/ME conference, Ms. Baxter described the painstaking methods used for gathering information, which were described in the same journal. These involved a combination of online, telephone, and text communications with patients or their caregivers. Efforts were made to avoid overtaxing the patients and triggering PEM.

“An early warning system needs to be put in place for patients with severe ME so that when they or their representatives become aware of the development of problems with oral intake, prompt action is taken, and tube feeding started, thereby avoiding undernutrition in patients with very severe ME,” Ms. Baxter and colleagues write.

Indeed, coauthor and semiretired pediatric ME/CFS specialist physician Nigel Speight, of Durham, United Kingdom, said in an interview, “In most of my patients, I used tube feeding early simply to avoid using unnecessary energy and causing stress to the patient.”

Dr. Speight added, “Patients can also die from sheer weakness leading to lack of respiratory drive. Also, and very understandably, some commit suicide.”
 

Caring for the patient with severe or very severe ME/CFS

Appearing in the special issue is an article entitled, “Caring for the Patient with Severe or Very Severe Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome”. It was authored by a multidisciplinary group led by Jose G. Montoya, MD, of the Jack S. Remington Laboratory for Specialty Diagnostics, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Calif.

In that article, four levels of severity are defined: mild, moderate, severe, and very severe. Included in the “severe” category are patients who are mostly homebound and whose activities of daily living are limited. They may have severe cognitive difficulties. Patients in the “very severe” caregory are bedbound and are unable to care for themselves.

Clinical features include more extreme versions of the core ME/CFS criteria: profound fatigue/weakness, PEM, unrefreshing sleep, orthostatic intolerance, and cognitive impairment. Additional symptoms in those with severe/very severe ME can include extreme hypersensitivity to light, sound, touch, and/or odors. Even small amounts of physical, mental, emotional, and orthostatic stressors can trigger PEM and increased weakness.

The authors recommend a “patient-centered, collaborative approach that is grounded in compassion and respect for the patient in all interactions,” and they provide lists of steps providers can take. These include seeing patients at home if possible and considerations regarding that care, such as partnering with the patient’s caregivers and other health care providers, who may include physical and occupational therapists, home health nurses, and social workers who understand the condition. Home visits by optometrists or ophthalmologists and dentists may be required.

Documenting limitations in activities of daily living is particularly important for helping patients to obtain homecare and disability benefits, Dr. Montoya and colleagues say.

Clinicians should investigate any medical problems that may be amenable to treatment, including orthostatic intolerance, pain, sleep difficulties, comorbidities, or gastrointestinal problems. For patients with pain, bloating, and diarrhea who are found on assessment to have mast cell activation disorder (MCAD), a trial of sodium cromoglicate may be tried, Ms. Baxter told this news organization.

Nonmedical problems that may be contributing to the patient’s morbidity should also be assessed, including a lack of caretaking, social services, transportation, food, and/or supportive devices, such as wheelchairs, bedpans, feeding tubes, and catheters.

The article provides additional detailed recommendations regarding pharmacologic treatments, follow-up visits – in-person or virtual – and hospitalization, as well as recommendations for energy conservation and management.

A section titled Practical Considerations for Busy Providers includes advice to be aware of any regulatory or insurance requirements for providing home visits and to maximize reimbursement by diagnosing any comorbidities, such as postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, or MCAD.

Dr. Speight, who authored an article in the special issue on the management of ME in children, called the article by Dr. Montoya and colleagues “absolutely excellent,” and added his own advice, which included not “overinvestigating to cover your back but at the expense of causing stress to the patient” and considering a trial of immunoglobulin.

Importantly, Dr. Speight stressed, “avoid referral to psychiatrists unless specifically indicated for additional psychiatric morbidity; in which case, make clear that the psychiatrist accepts [that the] basic illness is medical.”

He also advised that clinicians stop using the term “chronic fatigue syndrome” because it suggests the illness is mild and/or psychosomatic. “Maybe the United States should embrace the term ME once and for all,” he said.

Dr. Baxter, Dr. Speight, and Dr. Montoya have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bateman is conducting research for Terra Biological.

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

The negative impact of the unnecessary prescribing of antibiotic is well known. Consequences include exposing patients to antibiotic adverse effects, risk of overgrowth of pathogenetic organisms such as clostridial species, unnecessary cost of drugs, and development of selection of antibiotic-resistant organisms in the populace at large. Acute viral respiratory infections are among the leading causes of inappropriate antibiotic usage.¹ In a study of 1000 adults with respiratory tract infections in an outpatient setting, 77% of patients were prescribed antibiotics, and the treatment was inappropriate in 64% of those who received prescriptions.² Patient expectations and clinician perceptions of these expectations play a role. One study showed that 54% of clinicians felt their patients expected to receive antibiotics for a visit due to an acute respiratory infection (ARI), such as a cough or cold; 26% of patients did in fact have this expectation.³

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Central Ohio Health Care System is a large ambulatory care facility, with 4 associated community-based outpatient clinics, serving more than 43,000 central Ohio veterans and completing more than 500,000 medical appointments annually. An antimicrobial stewardship program has been in place since 2013. In May 2018, the clinical pharmacist assigned to the program alerted medical leadership that, of 67 patients seen in primary care for ARIs between April 16, 2018, and May 15, 2018, 42 (63%) had been prescribed an antibiotic. Based on this finding, clinical leadership designed a process improvement program aimed at reducing inappropriate antibiotic usage for the treatment of uncomplicated ARls likely due to viral pathogens. Key components were clinician and patient education and the substitution of a symptomatic treatment kit in place of an antibiotic prescription.

Methods

Facility clinical leadership, assisted by Volunteer Services, developed a Viral Illness Support Pack to be dispensed by primary care practitioners (PCPs) to patients presenting with symptoms of viral ARIs. The contents of this support pack are shown in the Figure. Patients were provided with tissues, throat lozenges, lip balm, acetaminophen, hand sanitizer, a surgical mask, patient instructions, and the Antibiotics Aren’t Always the Answer pamphlet.⁴ The contents of the viral support pack were purchased through Volunteer Services using donated funds. In total, 460 packs were distributed to the primary care patient aligned care teams (PACTs), including the community-based outpatient clinics.

Clinicians and care teams received academic detailing prior to distribution of the viral support packs, stressing the importance of avoiding antibiotics to treat viral illnesses. Viral illness support packs were available for distribution from December 1, 2018, through March 31, 2019. The frequency of antibiotic dispensing to patients coded for ARI during this period was compared with that of the same time period in the previous year. All charts were reviewed for coding accuracy. Patients with illnesses requiring antibiotic treatment, such as pneumonia, exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and chronic bronchitis, and streptococcal pharyngitis, were excluded from the study. Statistical significance was determined using the unpaired t test.

Results

From December 1, 2018, to March 31, 2019, 357 viral support packs were distributed to patients (Table). For the historical control period from December 1, 2017, through March 31, 2018, 508 patients were treated for ARIs. Of these, 295 (58%) received clinically inappropriate antibiotics. In contrast, of the 627 patients treated for ARIs during the study period from December 1, 2018, through March 31, 2019, 310 (49%) received clinically inappropriate antibiotics. The 9% decrease during the period when viral support packs were distributed, compared with the prior year, was statistically significant (P = .02).

Discussion

The decrease in antibiotic prescriptions for ARIs was statistically significant. The success of this project can be attributed to 3 factors: clinician education, patient education, and the option for PCPs to provide symptomatic treatment for these patients rather than prescribe an antibiotic.

The importance of antibiotic stewardship has been emphasized to all PCPs at the VA Central Ohio Health Care System. Antibiotic stewardship has been the subject of grand rounds. Prior to distribution of the viral support pack, the chief of specialty medicine, the project’s champion, spoke to all PCPs. Adequate numbers of viral support packs were distributed to all primary care teams.

In addition to direct clinician-to-patient education at the time of the patients’ visits, educational materials were included in the viral support pack. The Antibiotics Aren’t Always the Answer pamphlet is available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It covers the importance of antibiotic awareness, discusses what antibiotics do and do not treat, how to stay healthy, and causes of antibiotic resistance. The pamphlet contains the clear message that antibiotics are not only ineffective against viral illness, but also can cause significant undesirable outcomes.

The pamphlet Viral Illness Support Pack Traffic Light Card (eAppendix available online at doi:10.12788/fp.0302) provides important clinical information to the patients about their illness. Patients are instructed to contact their primary care team if they are worse after 3 days of illness; symptoms are not improving after 10 days; or they experience blood in respiratory secretions, chills or generalized aching, and localized pain that is one-sided or significantly worsening. Patients are clearly informed to seek further care if not improving with symptomatic treatment.

The ability to provide patients with symptomatic relief, including throat lozenges, lip balm, and acetaminophen, was felt to be important in the success of the project. Furthermore, this eliminated an extra step of the patient needing to visit the pharmacy.

Limitations

Limitations of the study included starting distribution of the support packs somewhat after the onset of the viral illness season, failure to reach all prescribers for academic detailing at the start of the program, and several instances of temporary unavailability of the support packs in some areas.

Conclusions

Patients with ARIs are often significantly symptomatic and frequently believe that they require an antibiotic for treatment. Clinicians may adjust their behavior in response to their patients’ expectations, stated or unstated. The results of this project demonstrate that the combination of patient education and the ready availability of a nonantibiotic symptomatic treatment option can significantly decrease the unnecessary prescribing of antibiotics for viral illnesses.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Ms. Traci Washington for assistance in sourcing materials; to Karen Corr, PhD, and Anthony Restuccio, MD, for advice on methods; to Mr. Daniel Pignatelli for assistance with data interpretation; and to Mr. Keith Skidmore, Ms. Crystal Conley, and Ms. Megan Harris for assistance with assembling the Viral Illness Support Packs.

The negative impact of the unnecessary prescribing of antibiotic is well known. Consequences include exposing patients to antibiotic adverse effects, risk of overgrowth of pathogenetic organisms such as clostridial species, unnecessary cost of drugs, and development of selection of antibiotic-resistant organisms in the populace at large. Acute viral respiratory infections are among the leading causes of inappropriate antibiotic usage.¹ In a study of 1000 adults with respiratory tract infections in an outpatient setting, 77% of patients were prescribed antibiotics, and the treatment was inappropriate in 64% of those who received prescriptions.² Patient expectations and clinician perceptions of these expectations play a role. One study showed that 54% of clinicians felt their patients expected to receive antibiotics for a visit due to an acute respiratory infection (ARI), such as a cough or cold; 26% of patients did in fact have this expectation.³

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Central Ohio Health Care System is a large ambulatory care facility, with 4 associated community-based outpatient clinics, serving more than 43,000 central Ohio veterans and completing more than 500,000 medical appointments annually. An antimicrobial stewardship program has been in place since 2013. In May 2018, the clinical pharmacist assigned to the program alerted medical leadership that, of 67 patients seen in primary care for ARIs between April 16, 2018, and May 15, 2018, 42 (63%) had been prescribed an antibiotic. Based on this finding, clinical leadership designed a process improvement program aimed at reducing inappropriate antibiotic usage for the treatment of uncomplicated ARls likely due to viral pathogens. Key components were clinician and patient education and the substitution of a symptomatic treatment kit in place of an antibiotic prescription.

Methods

Facility clinical leadership, assisted by Volunteer Services, developed a Viral Illness Support Pack to be dispensed by primary care practitioners (PCPs) to patients presenting with symptoms of viral ARIs. The contents of this support pack are shown in the Figure. Patients were provided with tissues, throat lozenges, lip balm, acetaminophen, hand sanitizer, a surgical mask, patient instructions, and the Antibiotics Aren’t Always the Answer pamphlet.⁴ The contents of the viral support pack were purchased through Volunteer Services using donated funds. In total, 460 packs were distributed to the primary care patient aligned care teams (PACTs), including the community-based outpatient clinics.

Clinicians and care teams received academic detailing prior to distribution of the viral support packs, stressing the importance of avoiding antibiotics to treat viral illnesses. Viral illness support packs were available for distribution from December 1, 2018, through March 31, 2019. The frequency of antibiotic dispensing to patients coded for ARI during this period was compared with that of the same time period in the previous year. All charts were reviewed for coding accuracy. Patients with illnesses requiring antibiotic treatment, such as pneumonia, exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and chronic bronchitis, and streptococcal pharyngitis, were excluded from the study. Statistical significance was determined using the unpaired t test.

Results

From December 1, 2018, to March 31, 2019, 357 viral support packs were distributed to patients (Table). For the historical control period from December 1, 2017, through March 31, 2018, 508 patients were treated for ARIs. Of these, 295 (58%) received clinically inappropriate antibiotics. In contrast, of the 627 patients treated for ARIs during the study period from December 1, 2018, through March 31, 2019, 310 (49%) received clinically inappropriate antibiotics. The 9% decrease during the period when viral support packs were distributed, compared with the prior year, was statistically significant (P = .02).

Discussion

The decrease in antibiotic prescriptions for ARIs was statistically significant. The success of this project can be attributed to 3 factors: clinician education, patient education, and the option for PCPs to provide symptomatic treatment for these patients rather than prescribe an antibiotic.

The importance of antibiotic stewardship has been emphasized to all PCPs at the VA Central Ohio Health Care System. Antibiotic stewardship has been the subject of grand rounds. Prior to distribution of the viral support pack, the chief of specialty medicine, the project’s champion, spoke to all PCPs. Adequate numbers of viral support packs were distributed to all primary care teams.

In addition to direct clinician-to-patient education at the time of the patients’ visits, educational materials were included in the viral support pack. The Antibiotics Aren’t Always the Answer pamphlet is available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It covers the importance of antibiotic awareness, discusses what antibiotics do and do not treat, how to stay healthy, and causes of antibiotic resistance. The pamphlet contains the clear message that antibiotics are not only ineffective against viral illness, but also can cause significant undesirable outcomes.

The pamphlet Viral Illness Support Pack Traffic Light Card (eAppendix available online at doi:10.12788/fp.0302) provides important clinical information to the patients about their illness. Patients are instructed to contact their primary care team if they are worse after 3 days of illness; symptoms are not improving after 10 days; or they experience blood in respiratory secretions, chills or generalized aching, and localized pain that is one-sided or significantly worsening. Patients are clearly informed to seek further care if not improving with symptomatic treatment.

The ability to provide patients with symptomatic relief, including throat lozenges, lip balm, and acetaminophen, was felt to be important in the success of the project. Furthermore, this eliminated an extra step of the patient needing to visit the pharmacy.

Limitations

Limitations of the study included starting distribution of the support packs somewhat after the onset of the viral illness season, failure to reach all prescribers for academic detailing at the start of the program, and several instances of temporary unavailability of the support packs in some areas.

Conclusions

Patients with ARIs are often significantly symptomatic and frequently believe that they require an antibiotic for treatment. Clinicians may adjust their behavior in response to their patients’ expectations, stated or unstated. The results of this project demonstrate that the combination of patient education and the ready availability of a nonantibiotic symptomatic treatment option can significantly decrease the unnecessary prescribing of antibiotics for viral illnesses.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Ms. Traci Washington for assistance in sourcing materials; to Karen Corr, PhD, and Anthony Restuccio, MD, for advice on methods; to Mr. Daniel Pignatelli for assistance with data interpretation; and to Mr. Keith Skidmore, Ms. Crystal Conley, and Ms. Megan Harris for assistance with assembling the Viral Illness Support Packs.

The negative impact of the unnecessary prescribing of antibiotic is well known. Consequences include exposing patients to antibiotic adverse effects, risk of overgrowth of pathogenetic organisms such as clostridial species, unnecessary cost of drugs, and development of selection of antibiotic-resistant organisms in the populace at large. Acute viral respiratory infections are among the leading causes of inappropriate antibiotic usage.¹ In a study of 1000 adults with respiratory tract infections in an outpatient setting, 77% of patients were prescribed antibiotics, and the treatment was inappropriate in 64% of those who received prescriptions.² Patient expectations and clinician perceptions of these expectations play a role. One study showed that 54% of clinicians felt their patients expected to receive antibiotics for a visit due to an acute respiratory infection (ARI), such as a cough or cold; 26% of patients did in fact have this expectation.³

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Central Ohio Health Care System is a large ambulatory care facility, with 4 associated community-based outpatient clinics, serving more than 43,000 central Ohio veterans and completing more than 500,000 medical appointments annually. An antimicrobial stewardship program has been in place since 2013. In May 2018, the clinical pharmacist assigned to the program alerted medical leadership that, of 67 patients seen in primary care for ARIs between April 16, 2018, and May 15, 2018, 42 (63%) had been prescribed an antibiotic. Based on this finding, clinical leadership designed a process improvement program aimed at reducing inappropriate antibiotic usage for the treatment of uncomplicated ARls likely due to viral pathogens. Key components were clinician and patient education and the substitution of a symptomatic treatment kit in place of an antibiotic prescription.

Methods

Facility clinical leadership, assisted by Volunteer Services, developed a Viral Illness Support Pack to be dispensed by primary care practitioners (PCPs) to patients presenting with symptoms of viral ARIs. The contents of this support pack are shown in the Figure. Patients were provided with tissues, throat lozenges, lip balm, acetaminophen, hand sanitizer, a surgical mask, patient instructions, and the Antibiotics Aren’t Always the Answer pamphlet.⁴ The contents of the viral support pack were purchased through Volunteer Services using donated funds. In total, 460 packs were distributed to the primary care patient aligned care teams (PACTs), including the community-based outpatient clinics.

Clinicians and care teams received academic detailing prior to distribution of the viral support packs, stressing the importance of avoiding antibiotics to treat viral illnesses. Viral illness support packs were available for distribution from December 1, 2018, through March 31, 2019. The frequency of antibiotic dispensing to patients coded for ARI during this period was compared with that of the same time period in the previous year. All charts were reviewed for coding accuracy. Patients with illnesses requiring antibiotic treatment, such as pneumonia, exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and chronic bronchitis, and streptococcal pharyngitis, were excluded from the study. Statistical significance was determined using the unpaired t test.

Results

From December 1, 2018, to March 31, 2019, 357 viral support packs were distributed to patients (Table). For the historical control period from December 1, 2017, through March 31, 2018, 508 patients were treated for ARIs. Of these, 295 (58%) received clinically inappropriate antibiotics. In contrast, of the 627 patients treated for ARIs during the study period from December 1, 2018, through March 31, 2019, 310 (49%) received clinically inappropriate antibiotics. The 9% decrease during the period when viral support packs were distributed, compared with the prior year, was statistically significant (P = .02).

Discussion

The decrease in antibiotic prescriptions for ARIs was statistically significant. The success of this project can be attributed to 3 factors: clinician education, patient education, and the option for PCPs to provide symptomatic treatment for these patients rather than prescribe an antibiotic.

The importance of antibiotic stewardship has been emphasized to all PCPs at the VA Central Ohio Health Care System. Antibiotic stewardship has been the subject of grand rounds. Prior to distribution of the viral support pack, the chief of specialty medicine, the project’s champion, spoke to all PCPs. Adequate numbers of viral support packs were distributed to all primary care teams.

In addition to direct clinician-to-patient education at the time of the patients’ visits, educational materials were included in the viral support pack. The Antibiotics Aren’t Always the Answer pamphlet is available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It covers the importance of antibiotic awareness, discusses what antibiotics do and do not treat, how to stay healthy, and causes of antibiotic resistance. The pamphlet contains the clear message that antibiotics are not only ineffective against viral illness, but also can cause significant undesirable outcomes.

The pamphlet Viral Illness Support Pack Traffic Light Card (eAppendix available online at doi:10.12788/fp.0302) provides important clinical information to the patients about their illness. Patients are instructed to contact their primary care team if they are worse after 3 days of illness; symptoms are not improving after 10 days; or they experience blood in respiratory secretions, chills or generalized aching, and localized pain that is one-sided or significantly worsening. Patients are clearly informed to seek further care if not improving with symptomatic treatment.

The ability to provide patients with symptomatic relief, including throat lozenges, lip balm, and acetaminophen, was felt to be important in the success of the project. Furthermore, this eliminated an extra step of the patient needing to visit the pharmacy.

Limitations

Limitations of the study included starting distribution of the support packs somewhat after the onset of the viral illness season, failure to reach all prescribers for academic detailing at the start of the program, and several instances of temporary unavailability of the support packs in some areas.

Conclusions

Patients with ARIs are often significantly symptomatic and frequently believe that they require an antibiotic for treatment. Clinicians may adjust their behavior in response to their patients’ expectations, stated or unstated. The results of this project demonstrate that the combination of patient education and the ready availability of a nonantibiotic symptomatic treatment option can significantly decrease the unnecessary prescribing of antibiotics for viral illnesses.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Ms. Traci Washington for assistance in sourcing materials; to Karen Corr, PhD, and Anthony Restuccio, MD, for advice on methods; to Mr. Daniel Pignatelli for assistance with data interpretation; and to Mr. Keith Skidmore, Ms. Crystal Conley, and Ms. Megan Harris for assistance with assembling the Viral Illness Support Packs.

Case Example

A 37-year-old female never smoker presents to your clinic with progressive dyspnea over the past 15 years. She reports dyspnea on exertion, wheezing, chronic nasal congestion, and difficulty sleeping that started a year after she returned from military deployment to Iraq. She has been unable to exercise, even at low intensity, for the past 5 years, despite being previously active. She has experienced some symptom improvement by taking an albuterol inhaler as needed, loratadine (10 mg), and fluticasone nasal spray (50 mcg). She occasionally uses famotidine for reflux (40 mg). She deployed to Southwest Asia for 12 months (2002-2003) and was primarily stationed in Qayyarah West, an Air Force base in the Mosul district in northern Iraq. She reports exposure during deployment to the fire in the Al-Mishraq sulfur mine, located approximately 25 km north of Qayyarah West, as well as dust storms and burn pits. She currently works as a medical assistant. Her examination is remarkable for normal bronchovesicular breath sounds without any wheezing or crackles on pulmonary evaluation. Her body mass index is 31. You obtain a chest radiograph and spirometry, which are both normal.

The veteran reports feeling frustrated as she has had multiple specialty evaluations in community clinics without receiving a diagnosis, despite worsening symptoms. She reports that she added her information to the Airborne Hazards and Open Burn Pit Registry (AHOBPR). She recently received a letter from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Post-Deployment Cardiopulmonary Evaluation Network (PDCEN) and is asking you whether she should participate in the PDCEN specialty evaluation. You are not familiar with the military experiences she has described or the programs she asks you about; however, you would like to know more to best care for your patient.

Background

The year 2021 marked the 20th anniversary of the September 11 attacks and the launch of the Global War on Terrorism. Almost 3 million US military personnel have been deployed in support of these operations along with about 300,000 US civilian contractors and thousands of troops from more than 40 nations.^1-3

Deployment after 2001 to Afghanistan and the Southwest Asia theater of operations, which includes but is not limited to Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, has been associated with increased prevalence of dyspnea and cough as well as diagnoses of asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and other chronic respiratory diseases.^4-9 Expert committees convened by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine concluded that deployment to the Southwest Asia region and Afghanistan was associated with respiratory symptoms of cough, wheeze, and shortness of breath and might be associated with long-term health effects, particularly in vulnerable (eg, individuals with asthma) or highly exposed populations (eg, those assigned to work at burn pits).^10,11 Several reports have found constrictive bronchiolitis, emphysema, granulomatous inflammation, and pigment deposition on lung biopsy in deployed persons with unexplained dyspnea and subtle, or normal, clinical findings.^12-14

Respiratory hazards associated with deployment to Southwest Asia and Afghanistan are unique and varied. These exposures include blast injuries and a variety of particulate matter sources, such as burn pit combustion byproducts, aeroallergens, and dust storms.^7,8,15,16 One air sampling study conducted at 15 deployment sites in Southwest Asia and Afghanistan found mean fine particulate matter (PM_2.5) levels were as much as 10 times greater than sampling sites in both rural and urban cities in the United States; all sites sampled exceeded military exposure guidelines (65 µg/m³ for 1 year).^17,18 Long-term exposure to PM_2.5 has been associated with the development of chronic respiratory and cardiovascular disease; therefore, there has been considerable attention to the respiratory (and nonrespiratory) health of deployed military personnel.¹⁹

Concerns regarding the association between deployment and lung disease led to the creation of the national VA Airborne Hazards and Open Burn Pit Registry (AHOBPR) in 2014 and consists of (1) an online questionnaire to document deployment and medical history, exposure concerns, and symptoms; and (2) an optional in-person or virtual clinical health evaluation at the individual’s local VA medical center or military treatment facility (MTF). As of March 2022, more than 300,000 individuals have completed the online questionnaire of which about 30% declined the optional clinical health evaluation.

The clinical evaluation available to AHOBPR participants has not yet been described in the literature. Therefore, our objectives are to examine AHOBPR clinical evaluation data and review its application throughout the VA. In addition, we will also describe a parallel effort by the VA PDCEN, which is to provide comprehensive multiday clinical evaluations for unique AHOBPR participants with unexplained dyspnea and self-reported respiratory disease. A secondary aim of this publication is to disseminate information to health care professionals (HCPs) within and outside of the VA to aid in the referral and evaluation of previously deployed veterans who experience unexplained dyspnea.

AHOBPR Overview

The AHOBPR is an online questionnaire and optional in-person health evaluation that includes 7 major categories targeting deployment history, symptoms, medical history, health concerns, residential history, nonmilitary occupational history, nonmilitary environmental exposures, and health care utilization. The VA Defense Information Repository is used to obtain service dates for the service member/veteran, conflict involvement, and primary location during deployment. The questionnaire portion of the AHOBPR is administered online. It currently is open to all veterans who served in the Southwest Asia theater of operations (including Iraq, Kuwait, and Egypt) any time after August 2, 1990, or Afghanistan, Djibouti, Syria, or Uzbekistan after September 11, 2001. Veterans are eligible for completing the AHOBPR and optional health evaluation at no cost to the veteran regardless of VA benefits or whether they are currently enrolled in VA health care. Though the focus of the present manuscript is to profile a VA program, it is important to note that the US Department of Defense (DoD) is an active partner with the VA in the promotion of the AHOBPR to service members and similarly provides health evaluations for active-duty service members (including activating Reserve and Guard) through their local MTF.

We reviewed and analyzed AHOBPR operations and VA data from 2014 to 2020. Our analyses were limited to veterans seeking evaluation as well as their corresponding symptoms and HCP’s clinical impression from the electronic health record. As of September 20, 2021, 267,125 individuals completed the AHOBPR. The mean age was 43 years (range, 19-84), and the majority were male (86%) and served in the Army (58%). Open-air burn pits (91%), engine maintenance (38.8%), and convoy operations (71.7%) were the most common deployment-related exposures.

The optional in-person AHOBPR health evaluation may be requested by the veteran after completing the online questionnaire and is performed at the veteran’s local VA facility. The evaluation is most often completed by an environmental health clinician or primary care practitioner (PCP). A variety of resources are available to providers for training on this topic, including fact sheets, webinars, monthly calls, conferences, and accredited e-learning.²⁰ As part of the clinical evaluation, the veteran’s chief concerns are assessed and evaluated. At the time of our analysis, 24,578 clinical examinations were performed across 126 VA medical facilities, with considerable geographic variation. Veterans receiving evaluations were predominantly male (89%) with a median age of 46.0 years (IQR, 15). Veterans’ major respiratory concerns included dyspnea (45.1%), decreased exercise ability (34.8%), and cough > 3 weeks (30.3%) (Table). After clinical evaluation by a VA or MTF HCP, 47.8% were found to have a respiratory diagnosis, including asthma (30.1%), COPD (12.8%), and bronchitis (11.9%).

Post-Deployment Cardiopulmonary Evaluation Network Clinical Evaluation

In May 2019, the VA established the Airborne Hazards and Burn Pits Center of Excellence (AHBPCE). One of the AHBPCE’s objectives is to deliver specialized care and consultation for veterans with concerns about their postdeployment health, including, but not limited to, unexplained dyspnea. To meet this objective, the AHBPCE developed the PDCEN, a national network consisting of specialty HCPs from 5 VA medical centers—located in San Francisco, California; Denver, Colorado; Baltimore, Maryland; Ann Arbor, Michigan; and East Orange, New Jersey. Collectively, the PDCEN has developed a standardized approach for the comprehensive clinical evaluation of unexplained dyspnea that is implemented uniformly across sites. Staff at the PDCEN screen the AHOBPR to identify veterans with features of respiratory disease and invite them to participate in an in-person evaluation at the nearest PDCEN site. Given the specialty expertise (detailed below) within the Network, the PDCEN focuses on complex cases that are resource intensive. To address complex cases of unexplained dyspnea, the PDCEN has developed a core clinical evaluation approach (Figure).

The first step in a veteran’s PDCEN evaluation entails a set of detailed questionnaires that request information about the veteran’s current respiratory, sleep, and mental health symptoms and any associated medical diagnoses. Questionnaires also identify potential exposures to military burn pits, sulfur mine and oil field fires, diesel exhaust fumes, dust storms, urban pollution, explosions/blasts, and chemical weapons. In addition, the questionnaires include deployment geographic location, which may inform future estimates of particulate matter exposure.²¹ Prior VA and non-VA evaluations and testing of their respiratory concerns are obtained for review. Exposure and health records from the DoD are also reviewed when available.

The next step in the PDCEN evaluation comprises comprehensive testing, including complete pulmonary function testing, methacholine challenge, cardiopulmonary exercise testing, forced oscillometry and exhaled nitric oxide testing, paired high-resolution inspiratory and expiratory chest computed tomography (CT) imaging, sinus CT imaging, direct flexible laryngoscopy, echocardiography, polysomnography, and laboratory blood testing. The testing process is managed by local site coordinators and varies by institution based on availability of each testing modality and subspecialist appointments.

Once testing is completed, the veteran is evaluated by a team of HCPs, including physicians from the disciplines of pulmonary medicine, environmental and occupational health, sleep medicine, otolaryngology and speech pathology, and mental health (when appropriate). After the clinical evaluation has been completed, this team of expert HCPs at each site convenes to provide a final summary review visit intended to be a comprehensive assessment of the veteran’s primary health concerns. The 3 primary objectives of this final review are to inform the veteran of (1) what respiratory and related conditions they have; (2) whether the conditions is/are deployment related; and (3) what treatments and/or follow-up care may enhance their current state of health in partnership with their local HCPs. The PDCEN does not provide ongoing management of any conditions identified during the veteran’s evaluation but communicates findings and recommendations to the veteran and their PCP for long-term care.

Discussion

The AHOBPR was established in response to mounting concerns that service members and veterans were experiencing adverse health effects that might be attributable to deployment-related exposures. Nearly half of all patients currently enrolled in the AHOBPR report dyspnea, and about one-third have decreased exercise tolerance and/or cough. Of those who completed the questionnaire and the subsequent in-person and generalized AHOBPR examination, our interim analysis showed that about half were assigned a respiratory diagnosis. Yet for many veterans, their breathing symptoms remained unexplained or did not respond to treatment.

While the AHOBPR and related examinations address the needs of many veterans, others may require more comprehensive examination. The PDCEN attends to the latter by providing more detailed and comprehensive clinical evaluations of veterans with deployment-related respiratory health concerns and seeks to learn from these evaluations by analyzing data obtained from veterans across sites. As such, the PDCEN hopes not only to improve the health of individual veterans, but also create standard practices for both VA and non-VA community evaluation of veterans exposed to respiratory hazards during deployment.

One of the major challenges in the field of postdeployment respiratory health is the lack of clear universal language or case definitions that encompass the veteran’s clinical concerns. In an influential case series published in 2011, 38 (77%) of 49 soldiers with history of airborne hazard exposure and unexplained exercise intolerance were reported to have histopathology consistent with constrictive bronchiolitis on surgical lung biopsy.¹⁴ Subsequent publications have described other histopathologic features in deployed military personnel, including granulomatous inflammation, interstitial lung disease, emphysema, and pleuritis.^12-14 Reconciling these findings from surgical lung biopsy with the clinical presentation and noninvasive studies has proved difficult. Therefore, several groups of investigators have proposed terms, including postdeployment respiratory syndrome, deployment-related distal lung disease, and Iraq/Afghanistan War lung injury to describe the increased respiratory symptoms and variety of histopathologic and imaging findings in this population.^9,12,22 At present, there remains a lack of consensus on terminology and case definitions as well as the role of military environmental exposures in exacerbating and/or causing these conditions. As HCPs, it is important to appreciate and acknowledge that the ambiguity and controversy pertaining to terminology, causation, and service connections are a common source of frustration experienced by veterans, which are increasingly reflected among reports in popular media and lay press.

A second and related challenge in the field of postdeployment respiratory health that contributes to veteran and HCP frustration is that many of the aforementioned abnormalities described on surgical lung biopsy are not readily identifiable on noninvasive tests, including traditional interpretation of pulmonary function tests or chest CT imaging.^12-14,22 Thus, underlying conditions could be overlooked and veterans’ concerns and symptoms may be dismissed or misattributed to other comorbid conditions. While surgical lung biopsies may offer diagnostic clarity in identifying lung disease, there are significant procedural risks of surgical and anesthetic complications. Furthermore, a definitive diagnosis does not necessarily guarantee a clear treatment plan. For example, there are no current therapies approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of constrictive bronchiolitis.

Research efforts are underway, including within the PDCEN, to evaluate a more sensitive and noninvasive assessment of the small airways that may even reduce or eliminate the need for surgical lung biopsy. In contrast to traditional pulmonary function testing, which is helpful for evaluation of the larger airways, forced oscillation technique can be used noninvasively, using pressure oscillations to evaluate for diseases of the smaller airways and has been used in the veteran population and in those exposed to dust from the World Trade Center disaster.^23-25 Multiple breath washout technique provides a lung clearance index that is determined by the number of lung turnovers it takes to clear the lungs of an inert gas (eg, sulfur hexafluoride, nitrogen). Elevated lung clearance index values suggest ventilation heterogeneity and have been shown to be higher among deployed veterans with dyspnea.^26,27 Finally, advanced CT analytic techniques may help identify functional small airways disease and are higher in deployed service members with constrictive bronchiolitis on surgical lung biopsy.²⁸ These innovative noninvasive techniques are experimental but promising, especially as part of a broader evaluation of small airways disease.

AHOBPR clinical evaluations represent an initial step to better understand postdeployment health conditions available to all AHOBPR participants. The PDCEN clinical evaluation extends the AHOBPR evaluation by providing specialty care for certain veterans requiring more comprehensive evaluation while systematically collecting and analyzing clinical data to advance the field. The VA is committed to leveraging these data and all available expertise to provide a clear description of the spectrum of disease in this population and improve our ability to diagnose, follow, and treat respiratory health conditions occurring after deployment to Southwest Asia and Afghanistan.

Case Conclusion

The veteran was referred to a PDCEN site and underwent a comprehensive multidisciplinary evaluation. Pulmonary function testing showed lung volumes and vital capacity within the predicted normal range, mild air trapping, and a low diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide. Methacholine challenge testing was normal; however, forced oscillometry suggested small airways obstruction. A high-resolution CT showed air trapping without parenchymal changes. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing demonstrated a peak exercise capacity within the predicted normal range but low breathing reserve. Otolaryngology evaluation including laryngoscopy suggested chronic nonallergic rhinitis.

At the end of the veteran’s evaluation, a summary review reported nonallergic rhinitis and distal airway obstruction consistent with small airways disease. Both were reported as most likely related to deployment given her significant environmental exposures and the temporal relationship with her deployment and symptom onset as well as lack of other identifiable causes. A more precise histopathologic diagnosis could be firmly established with a surgical lung biopsy, but after shared decision making with a PDCEN HCP, the patient declined to undergo this invasive procedure. After you review the summary review and recommendations from the PDCEN group, you start the veteran on intranasal steroids and a combined inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β agonist inhaler as well as refer the veteran to pulmonary rehabilitation. After several weeks, she reports an improvement in sleep and nasal symptoms but continues to experience residual exercise intolerance.

This case serves as an example of the significant limitations that a previously active and healthy patient can develop after deployment to Southwest Asia and Afghanistan. Encouraging this veteran to complete the AHOBPR allowed her to be considered for a PDCEN evaluation that provided the opportunity to undergo a comprehensive noninvasive evaluation of her chronic dyspnea. In doing so, she obtained 2 important diagnoses and data from her evaluation will help establish best practices for standardized evaluations of respiratory concerns following deployment. Through the AHOBPR and PDCEN, the VA seeks to better understand postdeployment health conditions, their relationship to military and environmental exposures, and how best to diagnose and treat these conditions.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Airborne Hazards and Burn Pits Center of Excellence (Public Law 115-929). The authors acknowledge support and contributions from Dr. Eric Shuping and leadership at VA’s Health Outcomes Military Exposures office as well as the New Jersey War Related Illness and Injury Study Center. In addition, we thank Erin McRoberts and Rajeev Swarup for their contributions to the Post-Deployment Cardiopulmonary Evaluation Network. Post-Deployment Cardiopulmonary Evaluation Network members:

Mehrdad Arjomandi, Caroline Davis, Michelle DeLuca, Nancy Eager, Courtney A. Eberhardt, Michael J. Falvo, Timothy Foley, Fiona A.S. Graff, Deborah Heaney, Stella E. Hines, Rachel E. Howard, Nisha Jani, Sheena Kamineni, Silpa Krefft, Mary L. Langlois, Helen Lozier, Simran K. Matharu, Anisa Moore, Lydia Patrick-DeLuca, Edward Pickering, Alexander Rabin, Michelle Robertson, Samantha L. Rogers, Aaron H. Schneider, Anand Shah, Anays Sotolongo, Jennifer H. Therkorn, Rebecca I. Toczylowski, Matthew Watson, Alison D. Wilczynski, Ian W. Wilson, Romi A. Yount.

Case Example

A 37-year-old female never smoker presents to your clinic with progressive dyspnea over the past 15 years. She reports dyspnea on exertion, wheezing, chronic nasal congestion, and difficulty sleeping that started a year after she returned from military deployment to Iraq. She has been unable to exercise, even at low intensity, for the past 5 years, despite being previously active. She has experienced some symptom improvement by taking an albuterol inhaler as needed, loratadine (10 mg), and fluticasone nasal spray (50 mcg). She occasionally uses famotidine for reflux (40 mg). She deployed to Southwest Asia for 12 months (2002-2003) and was primarily stationed in Qayyarah West, an Air Force base in the Mosul district in northern Iraq. She reports exposure during deployment to the fire in the Al-Mishraq sulfur mine, located approximately 25 km north of Qayyarah West, as well as dust storms and burn pits. She currently works as a medical assistant. Her examination is remarkable for normal bronchovesicular breath sounds without any wheezing or crackles on pulmonary evaluation. Her body mass index is 31. You obtain a chest radiograph and spirometry, which are both normal.

The veteran reports feeling frustrated as she has had multiple specialty evaluations in community clinics without receiving a diagnosis, despite worsening symptoms. She reports that she added her information to the Airborne Hazards and Open Burn Pit Registry (AHOBPR). She recently received a letter from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Post-Deployment Cardiopulmonary Evaluation Network (PDCEN) and is asking you whether she should participate in the PDCEN specialty evaluation. You are not familiar with the military experiences she has described or the programs she asks you about; however, you would like to know more to best care for your patient.

Background

The year 2021 marked the 20th anniversary of the September 11 attacks and the launch of the Global War on Terrorism. Almost 3 million US military personnel have been deployed in support of these operations along with about 300,000 US civilian contractors and thousands of troops from more than 40 nations.^1-3

Deployment after 2001 to Afghanistan and the Southwest Asia theater of operations, which includes but is not limited to Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, has been associated with increased prevalence of dyspnea and cough as well as diagnoses of asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and other chronic respiratory diseases.^4-9 Expert committees convened by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine concluded that deployment to the Southwest Asia region and Afghanistan was associated with respiratory symptoms of cough, wheeze, and shortness of breath and might be associated with long-term health effects, particularly in vulnerable (eg, individuals with asthma) or highly exposed populations (eg, those assigned to work at burn pits).^10,11 Several reports have found constrictive bronchiolitis, emphysema, granulomatous inflammation, and pigment deposition on lung biopsy in deployed persons with unexplained dyspnea and subtle, or normal, clinical findings.^12-14

Respiratory hazards associated with deployment to Southwest Asia and Afghanistan are unique and varied. These exposures include blast injuries and a variety of particulate matter sources, such as burn pit combustion byproducts, aeroallergens, and dust storms.^7,8,15,16 One air sampling study conducted at 15 deployment sites in Southwest Asia and Afghanistan found mean fine particulate matter (PM_2.5) levels were as much as 10 times greater than sampling sites in both rural and urban cities in the United States; all sites sampled exceeded military exposure guidelines (65 µg/m³ for 1 year).^17,18 Long-term exposure to PM_2.5 has been associated with the development of chronic respiratory and cardiovascular disease; therefore, there has been considerable attention to the respiratory (and nonrespiratory) health of deployed military personnel.¹⁹

Concerns regarding the association between deployment and lung disease led to the creation of the national VA Airborne Hazards and Open Burn Pit Registry (AHOBPR) in 2014 and consists of (1) an online questionnaire to document deployment and medical history, exposure concerns, and symptoms; and (2) an optional in-person or virtual clinical health evaluation at the individual’s local VA medical center or military treatment facility (MTF). As of March 2022, more than 300,000 individuals have completed the online questionnaire of which about 30% declined the optional clinical health evaluation.

The clinical evaluation available to AHOBPR participants has not yet been described in the literature. Therefore, our objectives are to examine AHOBPR clinical evaluation data and review its application throughout the VA. In addition, we will also describe a parallel effort by the VA PDCEN, which is to provide comprehensive multiday clinical evaluations for unique AHOBPR participants with unexplained dyspnea and self-reported respiratory disease. A secondary aim of this publication is to disseminate information to health care professionals (HCPs) within and outside of the VA to aid in the referral and evaluation of previously deployed veterans who experience unexplained dyspnea.

AHOBPR Overview

The AHOBPR is an online questionnaire and optional in-person health evaluation that includes 7 major categories targeting deployment history, symptoms, medical history, health concerns, residential history, nonmilitary occupational history, nonmilitary environmental exposures, and health care utilization. The VA Defense Information Repository is used to obtain service dates for the service member/veteran, conflict involvement, and primary location during deployment. The questionnaire portion of the AHOBPR is administered online. It currently is open to all veterans who served in the Southwest Asia theater of operations (including Iraq, Kuwait, and Egypt) any time after August 2, 1990, or Afghanistan, Djibouti, Syria, or Uzbekistan after September 11, 2001. Veterans are eligible for completing the AHOBPR and optional health evaluation at no cost to the veteran regardless of VA benefits or whether they are currently enrolled in VA health care. Though the focus of the present manuscript is to profile a VA program, it is important to note that the US Department of Defense (DoD) is an active partner with the VA in the promotion of the AHOBPR to service members and similarly provides health evaluations for active-duty service members (including activating Reserve and Guard) through their local MTF.

We reviewed and analyzed AHOBPR operations and VA data from 2014 to 2020. Our analyses were limited to veterans seeking evaluation as well as their corresponding symptoms and HCP’s clinical impression from the electronic health record. As of September 20, 2021, 267,125 individuals completed the AHOBPR. The mean age was 43 years (range, 19-84), and the majority were male (86%) and served in the Army (58%). Open-air burn pits (91%), engine maintenance (38.8%), and convoy operations (71.7%) were the most common deployment-related exposures.

The optional in-person AHOBPR health evaluation may be requested by the veteran after completing the online questionnaire and is performed at the veteran’s local VA facility. The evaluation is most often completed by an environmental health clinician or primary care practitioner (PCP). A variety of resources are available to providers for training on this topic, including fact sheets, webinars, monthly calls, conferences, and accredited e-learning.²⁰ As part of the clinical evaluation, the veteran’s chief concerns are assessed and evaluated. At the time of our analysis, 24,578 clinical examinations were performed across 126 VA medical facilities, with considerable geographic variation. Veterans receiving evaluations were predominantly male (89%) with a median age of 46.0 years (IQR, 15). Veterans’ major respiratory concerns included dyspnea (45.1%), decreased exercise ability (34.8%), and cough > 3 weeks (30.3%) (Table). After clinical evaluation by a VA or MTF HCP, 47.8% were found to have a respiratory diagnosis, including asthma (30.1%), COPD (12.8%), and bronchitis (11.9%).

Post-Deployment Cardiopulmonary Evaluation Network Clinical Evaluation

In May 2019, the VA established the Airborne Hazards and Burn Pits Center of Excellence (AHBPCE). One of the AHBPCE’s objectives is to deliver specialized care and consultation for veterans with concerns about their postdeployment health, including, but not limited to, unexplained dyspnea. To meet this objective, the AHBPCE developed the PDCEN, a national network consisting of specialty HCPs from 5 VA medical centers—located in San Francisco, California; Denver, Colorado; Baltimore, Maryland; Ann Arbor, Michigan; and East Orange, New Jersey. Collectively, the PDCEN has developed a standardized approach for the comprehensive clinical evaluation of unexplained dyspnea that is implemented uniformly across sites. Staff at the PDCEN screen the AHOBPR to identify veterans with features of respiratory disease and invite them to participate in an in-person evaluation at the nearest PDCEN site. Given the specialty expertise (detailed below) within the Network, the PDCEN focuses on complex cases that are resource intensive. To address complex cases of unexplained dyspnea, the PDCEN has developed a core clinical evaluation approach (Figure).

The first step in a veteran’s PDCEN evaluation entails a set of detailed questionnaires that request information about the veteran’s current respiratory, sleep, and mental health symptoms and any associated medical diagnoses. Questionnaires also identify potential exposures to military burn pits, sulfur mine and oil field fires, diesel exhaust fumes, dust storms, urban pollution, explosions/blasts, and chemical weapons. In addition, the questionnaires include deployment geographic location, which may inform future estimates of particulate matter exposure.²¹ Prior VA and non-VA evaluations and testing of their respiratory concerns are obtained for review. Exposure and health records from the DoD are also reviewed when available.

The next step in the PDCEN evaluation comprises comprehensive testing, including complete pulmonary function testing, methacholine challenge, cardiopulmonary exercise testing, forced oscillometry and exhaled nitric oxide testing, paired high-resolution inspiratory and expiratory chest computed tomography (CT) imaging, sinus CT imaging, direct flexible laryngoscopy, echocardiography, polysomnography, and laboratory blood testing. The testing process is managed by local site coordinators and varies by institution based on availability of each testing modality and subspecialist appointments.

Once testing is completed, the veteran is evaluated by a team of HCPs, including physicians from the disciplines of pulmonary medicine, environmental and occupational health, sleep medicine, otolaryngology and speech pathology, and mental health (when appropriate). After the clinical evaluation has been completed, this team of expert HCPs at each site convenes to provide a final summary review visit intended to be a comprehensive assessment of the veteran’s primary health concerns. The 3 primary objectives of this final review are to inform the veteran of (1) what respiratory and related conditions they have; (2) whether the conditions is/are deployment related; and (3) what treatments and/or follow-up care may enhance their current state of health in partnership with their local HCPs. The PDCEN does not provide ongoing management of any conditions identified during the veteran’s evaluation but communicates findings and recommendations to the veteran and their PCP for long-term care.

Discussion

The AHOBPR was established in response to mounting concerns that service members and veterans were experiencing adverse health effects that might be attributable to deployment-related exposures. Nearly half of all patients currently enrolled in the AHOBPR report dyspnea, and about one-third have decreased exercise tolerance and/or cough. Of those who completed the questionnaire and the subsequent in-person and generalized AHOBPR examination, our interim analysis showed that about half were assigned a respiratory diagnosis. Yet for many veterans, their breathing symptoms remained unexplained or did not respond to treatment.

While the AHOBPR and related examinations address the needs of many veterans, others may require more comprehensive examination. The PDCEN attends to the latter by providing more detailed and comprehensive clinical evaluations of veterans with deployment-related respiratory health concerns and seeks to learn from these evaluations by analyzing data obtained from veterans across sites. As such, the PDCEN hopes not only to improve the health of individual veterans, but also create standard practices for both VA and non-VA community evaluation of veterans exposed to respiratory hazards during deployment.

One of the major challenges in the field of postdeployment respiratory health is the lack of clear universal language or case definitions that encompass the veteran’s clinical concerns. In an influential case series published in 2011, 38 (77%) of 49 soldiers with history of airborne hazard exposure and unexplained exercise intolerance were reported to have histopathology consistent with constrictive bronchiolitis on surgical lung biopsy.¹⁴ Subsequent publications have described other histopathologic features in deployed military personnel, including granulomatous inflammation, interstitial lung disease, emphysema, and pleuritis.^12-14 Reconciling these findings from surgical lung biopsy with the clinical presentation and noninvasive studies has proved difficult. Therefore, several groups of investigators have proposed terms, including postdeployment respiratory syndrome, deployment-related distal lung disease, and Iraq/Afghanistan War lung injury to describe the increased respiratory symptoms and variety of histopathologic and imaging findings in this population.^9,12,22 At present, there remains a lack of consensus on terminology and case definitions as well as the role of military environmental exposures in exacerbating and/or causing these conditions. As HCPs, it is important to appreciate and acknowledge that the ambiguity and controversy pertaining to terminology, causation, and service connections are a common source of frustration experienced by veterans, which are increasingly reflected among reports in popular media and lay press.

A second and related challenge in the field of postdeployment respiratory health that contributes to veteran and HCP frustration is that many of the aforementioned abnormalities described on surgical lung biopsy are not readily identifiable on noninvasive tests, including traditional interpretation of pulmonary function tests or chest CT imaging.^12-14,22 Thus, underlying conditions could be overlooked and veterans’ concerns and symptoms may be dismissed or misattributed to other comorbid conditions. While surgical lung biopsies may offer diagnostic clarity in identifying lung disease, there are significant procedural risks of surgical and anesthetic complications. Furthermore, a definitive diagnosis does not necessarily guarantee a clear treatment plan. For example, there are no current therapies approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of constrictive bronchiolitis.

Research efforts are underway, including within the PDCEN, to evaluate a more sensitive and noninvasive assessment of the small airways that may even reduce or eliminate the need for surgical lung biopsy. In contrast to traditional pulmonary function testing, which is helpful for evaluation of the larger airways, forced oscillation technique can be used noninvasively, using pressure oscillations to evaluate for diseases of the smaller airways and has been used in the veteran population and in those exposed to dust from the World Trade Center disaster.^23-25 Multiple breath washout technique provides a lung clearance index that is determined by the number of lung turnovers it takes to clear the lungs of an inert gas (eg, sulfur hexafluoride, nitrogen). Elevated lung clearance index values suggest ventilation heterogeneity and have been shown to be higher among deployed veterans with dyspnea.^26,27 Finally, advanced CT analytic techniques may help identify functional small airways disease and are higher in deployed service members with constrictive bronchiolitis on surgical lung biopsy.²⁸ These innovative noninvasive techniques are experimental but promising, especially as part of a broader evaluation of small airways disease.

AHOBPR clinical evaluations represent an initial step to better understand postdeployment health conditions available to all AHOBPR participants. The PDCEN clinical evaluation extends the AHOBPR evaluation by providing specialty care for certain veterans requiring more comprehensive evaluation while systematically collecting and analyzing clinical data to advance the field. The VA is committed to leveraging these data and all available expertise to provide a clear description of the spectrum of disease in this population and improve our ability to diagnose, follow, and treat respiratory health conditions occurring after deployment to Southwest Asia and Afghanistan.

Case Conclusion

The veteran was referred to a PDCEN site and underwent a comprehensive multidisciplinary evaluation. Pulmonary function testing showed lung volumes and vital capacity within the predicted normal range, mild air trapping, and a low diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide. Methacholine challenge testing was normal; however, forced oscillometry suggested small airways obstruction. A high-resolution CT showed air trapping without parenchymal changes. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing demonstrated a peak exercise capacity within the predicted normal range but low breathing reserve. Otolaryngology evaluation including laryngoscopy suggested chronic nonallergic rhinitis.

At the end of the veteran’s evaluation, a summary review reported nonallergic rhinitis and distal airway obstruction consistent with small airways disease. Both were reported as most likely related to deployment given her significant environmental exposures and the temporal relationship with her deployment and symptom onset as well as lack of other identifiable causes. A more precise histopathologic diagnosis could be firmly established with a surgical lung biopsy, but after shared decision making with a PDCEN HCP, the patient declined to undergo this invasive procedure. After you review the summary review and recommendations from the PDCEN group, you start the veteran on intranasal steroids and a combined inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β agonist inhaler as well as refer the veteran to pulmonary rehabilitation. After several weeks, she reports an improvement in sleep and nasal symptoms but continues to experience residual exercise intolerance.

This case serves as an example of the significant limitations that a previously active and healthy patient can develop after deployment to Southwest Asia and Afghanistan. Encouraging this veteran to complete the AHOBPR allowed her to be considered for a PDCEN evaluation that provided the opportunity to undergo a comprehensive noninvasive evaluation of her chronic dyspnea. In doing so, she obtained 2 important diagnoses and data from her evaluation will help establish best practices for standardized evaluations of respiratory concerns following deployment. Through the AHOBPR and PDCEN, the VA seeks to better understand postdeployment health conditions, their relationship to military and environmental exposures, and how best to diagnose and treat these conditions.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Airborne Hazards and Burn Pits Center of Excellence (Public Law 115-929). The authors acknowledge support and contributions from Dr. Eric Shuping and leadership at VA’s Health Outcomes Military Exposures office as well as the New Jersey War Related Illness and Injury Study Center. In addition, we thank Erin McRoberts and Rajeev Swarup for their contributions to the Post-Deployment Cardiopulmonary Evaluation Network. Post-Deployment Cardiopulmonary Evaluation Network members:

Mehrdad Arjomandi, Caroline Davis, Michelle DeLuca, Nancy Eager, Courtney A. Eberhardt, Michael J. Falvo, Timothy Foley, Fiona A.S. Graff, Deborah Heaney, Stella E. Hines, Rachel E. Howard, Nisha Jani, Sheena Kamineni, Silpa Krefft, Mary L. Langlois, Helen Lozier, Simran K. Matharu, Anisa Moore, Lydia Patrick-DeLuca, Edward Pickering, Alexander Rabin, Michelle Robertson, Samantha L. Rogers, Aaron H. Schneider, Anand Shah, Anays Sotolongo, Jennifer H. Therkorn, Rebecca I. Toczylowski, Matthew Watson, Alison D. Wilczynski, Ian W. Wilson, Romi A. Yount.

Case Example

A 37-year-old female never smoker presents to your clinic with progressive dyspnea over the past 15 years. She reports dyspnea on exertion, wheezing, chronic nasal congestion, and difficulty sleeping that started a year after she returned from military deployment to Iraq. She has been unable to exercise, even at low intensity, for the past 5 years, despite being previously active. She has experienced some symptom improvement by taking an albuterol inhaler as needed, loratadine (10 mg), and fluticasone nasal spray (50 mcg). She occasionally uses famotidine for reflux (40 mg). She deployed to Southwest Asia for 12 months (2002-2003) and was primarily stationed in Qayyarah West, an Air Force base in the Mosul district in northern Iraq. She reports exposure during deployment to the fire in the Al-Mishraq sulfur mine, located approximately 25 km north of Qayyarah West, as well as dust storms and burn pits. She currently works as a medical assistant. Her examination is remarkable for normal bronchovesicular breath sounds without any wheezing or crackles on pulmonary evaluation. Her body mass index is 31. You obtain a chest radiograph and spirometry, which are both normal.

The veteran reports feeling frustrated as she has had multiple specialty evaluations in community clinics without receiving a diagnosis, despite worsening symptoms. She reports that she added her information to the Airborne Hazards and Open Burn Pit Registry (AHOBPR). She recently received a letter from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Post-Deployment Cardiopulmonary Evaluation Network (PDCEN) and is asking you whether she should participate in the PDCEN specialty evaluation. You are not familiar with the military experiences she has described or the programs she asks you about; however, you would like to know more to best care for your patient.

Background

The year 2021 marked the 20th anniversary of the September 11 attacks and the launch of the Global War on Terrorism. Almost 3 million US military personnel have been deployed in support of these operations along with about 300,000 US civilian contractors and thousands of troops from more than 40 nations.^1-3

Deployment after 2001 to Afghanistan and the Southwest Asia theater of operations, which includes but is not limited to Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, has been associated with increased prevalence of dyspnea and cough as well as diagnoses of asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and other chronic respiratory diseases.^4-9 Expert committees convened by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine concluded that deployment to the Southwest Asia region and Afghanistan was associated with respiratory symptoms of cough, wheeze, and shortness of breath and might be associated with long-term health effects, particularly in vulnerable (eg, individuals with asthma) or highly exposed populations (eg, those assigned to work at burn pits).^10,11 Several reports have found constrictive bronchiolitis, emphysema, granulomatous inflammation, and pigment deposition on lung biopsy in deployed persons with unexplained dyspnea and subtle, or normal, clinical findings.^12-14

Respiratory hazards associated with deployment to Southwest Asia and Afghanistan are unique and varied. These exposures include blast injuries and a variety of particulate matter sources, such as burn pit combustion byproducts, aeroallergens, and dust storms.^7,8,15,16 One air sampling study conducted at 15 deployment sites in Southwest Asia and Afghanistan found mean fine particulate matter (PM_2.5) levels were as much as 10 times greater than sampling sites in both rural and urban cities in the United States; all sites sampled exceeded military exposure guidelines (65 µg/m³ for 1 year).^17,18 Long-term exposure to PM_2.5 has been associated with the development of chronic respiratory and cardiovascular disease; therefore, there has been considerable attention to the respiratory (and nonrespiratory) health of deployed military personnel.¹⁹

Concerns regarding the association between deployment and lung disease led to the creation of the national VA Airborne Hazards and Open Burn Pit Registry (AHOBPR) in 2014 and consists of (1) an online questionnaire to document deployment and medical history, exposure concerns, and symptoms; and (2) an optional in-person or virtual clinical health evaluation at the individual’s local VA medical center or military treatment facility (MTF). As of March 2022, more than 300,000 individuals have completed the online questionnaire of which about 30% declined the optional clinical health evaluation.

The clinical evaluation available to AHOBPR participants has not yet been described in the literature. Therefore, our objectives are to examine AHOBPR clinical evaluation data and review its application throughout the VA. In addition, we will also describe a parallel effort by the VA PDCEN, which is to provide comprehensive multiday clinical evaluations for unique AHOBPR participants with unexplained dyspnea and self-reported respiratory disease. A secondary aim of this publication is to disseminate information to health care professionals (HCPs) within and outside of the VA to aid in the referral and evaluation of previously deployed veterans who experience unexplained dyspnea.

AHOBPR Overview

The AHOBPR is an online questionnaire and optional in-person health evaluation that includes 7 major categories targeting deployment history, symptoms, medical history, health concerns, residential history, nonmilitary occupational history, nonmilitary environmental exposures, and health care utilization. The VA Defense Information Repository is used to obtain service dates for the service member/veteran, conflict involvement, and primary location during deployment. The questionnaire portion of the AHOBPR is administered online. It currently is open to all veterans who served in the Southwest Asia theater of operations (including Iraq, Kuwait, and Egypt) any time after August 2, 1990, or Afghanistan, Djibouti, Syria, or Uzbekistan after September 11, 2001. Veterans are eligible for completing the AHOBPR and optional health evaluation at no cost to the veteran regardless of VA benefits or whether they are currently enrolled in VA health care. Though the focus of the present manuscript is to profile a VA program, it is important to note that the US Department of Defense (DoD) is an active partner with the VA in the promotion of the AHOBPR to service members and similarly provides health evaluations for active-duty service members (including activating Reserve and Guard) through their local MTF.

We reviewed and analyzed AHOBPR operations and VA data from 2014 to 2020. Our analyses were limited to veterans seeking evaluation as well as their corresponding symptoms and HCP’s clinical impression from the electronic health record. As of September 20, 2021, 267,125 individuals completed the AHOBPR. The mean age was 43 years (range, 19-84), and the majority were male (86%) and served in the Army (58%). Open-air burn pits (91%), engine maintenance (38.8%), and convoy operations (71.7%) were the most common deployment-related exposures.

The optional in-person AHOBPR health evaluation may be requested by the veteran after completing the online questionnaire and is performed at the veteran’s local VA facility. The evaluation is most often completed by an environmental health clinician or primary care practitioner (PCP). A variety of resources are available to providers for training on this topic, including fact sheets, webinars, monthly calls, conferences, and accredited e-learning.²⁰ As part of the clinical evaluation, the veteran’s chief concerns are assessed and evaluated. At the time of our analysis, 24,578 clinical examinations were performed across 126 VA medical facilities, with considerable geographic variation. Veterans receiving evaluations were predominantly male (89%) with a median age of 46.0 years (IQR, 15). Veterans’ major respiratory concerns included dyspnea (45.1%), decreased exercise ability (34.8%), and cough > 3 weeks (30.3%) (Table). After clinical evaluation by a VA or MTF HCP, 47.8% were found to have a respiratory diagnosis, including asthma (30.1%), COPD (12.8%), and bronchitis (11.9%).

Post-Deployment Cardiopulmonary Evaluation Network Clinical Evaluation

In May 2019, the VA established the Airborne Hazards and Burn Pits Center of Excellence (AHBPCE). One of the AHBPCE’s objectives is to deliver specialized care and consultation for veterans with concerns about their postdeployment health, including, but not limited to, unexplained dyspnea. To meet this objective, the AHBPCE developed the PDCEN, a national network consisting of specialty HCPs from 5 VA medical centers—located in San Francisco, California; Denver, Colorado; Baltimore, Maryland; Ann Arbor, Michigan; and East Orange, New Jersey. Collectively, the PDCEN has developed a standardized approach for the comprehensive clinical evaluation of unexplained dyspnea that is implemented uniformly across sites. Staff at the PDCEN screen the AHOBPR to identify veterans with features of respiratory disease and invite them to participate in an in-person evaluation at the nearest PDCEN site. Given the specialty expertise (detailed below) within the Network, the PDCEN focuses on complex cases that are resource intensive. To address complex cases of unexplained dyspnea, the PDCEN has developed a core clinical evaluation approach (Figure).

The first step in a veteran’s PDCEN evaluation entails a set of detailed questionnaires that request information about the veteran’s current respiratory, sleep, and mental health symptoms and any associated medical diagnoses. Questionnaires also identify potential exposures to military burn pits, sulfur mine and oil field fires, diesel exhaust fumes, dust storms, urban pollution, explosions/blasts, and chemical weapons. In addition, the questionnaires include deployment geographic location, which may inform future estimates of particulate matter exposure.²¹ Prior VA and non-VA evaluations and testing of their respiratory concerns are obtained for review. Exposure and health records from the DoD are also reviewed when available.

The next step in the PDCEN evaluation comprises comprehensive testing, including complete pulmonary function testing, methacholine challenge, cardiopulmonary exercise testing, forced oscillometry and exhaled nitric oxide testing, paired high-resolution inspiratory and expiratory chest computed tomography (CT) imaging, sinus CT imaging, direct flexible laryngoscopy, echocardiography, polysomnography, and laboratory blood testing. The testing process is managed by local site coordinators and varies by institution based on availability of each testing modality and subspecialist appointments.

Once testing is completed, the veteran is evaluated by a team of HCPs, including physicians from the disciplines of pulmonary medicine, environmental and occupational health, sleep medicine, otolaryngology and speech pathology, and mental health (when appropriate). After the clinical evaluation has been completed, this team of expert HCPs at each site convenes to provide a final summary review visit intended to be a comprehensive assessment of the veteran’s primary health concerns. The 3 primary objectives of this final review are to inform the veteran of (1) what respiratory and related conditions they have; (2) whether the conditions is/are deployment related; and (3) what treatments and/or follow-up care may enhance their current state of health in partnership with their local HCPs. The PDCEN does not provide ongoing management of any conditions identified during the veteran’s evaluation but communicates findings and recommendations to the veteran and their PCP for long-term care.

Discussion

The AHOBPR was established in response to mounting concerns that service members and veterans were experiencing adverse health effects that might be attributable to deployment-related exposures. Nearly half of all patients currently enrolled in the AHOBPR report dyspnea, and about one-third have decreased exercise tolerance and/or cough. Of those who completed the questionnaire and the subsequent in-person and generalized AHOBPR examination, our interim analysis showed that about half were assigned a respiratory diagnosis. Yet for many veterans, their breathing symptoms remained unexplained or did not respond to treatment.

While the AHOBPR and related examinations address the needs of many veterans, others may require more comprehensive examination. The PDCEN attends to the latter by providing more detailed and comprehensive clinical evaluations of veterans with deployment-related respiratory health concerns and seeks to learn from these evaluations by analyzing data obtained from veterans across sites. As such, the PDCEN hopes not only to improve the health of individual veterans, but also create standard practices for both VA and non-VA community evaluation of veterans exposed to respiratory hazards during deployment.

One of the major challenges in the field of postdeployment respiratory health is the lack of clear universal language or case definitions that encompass the veteran’s clinical concerns. In an influential case series published in 2011, 38 (77%) of 49 soldiers with history of airborne hazard exposure and unexplained exercise intolerance were reported to have histopathology consistent with constrictive bronchiolitis on surgical lung biopsy.¹⁴ Subsequent publications have described other histopathologic features in deployed military personnel, including granulomatous inflammation, interstitial lung disease, emphysema, and pleuritis.^12-14 Reconciling these findings from surgical lung biopsy with the clinical presentation and noninvasive studies has proved difficult. Therefore, several groups of investigators have proposed terms, including postdeployment respiratory syndrome, deployment-related distal lung disease, and Iraq/Afghanistan War lung injury to describe the increased respiratory symptoms and variety of histopathologic and imaging findings in this population.^9,12,22 At present, there remains a lack of consensus on terminology and case definitions as well as the role of military environmental exposures in exacerbating and/or causing these conditions. As HCPs, it is important to appreciate and acknowledge that the ambiguity and controversy pertaining to terminology, causation, and service connections are a common source of frustration experienced by veterans, which are increasingly reflected among reports in popular media and lay press.

A second and related challenge in the field of postdeployment respiratory health that contributes to veteran and HCP frustration is that many of the aforementioned abnormalities described on surgical lung biopsy are not readily identifiable on noninvasive tests, including traditional interpretation of pulmonary function tests or chest CT imaging.^12-14,22 Thus, underlying conditions could be overlooked and veterans’ concerns and symptoms may be dismissed or misattributed to other comorbid conditions. While surgical lung biopsies may offer diagnostic clarity in identifying lung disease, there are significant procedural risks of surgical and anesthetic complications. Furthermore, a definitive diagnosis does not necessarily guarantee a clear treatment plan. For example, there are no current therapies approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of constrictive bronchiolitis.

Research efforts are underway, including within the PDCEN, to evaluate a more sensitive and noninvasive assessment of the small airways that may even reduce or eliminate the need for surgical lung biopsy. In contrast to traditional pulmonary function testing, which is helpful for evaluation of the larger airways, forced oscillation technique can be used noninvasively, using pressure oscillations to evaluate for diseases of the smaller airways and has been used in the veteran population and in those exposed to dust from the World Trade Center disaster.^23-25 Multiple breath washout technique provides a lung clearance index that is determined by the number of lung turnovers it takes to clear the lungs of an inert gas (eg, sulfur hexafluoride, nitrogen). Elevated lung clearance index values suggest ventilation heterogeneity and have been shown to be higher among deployed veterans with dyspnea.^26,27 Finally, advanced CT analytic techniques may help identify functional small airways disease and are higher in deployed service members with constrictive bronchiolitis on surgical lung biopsy.²⁸ These innovative noninvasive techniques are experimental but promising, especially as part of a broader evaluation of small airways disease.

AHOBPR clinical evaluations represent an initial step to better understand postdeployment health conditions available to all AHOBPR participants. The PDCEN clinical evaluation extends the AHOBPR evaluation by providing specialty care for certain veterans requiring more comprehensive evaluation while systematically collecting and analyzing clinical data to advance the field. The VA is committed to leveraging these data and all available expertise to provide a clear description of the spectrum of disease in this population and improve our ability to diagnose, follow, and treat respiratory health conditions occurring after deployment to Southwest Asia and Afghanistan.

Case Conclusion

The veteran was referred to a PDCEN site and underwent a comprehensive multidisciplinary evaluation. Pulmonary function testing showed lung volumes and vital capacity within the predicted normal range, mild air trapping, and a low diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide. Methacholine challenge testing was normal; however, forced oscillometry suggested small airways obstruction. A high-resolution CT showed air trapping without parenchymal changes. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing demonstrated a peak exercise capacity within the predicted normal range but low breathing reserve. Otolaryngology evaluation including laryngoscopy suggested chronic nonallergic rhinitis.

At the end of the veteran’s evaluation, a summary review reported nonallergic rhinitis and distal airway obstruction consistent with small airways disease. Both were reported as most likely related to deployment given her significant environmental exposures and the temporal relationship with her deployment and symptom onset as well as lack of other identifiable causes. A more precise histopathologic diagnosis could be firmly established with a surgical lung biopsy, but after shared decision making with a PDCEN HCP, the patient declined to undergo this invasive procedure. After you review the summary review and recommendations from the PDCEN group, you start the veteran on intranasal steroids and a combined inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β agonist inhaler as well as refer the veteran to pulmonary rehabilitation. After several weeks, she reports an improvement in sleep and nasal symptoms but continues to experience residual exercise intolerance.

This case serves as an example of the significant limitations that a previously active and healthy patient can develop after deployment to Southwest Asia and Afghanistan. Encouraging this veteran to complete the AHOBPR allowed her to be considered for a PDCEN evaluation that provided the opportunity to undergo a comprehensive noninvasive evaluation of her chronic dyspnea. In doing so, she obtained 2 important diagnoses and data from her evaluation will help establish best practices for standardized evaluations of respiratory concerns following deployment. Through the AHOBPR and PDCEN, the VA seeks to better understand postdeployment health conditions, their relationship to military and environmental exposures, and how best to diagnose and treat these conditions.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Airborne Hazards and Burn Pits Center of Excellence (Public Law 115-929). The authors acknowledge support and contributions from Dr. Eric Shuping and leadership at VA’s Health Outcomes Military Exposures office as well as the New Jersey War Related Illness and Injury Study Center. In addition, we thank Erin McRoberts and Rajeev Swarup for their contributions to the Post-Deployment Cardiopulmonary Evaluation Network. Post-Deployment Cardiopulmonary Evaluation Network members:

Mehrdad Arjomandi, Caroline Davis, Michelle DeLuca, Nancy Eager, Courtney A. Eberhardt, Michael J. Falvo, Timothy Foley, Fiona A.S. Graff, Deborah Heaney, Stella E. Hines, Rachel E. Howard, Nisha Jani, Sheena Kamineni, Silpa Krefft, Mary L. Langlois, Helen Lozier, Simran K. Matharu, Anisa Moore, Lydia Patrick-DeLuca, Edward Pickering, Alexander Rabin, Michelle Robertson, Samantha L. Rogers, Aaron H. Schneider, Anand Shah, Anays Sotolongo, Jennifer H. Therkorn, Rebecca I. Toczylowski, Matthew Watson, Alison D. Wilczynski, Ian W. Wilson, Romi A. Yount.

In the past 10 years, artificial intelligence (AI) applications have exploded in numerous fields, including medicine. Myriad publications report that the use of AI in health care is increasing, and AI has shown utility in many medical specialties, eg, pathology, radiology, and oncology.^1,2

In cancer pathology, AI was able not only to detect various cancers, but also to subtype and grade them. In addition, AI could predict survival, the success of therapeutic response, and underlying mutations from histopathologic images.³ In other medical fields, AI applications are as notable. For example, in imaging specialties like radiology, ophthalmology, dermatology, and gastroenterology, AI is being used for image recognition, enhancement, and segmentation. In addition, AI is beneficial for predicting disease progression, survival, and response to therapy in other medical specialties. Finally, AI may help with administrative tasks like scheduling.

However, many obstacles to successfully implementing AI programs in the clinical setting exist, including clinical data limitations and ethical use of data, trust in the AI models, regulatory barriers, and lack of clinical buy-in due to insufficient basic AI understanding.² To address these barriers to successful clinical AI implementation, we decided to create a formal governing body at James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital in Tampa, Florida. Accordingly, the hospital AI committee charter was officially approved on July 22, 2021. Our model could be used by both US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and non-VA hospitals throughout the country.

AI Committee

The vision of the AI committee is to improve outcomes and experiences for our veterans by developing trustworthy AI capabilities to support the VA mission. The mission is to build robust capacity in AI to create and apply innovative AI solutions and transform the VA by facilitating a learning environment that supports the delivery of world-class benefits and services to our veterans. Our vision and mission are aligned with the VA National AI Institute. ⁴

The AI Committee comprises 7 subcommittees: ethics, AI clinical product evaluation, education, data sharing and acquisition, research, 3D printing, and improvement and innovation. The role of the ethics subcommittee is to ensure the ethical and equitable implementation of clinical AI. We created the ethics subcommittee guidelines based on the World Health Organization ethics and governance of AI for health documents.⁵ They include 6 basic principles: protecting human autonomy; promoting human well-being and safety and the public interest; ensuring transparency, explainability, and intelligibility; fostering responsibility and accountability; ensuring inclusiveness and equity; and promoting AI that is responsive and sustainable (Table 1).

Implementations

After a comprehensive evaluation, we implemented 2 ClearRead (Riverain Technologies) AI radiology solutions. ClearRead CT Vessel Suppress produces a secondary series of computed tomography (CT) images, suppressing vessels and other normal structures within the lungs to improve nodule detectability, and ClearRead Xray Bone Suppress, which increases the visibility of soft tissue in standard chest X-rays by suppressing the bone on the digital image without the need for 2 exposures.

The role of the education subcommittee is to educate the staff about AI and how it can improve patient care. Every Friday, we email an AI article of the week to our practitioners. In addition, we publish a newsletter, and we organize an annual AI conference. The first conference in 2022 included speakers from the National AI Institute, Moffitt Cancer Center, the University of South Florida, and our facility.

As the name indicates, the data sharing and acquisition subcommittee oversees preparing data for our clinical and research projects. The role of the research subcommittee is to coordinate and promote AI research with the ultimate goal of improving patient care.

Other Technologies

Although 3D printing does not fall under the umbrella of AI, we have decided to include it in our future-oriented AI committee. We created an online 3D printing course to promote the technology throughout the VA. We 3D print organ models to help surgeons prepare for complicated operations. In addition, together with our colleagues from the University of Florida, we used 3D printing to address the shortage of swabs for COVID-19 testing. The VA Sunshine Healthcare Network (Veterans Integrated Services Network 8) has an active Innovation and Improvement Committee. ⁹ Our improvement and innovation subcommittee serves as a coordinating body with the network committee .

Conclusions

Through the hospital AI committee, we believe that we may overcome many obstacles to successfully implementing AI applications in the clinical setting, including the ethical use of data, trust in the AI models, regulatory barriers, and lack of clinical buy-in due to insufficient basic AI knowledge.

Acknowledgments

This material is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at the James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital.

In the past 10 years, artificial intelligence (AI) applications have exploded in numerous fields, including medicine. Myriad publications report that the use of AI in health care is increasing, and AI has shown utility in many medical specialties, eg, pathology, radiology, and oncology.^1,2

In cancer pathology, AI was able not only to detect various cancers, but also to subtype and grade them. In addition, AI could predict survival, the success of therapeutic response, and underlying mutations from histopathologic images.³ In other medical fields, AI applications are as notable. For example, in imaging specialties like radiology, ophthalmology, dermatology, and gastroenterology, AI is being used for image recognition, enhancement, and segmentation. In addition, AI is beneficial for predicting disease progression, survival, and response to therapy in other medical specialties. Finally, AI may help with administrative tasks like scheduling.

However, many obstacles to successfully implementing AI programs in the clinical setting exist, including clinical data limitations and ethical use of data, trust in the AI models, regulatory barriers, and lack of clinical buy-in due to insufficient basic AI understanding.² To address these barriers to successful clinical AI implementation, we decided to create a formal governing body at James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital in Tampa, Florida. Accordingly, the hospital AI committee charter was officially approved on July 22, 2021. Our model could be used by both US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and non-VA hospitals throughout the country.

AI Committee

The vision of the AI committee is to improve outcomes and experiences for our veterans by developing trustworthy AI capabilities to support the VA mission. The mission is to build robust capacity in AI to create and apply innovative AI solutions and transform the VA by facilitating a learning environment that supports the delivery of world-class benefits and services to our veterans. Our vision and mission are aligned with the VA National AI Institute. ⁴

The AI Committee comprises 7 subcommittees: ethics, AI clinical product evaluation, education, data sharing and acquisition, research, 3D printing, and improvement and innovation. The role of the ethics subcommittee is to ensure the ethical and equitable implementation of clinical AI. We created the ethics subcommittee guidelines based on the World Health Organization ethics and governance of AI for health documents.⁵ They include 6 basic principles: protecting human autonomy; promoting human well-being and safety and the public interest; ensuring transparency, explainability, and intelligibility; fostering responsibility and accountability; ensuring inclusiveness and equity; and promoting AI that is responsive and sustainable (Table 1).

Implementations

After a comprehensive evaluation, we implemented 2 ClearRead (Riverain Technologies) AI radiology solutions. ClearRead CT Vessel Suppress produces a secondary series of computed tomography (CT) images, suppressing vessels and other normal structures within the lungs to improve nodule detectability, and ClearRead Xray Bone Suppress, which increases the visibility of soft tissue in standard chest X-rays by suppressing the bone on the digital image without the need for 2 exposures.

The role of the education subcommittee is to educate the staff about AI and how it can improve patient care. Every Friday, we email an AI article of the week to our practitioners. In addition, we publish a newsletter, and we organize an annual AI conference. The first conference in 2022 included speakers from the National AI Institute, Moffitt Cancer Center, the University of South Florida, and our facility.

As the name indicates, the data sharing and acquisition subcommittee oversees preparing data for our clinical and research projects. The role of the research subcommittee is to coordinate and promote AI research with the ultimate goal of improving patient care.

Other Technologies

Although 3D printing does not fall under the umbrella of AI, we have decided to include it in our future-oriented AI committee. We created an online 3D printing course to promote the technology throughout the VA. We 3D print organ models to help surgeons prepare for complicated operations. In addition, together with our colleagues from the University of Florida, we used 3D printing to address the shortage of swabs for COVID-19 testing. The VA Sunshine Healthcare Network (Veterans Integrated Services Network 8) has an active Innovation and Improvement Committee. ⁹ Our improvement and innovation subcommittee serves as a coordinating body with the network committee .

Conclusions

Through the hospital AI committee, we believe that we may overcome many obstacles to successfully implementing AI applications in the clinical setting, including the ethical use of data, trust in the AI models, regulatory barriers, and lack of clinical buy-in due to insufficient basic AI knowledge.

Acknowledgments

This material is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at the James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital.

In the past 10 years, artificial intelligence (AI) applications have exploded in numerous fields, including medicine. Myriad publications report that the use of AI in health care is increasing, and AI has shown utility in many medical specialties, eg, pathology, radiology, and oncology.^1,2

In cancer pathology, AI was able not only to detect various cancers, but also to subtype and grade them. In addition, AI could predict survival, the success of therapeutic response, and underlying mutations from histopathologic images.³ In other medical fields, AI applications are as notable. For example, in imaging specialties like radiology, ophthalmology, dermatology, and gastroenterology, AI is being used for image recognition, enhancement, and segmentation. In addition, AI is beneficial for predicting disease progression, survival, and response to therapy in other medical specialties. Finally, AI may help with administrative tasks like scheduling.

However, many obstacles to successfully implementing AI programs in the clinical setting exist, including clinical data limitations and ethical use of data, trust in the AI models, regulatory barriers, and lack of clinical buy-in due to insufficient basic AI understanding.² To address these barriers to successful clinical AI implementation, we decided to create a formal governing body at James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital in Tampa, Florida. Accordingly, the hospital AI committee charter was officially approved on July 22, 2021. Our model could be used by both US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and non-VA hospitals throughout the country.

AI Committee

The vision of the AI committee is to improve outcomes and experiences for our veterans by developing trustworthy AI capabilities to support the VA mission. The mission is to build robust capacity in AI to create and apply innovative AI solutions and transform the VA by facilitating a learning environment that supports the delivery of world-class benefits and services to our veterans. Our vision and mission are aligned with the VA National AI Institute. ⁴

The AI Committee comprises 7 subcommittees: ethics, AI clinical product evaluation, education, data sharing and acquisition, research, 3D printing, and improvement and innovation. The role of the ethics subcommittee is to ensure the ethical and equitable implementation of clinical AI. We created the ethics subcommittee guidelines based on the World Health Organization ethics and governance of AI for health documents.⁵ They include 6 basic principles: protecting human autonomy; promoting human well-being and safety and the public interest; ensuring transparency, explainability, and intelligibility; fostering responsibility and accountability; ensuring inclusiveness and equity; and promoting AI that is responsive and sustainable (Table 1).

Implementations

After a comprehensive evaluation, we implemented 2 ClearRead (Riverain Technologies) AI radiology solutions. ClearRead CT Vessel Suppress produces a secondary series of computed tomography (CT) images, suppressing vessels and other normal structures within the lungs to improve nodule detectability, and ClearRead Xray Bone Suppress, which increases the visibility of soft tissue in standard chest X-rays by suppressing the bone on the digital image without the need for 2 exposures.

The role of the education subcommittee is to educate the staff about AI and how it can improve patient care. Every Friday, we email an AI article of the week to our practitioners. In addition, we publish a newsletter, and we organize an annual AI conference. The first conference in 2022 included speakers from the National AI Institute, Moffitt Cancer Center, the University of South Florida, and our facility.

As the name indicates, the data sharing and acquisition subcommittee oversees preparing data for our clinical and research projects. The role of the research subcommittee is to coordinate and promote AI research with the ultimate goal of improving patient care.

Other Technologies

Although 3D printing does not fall under the umbrella of AI, we have decided to include it in our future-oriented AI committee. We created an online 3D printing course to promote the technology throughout the VA. We 3D print organ models to help surgeons prepare for complicated operations. In addition, together with our colleagues from the University of Florida, we used 3D printing to address the shortage of swabs for COVID-19 testing. The VA Sunshine Healthcare Network (Veterans Integrated Services Network 8) has an active Innovation and Improvement Committee. ⁹ Our improvement and innovation subcommittee serves as a coordinating body with the network committee .

Conclusions

Through the hospital AI committee, we believe that we may overcome many obstacles to successfully implementing AI applications in the clinical setting, including the ethical use of data, trust in the AI models, regulatory barriers, and lack of clinical buy-in due to insufficient basic AI knowledge.

Acknowledgments

This material is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at the James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital.

Reinfection rates are low after treating hepatitis C virus in people taking opioid agonist therapy (OAT), even among those who still inject drugs, according to a new study.

The findings, which are based on prospective data from 13 countries, including the United States, and were published in Annals of Internal Medicine (2022 Aug 8. doi: 10.7326/M21-4119), should encourage physicians to treat HCV in people with a history of injection drug use, said lead author Jason Grebely, PhD. They should also pressure payers to lift reimbursement restrictions on the same population.

“Direct-acting antiviral medications for HCV infection are safe and effective among people receiving OAT and people with recent injecting-drug use,” the investigators wrote. “Concerns remain, however, that HCV reinfection may reduce the benefits of cure among people who inject drugs and compromise HCV elimination efforts.”

They explored these concerns through a 3-year extension of the phase 3 CO-STAR trial that evaluated elbasvir and grazoprevir in people consistently taking OAT. Participants in the CO-STAR trial, which had a 96% sustained virologic response rate among those who completed therapy, could elect to participate in the present study, offering a prospective look at long-term reinfection.

Out of 296 participants in the CO-STAR trial, 286 were evaluable for reinfection and 199 enrolled in the present extension. The majority were White (79.4%) and male (75.9%), with most taking methadone (79%), followed by buprenorphine (20%). At 6 months, 40 out of 191 respondents (21%) reported injection-drug use in the previous month. At the 3-year mark, 26 out of 142 respondents (18%) disclosed injection-drug use in the previous month.

For all participants in the CO-STAR trial, the overall rate of reinfection at 3 years was 1.7 per 100 person-years (95% confidence interval, 0.8-3.0), which is lower than the rate reported in systematic reviews (3.8 per 100 person-years), according to the investigators.

In the extension analysis, the 3-year reinfection rate was lower still, at 1.2 per 100 person-years. The rate was slightly higher among people who reported injection-drug use in the previous month (1.9 per 100 person-years), and slightly lower among those who did not report injection-drug use in the prior month (0.5 per 100 person-years). More pronounced differences in reinfection were observed among participants who shared needles (6.4 per 100 person-years), versus those who didn’t share needles (1.5 per 100 person years).
 

Low reinfection rate may help facilitate removal of reimbursement restrictions

“Most of the reinfections in this study occurred within 24 weeks of completing treatment, suggesting that this is a key period for optimizing treatment of opioid use disorder and for providing access to needle and syringe programs that have documented benefits in preventing HCV transmission,” the investigators wrote.

This is one of the largest observational studies of its kind to date, bolstered by “excellent study retention” and a “well-characterized cohort,” with findings that should prompt real-world action, said Dr. Grebely, who is head of the hepatitis C and drug use group in the viral hepatitis clinical research program at the Kirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney.

“Given that reinfection has often been cited ... by some providers as a reason for not offering treatment to people receiving OAT, the low reinfection rate in this study will be incredibly important for guiding practice and ensuring therapy is not withheld from this group,” Dr. Grebely said in an interview. “In terms of policy implications, these data may also help to facilitate the removal of reimbursement restrictions based on recent drug/alcohol use criteria that are in place among many payers in the United States.”
 

More research needed to determine optimal intervention strategies

Carl Latkin, PhD, professor and vice chair of the department of health, behavior, and society at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, called the present publication a “great article and well-done study with long-term follow-up.”

Dr. Latkin, who investigates biobehavioral interventions for disadvantaged communities, said the reported rate of reinfection is “very low among a group of current and former injectors.”

Affirming Dr. Grebely’s call for supportive practices by physicians and payers, Dr. Latkin said: “The study highlights the importance of improving access to medication for opioid use disorder. This level of treatment adherence in this group is much higher than for many other medications. Given these data, it would be difficult for payers to have a rational reason for blanket restrictions for HCV treatment among people who use drugs.”

Dr. Latkin explained that “it isn’t simply injection drug use per se” that drives HCV reinfection; instead, he cited social factors, such as lack of housing, as well as withdrawal symptoms, especially among those without access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD).

Dr. Latkin and Grebely also agreed that more research is needed to determine optimal intervention strategies.

Dr. Grebely called for one to enhance HCV testing and linkage to care, a topic he covered in a recent review article (Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022 May;7[5]:426-45.).

Dr. Latkin said that, while it’s clear that “syringe services programs, accessible HCV treatment, and MOUD are needed,” it is unclear how much coverage is necessary for a given population.

Findings support critical nature of needle and syringe exchange programs

Sarah M. Kattakuzhy, MD, an associate professor in the division of clinical care & research at the Institute of Human Virology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, agreed that the findings “support the critical nature of needle and syringe exchange programs.”

“As most cities in the United States fall well below the high coverage needle and syringe program threshold required to maximally prevent disease transmission, the study serves as a push toward an evidence-based harm reduction policy,” she said.

Dr. Kattakuzhy he added that the study “supports the need to longitudinally engage individuals after HCV treatment to monitor reinfection risk behaviors and test for reinfection,” she continued.

When it came to translating all the data to populations in the United States, she offered a more guarded view.

“Critically, the study population included only individuals who were engaged with OAT and adherent for 3 or more months, selecting to a population of individuals with high adherence and engagement in care,” Dr. Kattakuzhy said in an interview. “As such, the study findings are not applicable to other cross sections of the drug-using community, including individuals not engaged in OAT, and cohorts with higher rates of ongoing injection drug use. Furthermore, there are known genetic impacts on spontaneous clearance, and emerging data on the immunology of reinfection.

“Studies with a focus on less engaged, higher-risk, and minority populations with active drug use are required to answer the remaining questions in HCV reinfection,” she said.

The study was supported by Merck, the Australian Government Department of Health, and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Dr. Grebely disclosed receiving funding from Cepheid, the manufacturer of the Xpert HCV assay. The other investigators disclosed additional relationships with Gilead, AbbVie, Cepheid, and others. Dr. Latkin and Dr. Kattakuzhy disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

Reinfection rates are low after treating hepatitis C virus in people taking opioid agonist therapy (OAT), even among those who still inject drugs, according to a new study.

The findings, which are based on prospective data from 13 countries, including the United States, and were published in Annals of Internal Medicine (2022 Aug 8. doi: 10.7326/M21-4119), should encourage physicians to treat HCV in people with a history of injection drug use, said lead author Jason Grebely, PhD. They should also pressure payers to lift reimbursement restrictions on the same population.

“Direct-acting antiviral medications for HCV infection are safe and effective among people receiving OAT and people with recent injecting-drug use,” the investigators wrote. “Concerns remain, however, that HCV reinfection may reduce the benefits of cure among people who inject drugs and compromise HCV elimination efforts.”

They explored these concerns through a 3-year extension of the phase 3 CO-STAR trial that evaluated elbasvir and grazoprevir in people consistently taking OAT. Participants in the CO-STAR trial, which had a 96% sustained virologic response rate among those who completed therapy, could elect to participate in the present study, offering a prospective look at long-term reinfection.

Out of 296 participants in the CO-STAR trial, 286 were evaluable for reinfection and 199 enrolled in the present extension. The majority were White (79.4%) and male (75.9%), with most taking methadone (79%), followed by buprenorphine (20%). At 6 months, 40 out of 191 respondents (21%) reported injection-drug use in the previous month. At the 3-year mark, 26 out of 142 respondents (18%) disclosed injection-drug use in the previous month.

For all participants in the CO-STAR trial, the overall rate of reinfection at 3 years was 1.7 per 100 person-years (95% confidence interval, 0.8-3.0), which is lower than the rate reported in systematic reviews (3.8 per 100 person-years), according to the investigators.

In the extension analysis, the 3-year reinfection rate was lower still, at 1.2 per 100 person-years. The rate was slightly higher among people who reported injection-drug use in the previous month (1.9 per 100 person-years), and slightly lower among those who did not report injection-drug use in the prior month (0.5 per 100 person-years). More pronounced differences in reinfection were observed among participants who shared needles (6.4 per 100 person-years), versus those who didn’t share needles (1.5 per 100 person years).
 

Low reinfection rate may help facilitate removal of reimbursement restrictions

“Most of the reinfections in this study occurred within 24 weeks of completing treatment, suggesting that this is a key period for optimizing treatment of opioid use disorder and for providing access to needle and syringe programs that have documented benefits in preventing HCV transmission,” the investigators wrote.

This is one of the largest observational studies of its kind to date, bolstered by “excellent study retention” and a “well-characterized cohort,” with findings that should prompt real-world action, said Dr. Grebely, who is head of the hepatitis C and drug use group in the viral hepatitis clinical research program at the Kirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney.

“Given that reinfection has often been cited ... by some providers as a reason for not offering treatment to people receiving OAT, the low reinfection rate in this study will be incredibly important for guiding practice and ensuring therapy is not withheld from this group,” Dr. Grebely said in an interview. “In terms of policy implications, these data may also help to facilitate the removal of reimbursement restrictions based on recent drug/alcohol use criteria that are in place among many payers in the United States.”
 

More research needed to determine optimal intervention strategies

Carl Latkin, PhD, professor and vice chair of the department of health, behavior, and society at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, called the present publication a “great article and well-done study with long-term follow-up.”

Dr. Latkin, who investigates biobehavioral interventions for disadvantaged communities, said the reported rate of reinfection is “very low among a group of current and former injectors.”

Affirming Dr. Grebely’s call for supportive practices by physicians and payers, Dr. Latkin said: “The study highlights the importance of improving access to medication for opioid use disorder. This level of treatment adherence in this group is much higher than for many other medications. Given these data, it would be difficult for payers to have a rational reason for blanket restrictions for HCV treatment among people who use drugs.”

Dr. Latkin explained that “it isn’t simply injection drug use per se” that drives HCV reinfection; instead, he cited social factors, such as lack of housing, as well as withdrawal symptoms, especially among those without access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD).

Dr. Latkin and Grebely also agreed that more research is needed to determine optimal intervention strategies.

Dr. Grebely called for one to enhance HCV testing and linkage to care, a topic he covered in a recent review article (Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022 May;7[5]:426-45.).

Dr. Latkin said that, while it’s clear that “syringe services programs, accessible HCV treatment, and MOUD are needed,” it is unclear how much coverage is necessary for a given population.

Findings support critical nature of needle and syringe exchange programs

Sarah M. Kattakuzhy, MD, an associate professor in the division of clinical care & research at the Institute of Human Virology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, agreed that the findings “support the critical nature of needle and syringe exchange programs.”

“As most cities in the United States fall well below the high coverage needle and syringe program threshold required to maximally prevent disease transmission, the study serves as a push toward an evidence-based harm reduction policy,” she said.

Dr. Kattakuzhy he added that the study “supports the need to longitudinally engage individuals after HCV treatment to monitor reinfection risk behaviors and test for reinfection,” she continued.

When it came to translating all the data to populations in the United States, she offered a more guarded view.

“Critically, the study population included only individuals who were engaged with OAT and adherent for 3 or more months, selecting to a population of individuals with high adherence and engagement in care,” Dr. Kattakuzhy said in an interview. “As such, the study findings are not applicable to other cross sections of the drug-using community, including individuals not engaged in OAT, and cohorts with higher rates of ongoing injection drug use. Furthermore, there are known genetic impacts on spontaneous clearance, and emerging data on the immunology of reinfection.

“Studies with a focus on less engaged, higher-risk, and minority populations with active drug use are required to answer the remaining questions in HCV reinfection,” she said.

The study was supported by Merck, the Australian Government Department of Health, and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Dr. Grebely disclosed receiving funding from Cepheid, the manufacturer of the Xpert HCV assay. The other investigators disclosed additional relationships with Gilead, AbbVie, Cepheid, and others. Dr. Latkin and Dr. Kattakuzhy disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

Reinfection rates are low after treating hepatitis C virus in people taking opioid agonist therapy (OAT), even among those who still inject drugs, according to a new study.

The findings, which are based on prospective data from 13 countries, including the United States, and were published in Annals of Internal Medicine (2022 Aug 8. doi: 10.7326/M21-4119), should encourage physicians to treat HCV in people with a history of injection drug use, said lead author Jason Grebely, PhD. They should also pressure payers to lift reimbursement restrictions on the same population.

“Direct-acting antiviral medications for HCV infection are safe and effective among people receiving OAT and people with recent injecting-drug use,” the investigators wrote. “Concerns remain, however, that HCV reinfection may reduce the benefits of cure among people who inject drugs and compromise HCV elimination efforts.”

They explored these concerns through a 3-year extension of the phase 3 CO-STAR trial that evaluated elbasvir and grazoprevir in people consistently taking OAT. Participants in the CO-STAR trial, which had a 96% sustained virologic response rate among those who completed therapy, could elect to participate in the present study, offering a prospective look at long-term reinfection.

Out of 296 participants in the CO-STAR trial, 286 were evaluable for reinfection and 199 enrolled in the present extension. The majority were White (79.4%) and male (75.9%), with most taking methadone (79%), followed by buprenorphine (20%). At 6 months, 40 out of 191 respondents (21%) reported injection-drug use in the previous month. At the 3-year mark, 26 out of 142 respondents (18%) disclosed injection-drug use in the previous month.

For all participants in the CO-STAR trial, the overall rate of reinfection at 3 years was 1.7 per 100 person-years (95% confidence interval, 0.8-3.0), which is lower than the rate reported in systematic reviews (3.8 per 100 person-years), according to the investigators.

In the extension analysis, the 3-year reinfection rate was lower still, at 1.2 per 100 person-years. The rate was slightly higher among people who reported injection-drug use in the previous month (1.9 per 100 person-years), and slightly lower among those who did not report injection-drug use in the prior month (0.5 per 100 person-years). More pronounced differences in reinfection were observed among participants who shared needles (6.4 per 100 person-years), versus those who didn’t share needles (1.5 per 100 person years).
 

Low reinfection rate may help facilitate removal of reimbursement restrictions

“Most of the reinfections in this study occurred within 24 weeks of completing treatment, suggesting that this is a key period for optimizing treatment of opioid use disorder and for providing access to needle and syringe programs that have documented benefits in preventing HCV transmission,” the investigators wrote.

This is one of the largest observational studies of its kind to date, bolstered by “excellent study retention” and a “well-characterized cohort,” with findings that should prompt real-world action, said Dr. Grebely, who is head of the hepatitis C and drug use group in the viral hepatitis clinical research program at the Kirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney.

“Given that reinfection has often been cited ... by some providers as a reason for not offering treatment to people receiving OAT, the low reinfection rate in this study will be incredibly important for guiding practice and ensuring therapy is not withheld from this group,” Dr. Grebely said in an interview. “In terms of policy implications, these data may also help to facilitate the removal of reimbursement restrictions based on recent drug/alcohol use criteria that are in place among many payers in the United States.”
 

More research needed to determine optimal intervention strategies

Carl Latkin, PhD, professor and vice chair of the department of health, behavior, and society at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, called the present publication a “great article and well-done study with long-term follow-up.”

Dr. Latkin, who investigates biobehavioral interventions for disadvantaged communities, said the reported rate of reinfection is “very low among a group of current and former injectors.”

Affirming Dr. Grebely’s call for supportive practices by physicians and payers, Dr. Latkin said: “The study highlights the importance of improving access to medication for opioid use disorder. This level of treatment adherence in this group is much higher than for many other medications. Given these data, it would be difficult for payers to have a rational reason for blanket restrictions for HCV treatment among people who use drugs.”

Dr. Latkin explained that “it isn’t simply injection drug use per se” that drives HCV reinfection; instead, he cited social factors, such as lack of housing, as well as withdrawal symptoms, especially among those without access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD).

Dr. Latkin and Grebely also agreed that more research is needed to determine optimal intervention strategies.

Dr. Grebely called for one to enhance HCV testing and linkage to care, a topic he covered in a recent review article (Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022 May;7[5]:426-45.).

Dr. Latkin said that, while it’s clear that “syringe services programs, accessible HCV treatment, and MOUD are needed,” it is unclear how much coverage is necessary for a given population.

Findings support critical nature of needle and syringe exchange programs

Sarah M. Kattakuzhy, MD, an associate professor in the division of clinical care & research at the Institute of Human Virology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, agreed that the findings “support the critical nature of needle and syringe exchange programs.”

“As most cities in the United States fall well below the high coverage needle and syringe program threshold required to maximally prevent disease transmission, the study serves as a push toward an evidence-based harm reduction policy,” she said.

Dr. Kattakuzhy he added that the study “supports the need to longitudinally engage individuals after HCV treatment to monitor reinfection risk behaviors and test for reinfection,” she continued.

When it came to translating all the data to populations in the United States, she offered a more guarded view.

“Critically, the study population included only individuals who were engaged with OAT and adherent for 3 or more months, selecting to a population of individuals with high adherence and engagement in care,” Dr. Kattakuzhy said in an interview. “As such, the study findings are not applicable to other cross sections of the drug-using community, including individuals not engaged in OAT, and cohorts with higher rates of ongoing injection drug use. Furthermore, there are known genetic impacts on spontaneous clearance, and emerging data on the immunology of reinfection.

“Studies with a focus on less engaged, higher-risk, and minority populations with active drug use are required to answer the remaining questions in HCV reinfection,” she said.

The study was supported by Merck, the Australian Government Department of Health, and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Dr. Grebely disclosed receiving funding from Cepheid, the manufacturer of the Xpert HCV assay. The other investigators disclosed additional relationships with Gilead, AbbVie, Cepheid, and others. Dr. Latkin and Dr. Kattakuzhy disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

Healthy children who are underweight in the first 2 years of life continue with a lower-than-average body mass index and height-for-age through age 10, according to new research.

The association was most pronounced for girls, as well as for children with lower growth rates, write the authors of the prospective Canadian cohort study published in JAMA Network Open.

The findings “highlight the importance of preventing underweight in early life,” because this can have “lasting effects” in later childhood, senior author Jonathon L. Maguire, MD, from St Michael’s Hospital Pediatric Clinic, and the University of Toronto said in an interview.
 

Methods and results

The study recruited 5,803 healthy children, mean age 4.07 months, between February 2008 and September 2020 during well-child visits at clinics in The Applied Research Group for Kids! (TARGet Kids!) practice-based research network in Canada. The study’s exclusion criteria included a premature birth, or a health condition affecting growth.

The primary outcome of the study was the child’s age- and sex-adjusted weight, also known as the body mass index z score (zBMI), between the ages of 2 and 10 years.

At baseline, a total of 550 children (9.5%) were classified as underweight, based on the World Health Organization definition of zBMI less than –2. Underweight children were more likely to be younger, have lower birth weight, and to report Asian maternal ethnicity, the researchers observed.

The study found that, compared with children with normal weight, those who were underweight in the first 2 years had lower zBMI at ages 5 and 10 years (–0.49 and –0.39 respectively). This meant that at 10 years old, they were a mean of 1.23 kg lighter than 10-year-olds who had been normal weight at age 2 years.

Height-for-age z score (HAZ) was also lower for underweight 2-year-olds (–0.24), making them a mean of 0.68 cm shorter than normal-weight 2-year-olds. This difference was attenuated at age 5 years.

Growth rate modified the association of underweight with both zBMI and HAZ. Among children who were underweight in the first 2 years, those with lower growth rate had lower zBMI at 10 years (–0.64) compared with those with average (–0.38) or high growth rate (0.11). Similarly, children who were underweight and had a lower growth rate at age 2 years also a lower HAZ at age 10 years (–0.12), compared with those with average (0.02) or high growth rates (0.16). These effects were more pronounced in girls.
 

Increased health risks linked with chronic underweight

This study did not assess the reasons for early underweight, Dr. Maguire commented in an interview. But, he cited challenges with dietary transitions as a possible explanation.

“Considerable dietary changes happen around 2 years of age with increasing diversity of foods as children transition from primarily liquid foods to primarily solid foods,” he noted.

Asked for comment on the study, Colleen Spees, PhD, associate professor in the division of medical dietetics and director of Hope lab at the Ohio State University, Columbus, said that “at age 10, it’s not surprising to see a lower zBMI and height-for-age in those that were underweight at age 2 with poor growth trajectories.”

Although, this is the first study she is aware of to document these findings in a Canadian cohort, “the results align with what we know about low birth weight and underweight infants and children in terms of linear growth trajectories from child stunting studies,” Dr. Spees said.

She said child stunting, which is more common in less developed countries where children have lower birth weights and greater socioeconomic and environmental risk factors, is defined by the WHO as impaired linear growth with adverse functional consequences.

“In short, a chronic underweight status in infants and young children can lead to greater risk of malnutrition, vitamin and mineral deficiencies, decreased immune function, as well as physical growth and development issues,” she said. “Hence, the most recent 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans now includes both pregnancy, breastfeeding, and the first 2 years of life (referred to as the “first 1,000 days”) in their recommendations.”

She added that, if caregivers are concerned about their child’s weight, they should consult with their pediatrician to rule out any medical issues. If no medical issues are identified, they should ask for a referral to a pediatric dietitian.

The study was funded by the Canadian Institute of Health Research. Dr Maguire reported receiving grants from the CIHR, Physician Services, Ontario SPOR Support Unit, and Dairy Farmers of Canada during the conduct of the study and nonfinancial support from DDrops outside the submitted work. Other authors of the paper reported receiving grants from various institutions. Dr. Spees reported no relevant disclosures.

Healthy children who are underweight in the first 2 years of life continue with a lower-than-average body mass index and height-for-age through age 10, according to new research.

The association was most pronounced for girls, as well as for children with lower growth rates, write the authors of the prospective Canadian cohort study published in JAMA Network Open.

The findings “highlight the importance of preventing underweight in early life,” because this can have “lasting effects” in later childhood, senior author Jonathon L. Maguire, MD, from St Michael’s Hospital Pediatric Clinic, and the University of Toronto said in an interview.
 

Methods and results

The study recruited 5,803 healthy children, mean age 4.07 months, between February 2008 and September 2020 during well-child visits at clinics in The Applied Research Group for Kids! (TARGet Kids!) practice-based research network in Canada. The study’s exclusion criteria included a premature birth, or a health condition affecting growth.

The primary outcome of the study was the child’s age- and sex-adjusted weight, also known as the body mass index z score (zBMI), between the ages of 2 and 10 years.

At baseline, a total of 550 children (9.5%) were classified as underweight, based on the World Health Organization definition of zBMI less than –2. Underweight children were more likely to be younger, have lower birth weight, and to report Asian maternal ethnicity, the researchers observed.

The study found that, compared with children with normal weight, those who were underweight in the first 2 years had lower zBMI at ages 5 and 10 years (–0.49 and –0.39 respectively). This meant that at 10 years old, they were a mean of 1.23 kg lighter than 10-year-olds who had been normal weight at age 2 years.

Height-for-age z score (HAZ) was also lower for underweight 2-year-olds (–0.24), making them a mean of 0.68 cm shorter than normal-weight 2-year-olds. This difference was attenuated at age 5 years.

Growth rate modified the association of underweight with both zBMI and HAZ. Among children who were underweight in the first 2 years, those with lower growth rate had lower zBMI at 10 years (–0.64) compared with those with average (–0.38) or high growth rate (0.11). Similarly, children who were underweight and had a lower growth rate at age 2 years also a lower HAZ at age 10 years (–0.12), compared with those with average (0.02) or high growth rates (0.16). These effects were more pronounced in girls.
 

Increased health risks linked with chronic underweight

This study did not assess the reasons for early underweight, Dr. Maguire commented in an interview. But, he cited challenges with dietary transitions as a possible explanation.

“Considerable dietary changes happen around 2 years of age with increasing diversity of foods as children transition from primarily liquid foods to primarily solid foods,” he noted.

Asked for comment on the study, Colleen Spees, PhD, associate professor in the division of medical dietetics and director of Hope lab at the Ohio State University, Columbus, said that “at age 10, it’s not surprising to see a lower zBMI and height-for-age in those that were underweight at age 2 with poor growth trajectories.”

Although, this is the first study she is aware of to document these findings in a Canadian cohort, “the results align with what we know about low birth weight and underweight infants and children in terms of linear growth trajectories from child stunting studies,” Dr. Spees said.

She said child stunting, which is more common in less developed countries where children have lower birth weights and greater socioeconomic and environmental risk factors, is defined by the WHO as impaired linear growth with adverse functional consequences.

“In short, a chronic underweight status in infants and young children can lead to greater risk of malnutrition, vitamin and mineral deficiencies, decreased immune function, as well as physical growth and development issues,” she said. “Hence, the most recent 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans now includes both pregnancy, breastfeeding, and the first 2 years of life (referred to as the “first 1,000 days”) in their recommendations.”

She added that, if caregivers are concerned about their child’s weight, they should consult with their pediatrician to rule out any medical issues. If no medical issues are identified, they should ask for a referral to a pediatric dietitian.

The study was funded by the Canadian Institute of Health Research. Dr Maguire reported receiving grants from the CIHR, Physician Services, Ontario SPOR Support Unit, and Dairy Farmers of Canada during the conduct of the study and nonfinancial support from DDrops outside the submitted work. Other authors of the paper reported receiving grants from various institutions. Dr. Spees reported no relevant disclosures.

Healthy children who are underweight in the first 2 years of life continue with a lower-than-average body mass index and height-for-age through age 10, according to new research.

The association was most pronounced for girls, as well as for children with lower growth rates, write the authors of the prospective Canadian cohort study published in JAMA Network Open.

The findings “highlight the importance of preventing underweight in early life,” because this can have “lasting effects” in later childhood, senior author Jonathon L. Maguire, MD, from St Michael’s Hospital Pediatric Clinic, and the University of Toronto said in an interview.
 

Methods and results

The study recruited 5,803 healthy children, mean age 4.07 months, between February 2008 and September 2020 during well-child visits at clinics in The Applied Research Group for Kids! (TARGet Kids!) practice-based research network in Canada. The study’s exclusion criteria included a premature birth, or a health condition affecting growth.

The primary outcome of the study was the child’s age- and sex-adjusted weight, also known as the body mass index z score (zBMI), between the ages of 2 and 10 years.

At baseline, a total of 550 children (9.5%) were classified as underweight, based on the World Health Organization definition of zBMI less than –2. Underweight children were more likely to be younger, have lower birth weight, and to report Asian maternal ethnicity, the researchers observed.

The study found that, compared with children with normal weight, those who were underweight in the first 2 years had lower zBMI at ages 5 and 10 years (–0.49 and –0.39 respectively). This meant that at 10 years old, they were a mean of 1.23 kg lighter than 10-year-olds who had been normal weight at age 2 years.

Height-for-age z score (HAZ) was also lower for underweight 2-year-olds (–0.24), making them a mean of 0.68 cm shorter than normal-weight 2-year-olds. This difference was attenuated at age 5 years.

Growth rate modified the association of underweight with both zBMI and HAZ. Among children who were underweight in the first 2 years, those with lower growth rate had lower zBMI at 10 years (–0.64) compared with those with average (–0.38) or high growth rate (0.11). Similarly, children who were underweight and had a lower growth rate at age 2 years also a lower HAZ at age 10 years (–0.12), compared with those with average (0.02) or high growth rates (0.16). These effects were more pronounced in girls.
 

Increased health risks linked with chronic underweight

This study did not assess the reasons for early underweight, Dr. Maguire commented in an interview. But, he cited challenges with dietary transitions as a possible explanation.

“Considerable dietary changes happen around 2 years of age with increasing diversity of foods as children transition from primarily liquid foods to primarily solid foods,” he noted.

Asked for comment on the study, Colleen Spees, PhD, associate professor in the division of medical dietetics and director of Hope lab at the Ohio State University, Columbus, said that “at age 10, it’s not surprising to see a lower zBMI and height-for-age in those that were underweight at age 2 with poor growth trajectories.”

Although, this is the first study she is aware of to document these findings in a Canadian cohort, “the results align with what we know about low birth weight and underweight infants and children in terms of linear growth trajectories from child stunting studies,” Dr. Spees said.

She said child stunting, which is more common in less developed countries where children have lower birth weights and greater socioeconomic and environmental risk factors, is defined by the WHO as impaired linear growth with adverse functional consequences.

“In short, a chronic underweight status in infants and young children can lead to greater risk of malnutrition, vitamin and mineral deficiencies, decreased immune function, as well as physical growth and development issues,” she said. “Hence, the most recent 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans now includes both pregnancy, breastfeeding, and the first 2 years of life (referred to as the “first 1,000 days”) in their recommendations.”

She added that, if caregivers are concerned about their child’s weight, they should consult with their pediatrician to rule out any medical issues. If no medical issues are identified, they should ask for a referral to a pediatric dietitian.

The study was funded by the Canadian Institute of Health Research. Dr Maguire reported receiving grants from the CIHR, Physician Services, Ontario SPOR Support Unit, and Dairy Farmers of Canada during the conduct of the study and nonfinancial support from DDrops outside the submitted work. Other authors of the paper reported receiving grants from various institutions. Dr. Spees reported no relevant disclosures.

People with elevated levels of protein prostasin seem to have a higher risk of developing diabetes and dying from cancer, according to a large, prospective, population-based study. The finding may provide new insights into why people with diabetes have an increased risk of cancer.

The study claims to be the first to investigate the link between plasma prostasin levels and cancer mortality, the study authors wrote in Diabetologia. The study analyzed plasma prostasin samples from 4,297 older adults (average age, 57.5 years) from the Malmö (Sweden) Diet and Cancer Study Cardiovascular Cohort.

“This study from the general population shows that prostasin, a protein that could be measured in blood, is associated with increased risk of developing diabetes,” senior author Gunnar Engström, MD, PhD, professor of epidemiology at Lund University in Malmö, Sweden, said in a comment. “Furthermore, it was associated with increased risk of death from cancer, especially in individuals with elevated glucose levels in the prediabetic range.

“The relationship between diabetes and cancer is poorly understood,” Dr. Engström said. “To our knowledge, this is the first big population study of prostasin and risk of diabetes.”

He noted previous studies have found a relationship between prostasin and cancer outcomes. “Prostasin could be a possible shared link between  the two diseases and the results could help us understand why individuals with diabetes have increased risk of cancer.”

Patients in the study were assigned to quartiles based on prostasin levels. Those in the highest quartile had almost twice the risk of prevalent diabetes than did those in the lowest quartile (adjusted odds ratio, 1.95; 95% confidence interval, 1.39-2.76; P < .0001).

During the follow-up periods of 21.9 years for diabetes and 23.5 years for cancer, on average, 702 participants developed diabetes and 651 died from cancer. Again, the analysis found a significantly higher adjusted hazard ratio for participants in the fourth quartile: about 75% higher for diabetes (HR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.41-2.19; P < .0001), and, after multivariable analysis, about 40% higher for death from cancer (HR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.14-1.8; P = .0008).
 

Potential diabetes-cancer ‘interaction’

The study also identified what it called “a significant interaction” between prostasin and fasting blood glucose for cancer mortality risk (P = .022). In patients with impaired fasting blood glucose levels at baseline, the risk for cancer mortality was about 50% greater with each standard deviation increase in prostasin (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.07-2.16; P = .019). Those with normal fasting blood glucose at baseline had a significantly lower risk with each SD increase in prostasin (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.01-1.21; P = .025).

Further research is needed to validate the potential of prostasin as a biomarker for diabetes and cancer risks, Dr. Engström said. “The results need to be replicated in other studies. A study of cancer mortality in a big cohort of diabetes patients would be of great interest. We also need to examine whether prostasin is causally related to cancer and/or diabetes, or whether prostasin could act as a valuable risk marker in clinical settings. If causal, there could a possible molecular target for treatment.”

He added: “Biomarkers of diabetes and cancer are of great interest in the era of personalized medicine, both for disease prevention and for treatment of those with established disease.”

Li-Mei Chen, MD, PhD, a research associate professor at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, has studied the role of prostasin in epidemiology. She noted that one of the challenges of using prostasin in clinical or research settings is the lack of a standardized assay, which the Malmö study acknowledged. Dr. Engström and colleagues wrote that “prostasin levels were measured in arbitrary units (NPX values), and thus could not be compared directly with absolute values.”

Dr. Chen pointed out that the study reported a lower range of 0.24 pg/mL and an upper range of 7,800 pg/mL.

This means that, “in different groups that measure prostasin, the absolute quantity could have a difference in the thousands or tens of thousands,” she said. “That makes the judgment difficult of whether for this person you have a high level of prostasin in the blood and the other one you don’t if the difference is over a thousandfold.”

The Malmö study used the Proseek Multiplex Oncology I panel to determine plasma prostasin concentration, but Dr. Chen noted that she couldn’t find any data validating the panel for measuring prostasin. “It’s really hard for me to say whether this is of value or not because if the method that generated the data is not verified by another method, you don’t really know what you’re measuring.

“If the data are questionable, it’s really hard to say whether it means whether it’s a marker for cancer or diabetes,” Dr. Chen added. “That’s the biggest question I have, but actually the authors realize that.”

Dr. Engström confirmed that, “if prostasin is used to identify patients with increased risk of diabetes and cancer mortality, we also need to develop standardized assays for clinical use.”

Dr. Engström and coauthors had no disclosures. The study received funding from the Swedish Heart Lung Foundation, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province. The Malmö Diet and Cancer study received grants from the Swedish Cancer Society, the Swedish Medical Research Council, AFA Insurance, the Albert Påhlsson and Gunnar Nilsson Foundations, Malmö City Council, and Lund University. Dr. Chen had no relevant disclosures.
 

People with elevated levels of protein prostasin seem to have a higher risk of developing diabetes and dying from cancer, according to a large, prospective, population-based study. The finding may provide new insights into why people with diabetes have an increased risk of cancer.

The study claims to be the first to investigate the link between plasma prostasin levels and cancer mortality, the study authors wrote in Diabetologia. The study analyzed plasma prostasin samples from 4,297 older adults (average age, 57.5 years) from the Malmö (Sweden) Diet and Cancer Study Cardiovascular Cohort.

“This study from the general population shows that prostasin, a protein that could be measured in blood, is associated with increased risk of developing diabetes,” senior author Gunnar Engström, MD, PhD, professor of epidemiology at Lund University in Malmö, Sweden, said in a comment. “Furthermore, it was associated with increased risk of death from cancer, especially in individuals with elevated glucose levels in the prediabetic range.

“The relationship between diabetes and cancer is poorly understood,” Dr. Engström said. “To our knowledge, this is the first big population study of prostasin and risk of diabetes.”

He noted previous studies have found a relationship between prostasin and cancer outcomes. “Prostasin could be a possible shared link between  the two diseases and the results could help us understand why individuals with diabetes have increased risk of cancer.”

Patients in the study were assigned to quartiles based on prostasin levels. Those in the highest quartile had almost twice the risk of prevalent diabetes than did those in the lowest quartile (adjusted odds ratio, 1.95; 95% confidence interval, 1.39-2.76; P < .0001).

During the follow-up periods of 21.9 years for diabetes and 23.5 years for cancer, on average, 702 participants developed diabetes and 651 died from cancer. Again, the analysis found a significantly higher adjusted hazard ratio for participants in the fourth quartile: about 75% higher for diabetes (HR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.41-2.19; P < .0001), and, after multivariable analysis, about 40% higher for death from cancer (HR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.14-1.8; P = .0008).
 

Potential diabetes-cancer ‘interaction’

The study also identified what it called “a significant interaction” between prostasin and fasting blood glucose for cancer mortality risk (P = .022). In patients with impaired fasting blood glucose levels at baseline, the risk for cancer mortality was about 50% greater with each standard deviation increase in prostasin (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.07-2.16; P = .019). Those with normal fasting blood glucose at baseline had a significantly lower risk with each SD increase in prostasin (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.01-1.21; P = .025).

Further research is needed to validate the potential of prostasin as a biomarker for diabetes and cancer risks, Dr. Engström said. “The results need to be replicated in other studies. A study of cancer mortality in a big cohort of diabetes patients would be of great interest. We also need to examine whether prostasin is causally related to cancer and/or diabetes, or whether prostasin could act as a valuable risk marker in clinical settings. If causal, there could a possible molecular target for treatment.”

He added: “Biomarkers of diabetes and cancer are of great interest in the era of personalized medicine, both for disease prevention and for treatment of those with established disease.”

Li-Mei Chen, MD, PhD, a research associate professor at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, has studied the role of prostasin in epidemiology. She noted that one of the challenges of using prostasin in clinical or research settings is the lack of a standardized assay, which the Malmö study acknowledged. Dr. Engström and colleagues wrote that “prostasin levels were measured in arbitrary units (NPX values), and thus could not be compared directly with absolute values.”

Dr. Chen pointed out that the study reported a lower range of 0.24 pg/mL and an upper range of 7,800 pg/mL.

This means that, “in different groups that measure prostasin, the absolute quantity could have a difference in the thousands or tens of thousands,” she said. “That makes the judgment difficult of whether for this person you have a high level of prostasin in the blood and the other one you don’t if the difference is over a thousandfold.”

The Malmö study used the Proseek Multiplex Oncology I panel to determine plasma prostasin concentration, but Dr. Chen noted that she couldn’t find any data validating the panel for measuring prostasin. “It’s really hard for me to say whether this is of value or not because if the method that generated the data is not verified by another method, you don’t really know what you’re measuring.

“If the data are questionable, it’s really hard to say whether it means whether it’s a marker for cancer or diabetes,” Dr. Chen added. “That’s the biggest question I have, but actually the authors realize that.”

Dr. Engström confirmed that, “if prostasin is used to identify patients with increased risk of diabetes and cancer mortality, we also need to develop standardized assays for clinical use.”

Dr. Engström and coauthors had no disclosures. The study received funding from the Swedish Heart Lung Foundation, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province. The Malmö Diet and Cancer study received grants from the Swedish Cancer Society, the Swedish Medical Research Council, AFA Insurance, the Albert Påhlsson and Gunnar Nilsson Foundations, Malmö City Council, and Lund University. Dr. Chen had no relevant disclosures.
 

People with elevated levels of protein prostasin seem to have a higher risk of developing diabetes and dying from cancer, according to a large, prospective, population-based study. The finding may provide new insights into why people with diabetes have an increased risk of cancer.

The study claims to be the first to investigate the link between plasma prostasin levels and cancer mortality, the study authors wrote in Diabetologia. The study analyzed plasma prostasin samples from 4,297 older adults (average age, 57.5 years) from the Malmö (Sweden) Diet and Cancer Study Cardiovascular Cohort.

“This study from the general population shows that prostasin, a protein that could be measured in blood, is associated with increased risk of developing diabetes,” senior author Gunnar Engström, MD, PhD, professor of epidemiology at Lund University in Malmö, Sweden, said in a comment. “Furthermore, it was associated with increased risk of death from cancer, especially in individuals with elevated glucose levels in the prediabetic range.

“The relationship between diabetes and cancer is poorly understood,” Dr. Engström said. “To our knowledge, this is the first big population study of prostasin and risk of diabetes.”

He noted previous studies have found a relationship between prostasin and cancer outcomes. “Prostasin could be a possible shared link between  the two diseases and the results could help us understand why individuals with diabetes have increased risk of cancer.”

Patients in the study were assigned to quartiles based on prostasin levels. Those in the highest quartile had almost twice the risk of prevalent diabetes than did those in the lowest quartile (adjusted odds ratio, 1.95; 95% confidence interval, 1.39-2.76; P < .0001).

During the follow-up periods of 21.9 years for diabetes and 23.5 years for cancer, on average, 702 participants developed diabetes and 651 died from cancer. Again, the analysis found a significantly higher adjusted hazard ratio for participants in the fourth quartile: about 75% higher for diabetes (HR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.41-2.19; P < .0001), and, after multivariable analysis, about 40% higher for death from cancer (HR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.14-1.8; P = .0008).
 

Potential diabetes-cancer ‘interaction’

The study also identified what it called “a significant interaction” between prostasin and fasting blood glucose for cancer mortality risk (P = .022). In patients with impaired fasting blood glucose levels at baseline, the risk for cancer mortality was about 50% greater with each standard deviation increase in prostasin (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.07-2.16; P = .019). Those with normal fasting blood glucose at baseline had a significantly lower risk with each SD increase in prostasin (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.01-1.21; P = .025).

Further research is needed to validate the potential of prostasin as a biomarker for diabetes and cancer risks, Dr. Engström said. “The results need to be replicated in other studies. A study of cancer mortality in a big cohort of diabetes patients would be of great interest. We also need to examine whether prostasin is causally related to cancer and/or diabetes, or whether prostasin could act as a valuable risk marker in clinical settings. If causal, there could a possible molecular target for treatment.”

He added: “Biomarkers of diabetes and cancer are of great interest in the era of personalized medicine, both for disease prevention and for treatment of those with established disease.”

Li-Mei Chen, MD, PhD, a research associate professor at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, has studied the role of prostasin in epidemiology. She noted that one of the challenges of using prostasin in clinical or research settings is the lack of a standardized assay, which the Malmö study acknowledged. Dr. Engström and colleagues wrote that “prostasin levels were measured in arbitrary units (NPX values), and thus could not be compared directly with absolute values.”

Dr. Chen pointed out that the study reported a lower range of 0.24 pg/mL and an upper range of 7,800 pg/mL.

This means that, “in different groups that measure prostasin, the absolute quantity could have a difference in the thousands or tens of thousands,” she said. “That makes the judgment difficult of whether for this person you have a high level of prostasin in the blood and the other one you don’t if the difference is over a thousandfold.”

The Malmö study used the Proseek Multiplex Oncology I panel to determine plasma prostasin concentration, but Dr. Chen noted that she couldn’t find any data validating the panel for measuring prostasin. “It’s really hard for me to say whether this is of value or not because if the method that generated the data is not verified by another method, you don’t really know what you’re measuring.

“If the data are questionable, it’s really hard to say whether it means whether it’s a marker for cancer or diabetes,” Dr. Chen added. “That’s the biggest question I have, but actually the authors realize that.”

Dr. Engström confirmed that, “if prostasin is used to identify patients with increased risk of diabetes and cancer mortality, we also need to develop standardized assays for clinical use.”

Dr. Engström and coauthors had no disclosures. The study received funding from the Swedish Heart Lung Foundation, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province. The Malmö Diet and Cancer study received grants from the Swedish Cancer Society, the Swedish Medical Research Council, AFA Insurance, the Albert Påhlsson and Gunnar Nilsson Foundations, Malmö City Council, and Lund University. Dr. Chen had no relevant disclosures.
 

Industry payments to U.S. gastroenterologists and hepatologists increased from 2014 to 2016 before beginning to steadily decrease after 2016, but they're largely concentrated among a small few, according to new research published in Gastroenterology.

South_agency/Getty Images

The study aimed to identify trends in these specialties in the years after the Sunshine Act, enacted in 2010, and the federal program Open Payments, established in 2013.

“Although Open Payments launched in September of 2014, all the joinpoints in our study occurred more than a year later in 2016, suggesting a delay in observable changes in behavior on industry physician relationships,” wrote Xiaohan Ying, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, and colleagues. “Since 2016, we have seen a sustained reduction in general industry payments to physicians while research payments remained stable, which is likely the desired outcome of this program.”

That’s also the conclusion of Lawrence Kosinski, MD, MBA, a spokesperson for the American Gastroenterological Association, who was not involved in the study.

“Most all of us are aware of the Sunshine Act and have reacted accordingly, so I am not surprised that reimbursement per physician has declined over the time period,” Dr. Kosinski told this news organization. “Many physicians are very sensitive to their reporting and have decreased their exposures,” said Dr. Kosinski, founder of SonarMD and a member of the Health & Human Services Advisory Committee on Value-Based Payment. “What does surprise me is the marked disparity in payments with a very small number of physicians receiving tremendous reimbursement from speaking engagements and promotions.”

The researchers retrospectively analyzed industry payments to 26,981 practicing pediatric and adults gastroenterologists and hepatologists using the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System and data from Open Payments between January 2014 and December 2020. The researchers excluded education payments and focused on general payments, which “include charitable contribution, speaker fees, consulting fees, ownership and investments, education, entertainment, food and beverages, gift, honoraria, royalty and license, and travel and lodging,” they reported.
 

Who gets paid, and how much?

While $27.5 million was going to research and grants, most of the payments ($403.3 million) were general payments; out of the total payments to specialists, $30 million went to hepatology, and $400.8 million went to gastroenterology. Nearly all of the general payments ($398.1 million) were for noneducation purposes; 90.5% of general payments went to men and 9.5% went to women, at an average of $17,167 per person. Nearly half the payments (43.8%) were for speaker fees, totaling $174.3 million, followed by 18.4% going to consulting ($73.1 million) and 12.9% going to food and beverages ($51.5 million).

Most of the physicians accepting payments (86.6%) received less than $10,000, but this made up only 8.3% of all payments. Meanwhile, 74% of all the payments, $294.6 million, went to just 3.1% of the physicians, all of whom received more than $100,000.

That breakdown is what most caught Dr. Kosinki’s attention.

“It’s one thing for a speaker to declare that they are receiving funds from pharma, but they never let us know how much,” Dr. Kosinski said. “Some of these speakers are realizing a very significant payment, which could change the opinions of those listening to their presentations.”

The authors reported that a group of 50 top earners (0.2%) received more than $1 million between 2014 and 2020. Their payments totaled $94.8 million and accounted for nearly a quarter (23.8%) of all the payments. All but one of these physicians were men, and one physician has received more than $1 million every year since 2014.
 

Payments for guideline authors explored

The authors examined payments to practicing U.S. gastroenterologists and hepatologists who helped write clinical guidelines for the following organizations:

• American Gastroenterological Association (AGA).
• American College of Gastroenterology (ACG).
• American Association for the Study of Liver Disease (AASLD).
• North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition (NASPGHAN).
• American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE).

The 186 guidelines published between 2014 and 2020 had 632 physician authors, 415 of whom were practicing gastroenterologists and hepatologists in the United States. Most of these physicians (85.8%) received at least one industry payment, with payments to guideline authors totaling $43.6 million.

Similar to the lopsided breakdown for total payments across all physicians, the majority of the payments (87.4%, or $38.1 million) went to one-quarter of the authors, who each received more than $100,000 per person. Meanwhile, 38.2% of the guideline authors received less than $10,000.

“However, these numbers are likely to decrease in the future as professional societies, such as AASLD, require a majority of the guideline authors to be free of conflict of interest relevant to the subject matter,” the authors wrote. They added that members selected as part of the AGA’s guideline development group (GDG) must report all conflicts of interest, including indirect and intellectual ones, and are recused or excluded when appropriate. These guideline development group participants must also forgo speaking and consulting arrangements until one year after the guideline’s publication.
 

Trends have been shifting

Total industry payments initially grew at a rate of 11.4% a year between 2014 and 2016 before decreasing at a rate of 5.8% per year after 2016 (P = .03). Though a similar trend occurred at the individual level, it did not reach significance.

However, the trend differed slightly between men and women: Payments to men increased 10.4% annually until 2016 then decreased 6.8% per year thereafter, but women’s payments increased 11.3% per year until 2019. Between 2014 and 2019, the amount per person payment dropped 3.5% annually to physicians overall, but payments to women initially increased 35.4% a year between 2014 and 2016 before decreasing.

Although not statistically significant, trends for types of payments showed that speaker and food/beverage fees have been declining since 2016 while consulting fees have been declining since 2014.

“The reduction in industry payments could be due to the Hawthorne effect, where physicians alter their behavior after becoming aware that their payments were being monitored,” the authors wrote. “Although many physicians see themselves as less vulnerable to be biased by industry compensation, studies have shown that even small payments can affect behavior such as prescription pattern. Additionally, studies have found that patients are less likely to trust physicians who have received industry payments.”

The authors acknowledged the role of industry payments in funding clinical trials but noted that pharmaceutical companies themselves have been taking on more design and execution of trials in recent decades. Further, only 6% of all payments went to research and grant funding, a little more than half the payments for food and beverages.

“While industry research funding is undeniably crucial, it simply plays a very small role in total industry compensation for physicians,” the authors wrote. “While speaker events could be beneficial and educational for physicians and other audiences, these events could also be utilized as means to promote specific products. While it is beneficial to seek input from experienced gastroenterologists for novel therapies and devices, actions should be taken to place limitations on industry payments to physicians, especially for the top earners.”

One author reported speaker fees from W.L. Gore & Associates and Cook Medical. The other two others had no disclosures. No external funding was noted. Dr. Kosinski reported having no relevant disclosures.

This article was updated Aug. 9, 2022.

Industry payments to U.S. gastroenterologists and hepatologists increased from 2014 to 2016 before beginning to steadily decrease after 2016, but they're largely concentrated among a small few, according to new research published in Gastroenterology.

South_agency/Getty Images

The study aimed to identify trends in these specialties in the years after the Sunshine Act, enacted in 2010, and the federal program Open Payments, established in 2013.

“Although Open Payments launched in September of 2014, all the joinpoints in our study occurred more than a year later in 2016, suggesting a delay in observable changes in behavior on industry physician relationships,” wrote Xiaohan Ying, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, and colleagues. “Since 2016, we have seen a sustained reduction in general industry payments to physicians while research payments remained stable, which is likely the desired outcome of this program.”

That’s also the conclusion of Lawrence Kosinski, MD, MBA, a spokesperson for the American Gastroenterological Association, who was not involved in the study.

“Most all of us are aware of the Sunshine Act and have reacted accordingly, so I am not surprised that reimbursement per physician has declined over the time period,” Dr. Kosinski told this news organization. “Many physicians are very sensitive to their reporting and have decreased their exposures,” said Dr. Kosinski, founder of SonarMD and a member of the Health & Human Services Advisory Committee on Value-Based Payment. “What does surprise me is the marked disparity in payments with a very small number of physicians receiving tremendous reimbursement from speaking engagements and promotions.”

The researchers retrospectively analyzed industry payments to 26,981 practicing pediatric and adults gastroenterologists and hepatologists using the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System and data from Open Payments between January 2014 and December 2020. The researchers excluded education payments and focused on general payments, which “include charitable contribution, speaker fees, consulting fees, ownership and investments, education, entertainment, food and beverages, gift, honoraria, royalty and license, and travel and lodging,” they reported.
 

Who gets paid, and how much?

While $27.5 million was going to research and grants, most of the payments ($403.3 million) were general payments; out of the total payments to specialists, $30 million went to hepatology, and $400.8 million went to gastroenterology. Nearly all of the general payments ($398.1 million) were for noneducation purposes; 90.5% of general payments went to men and 9.5% went to women, at an average of $17,167 per person. Nearly half the payments (43.8%) were for speaker fees, totaling $174.3 million, followed by 18.4% going to consulting ($73.1 million) and 12.9% going to food and beverages ($51.5 million).

Most of the physicians accepting payments (86.6%) received less than $10,000, but this made up only 8.3% of all payments. Meanwhile, 74% of all the payments, $294.6 million, went to just 3.1% of the physicians, all of whom received more than $100,000.

That breakdown is what most caught Dr. Kosinki’s attention.

“It’s one thing for a speaker to declare that they are receiving funds from pharma, but they never let us know how much,” Dr. Kosinski said. “Some of these speakers are realizing a very significant payment, which could change the opinions of those listening to their presentations.”

The authors reported that a group of 50 top earners (0.2%) received more than $1 million between 2014 and 2020. Their payments totaled $94.8 million and accounted for nearly a quarter (23.8%) of all the payments. All but one of these physicians were men, and one physician has received more than $1 million every year since 2014.
 

Payments for guideline authors explored

The authors examined payments to practicing U.S. gastroenterologists and hepatologists who helped write clinical guidelines for the following organizations:

• American Gastroenterological Association (AGA).
• American College of Gastroenterology (ACG).
• American Association for the Study of Liver Disease (AASLD).
• North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition (NASPGHAN).
• American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE).

The 186 guidelines published between 2014 and 2020 had 632 physician authors, 415 of whom were practicing gastroenterologists and hepatologists in the United States. Most of these physicians (85.8%) received at least one industry payment, with payments to guideline authors totaling $43.6 million.

Similar to the lopsided breakdown for total payments across all physicians, the majority of the payments (87.4%, or $38.1 million) went to one-quarter of the authors, who each received more than $100,000 per person. Meanwhile, 38.2% of the guideline authors received less than $10,000.

“However, these numbers are likely to decrease in the future as professional societies, such as AASLD, require a majority of the guideline authors to be free of conflict of interest relevant to the subject matter,” the authors wrote. They added that members selected as part of the AGA’s guideline development group (GDG) must report all conflicts of interest, including indirect and intellectual ones, and are recused or excluded when appropriate. These guideline development group participants must also forgo speaking and consulting arrangements until one year after the guideline’s publication.
 

Trends have been shifting

Total industry payments initially grew at a rate of 11.4% a year between 2014 and 2016 before decreasing at a rate of 5.8% per year after 2016 (P = .03). Though a similar trend occurred at the individual level, it did not reach significance.

However, the trend differed slightly between men and women: Payments to men increased 10.4% annually until 2016 then decreased 6.8% per year thereafter, but women’s payments increased 11.3% per year until 2019. Between 2014 and 2019, the amount per person payment dropped 3.5% annually to physicians overall, but payments to women initially increased 35.4% a year between 2014 and 2016 before decreasing.

Although not statistically significant, trends for types of payments showed that speaker and food/beverage fees have been declining since 2016 while consulting fees have been declining since 2014.

“The reduction in industry payments could be due to the Hawthorne effect, where physicians alter their behavior after becoming aware that their payments were being monitored,” the authors wrote. “Although many physicians see themselves as less vulnerable to be biased by industry compensation, studies have shown that even small payments can affect behavior such as prescription pattern. Additionally, studies have found that patients are less likely to trust physicians who have received industry payments.”

The authors acknowledged the role of industry payments in funding clinical trials but noted that pharmaceutical companies themselves have been taking on more design and execution of trials in recent decades. Further, only 6% of all payments went to research and grant funding, a little more than half the payments for food and beverages.

“While industry research funding is undeniably crucial, it simply plays a very small role in total industry compensation for physicians,” the authors wrote. “While speaker events could be beneficial and educational for physicians and other audiences, these events could also be utilized as means to promote specific products. While it is beneficial to seek input from experienced gastroenterologists for novel therapies and devices, actions should be taken to place limitations on industry payments to physicians, especially for the top earners.”

One author reported speaker fees from W.L. Gore & Associates and Cook Medical. The other two others had no disclosures. No external funding was noted. Dr. Kosinski reported having no relevant disclosures.

This article was updated Aug. 9, 2022.

Industry payments to U.S. gastroenterologists and hepatologists increased from 2014 to 2016 before beginning to steadily decrease after 2016, but they're largely concentrated among a small few, according to new research published in Gastroenterology.

South_agency/Getty Images

The study aimed to identify trends in these specialties in the years after the Sunshine Act, enacted in 2010, and the federal program Open Payments, established in 2013.

“Although Open Payments launched in September of 2014, all the joinpoints in our study occurred more than a year later in 2016, suggesting a delay in observable changes in behavior on industry physician relationships,” wrote Xiaohan Ying, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, and colleagues. “Since 2016, we have seen a sustained reduction in general industry payments to physicians while research payments remained stable, which is likely the desired outcome of this program.”

That’s also the conclusion of Lawrence Kosinski, MD, MBA, a spokesperson for the American Gastroenterological Association, who was not involved in the study.

“Most all of us are aware of the Sunshine Act and have reacted accordingly, so I am not surprised that reimbursement per physician has declined over the time period,” Dr. Kosinski told this news organization. “Many physicians are very sensitive to their reporting and have decreased their exposures,” said Dr. Kosinski, founder of SonarMD and a member of the Health & Human Services Advisory Committee on Value-Based Payment. “What does surprise me is the marked disparity in payments with a very small number of physicians receiving tremendous reimbursement from speaking engagements and promotions.”

The researchers retrospectively analyzed industry payments to 26,981 practicing pediatric and adults gastroenterologists and hepatologists using the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System and data from Open Payments between January 2014 and December 2020. The researchers excluded education payments and focused on general payments, which “include charitable contribution, speaker fees, consulting fees, ownership and investments, education, entertainment, food and beverages, gift, honoraria, royalty and license, and travel and lodging,” they reported.
 

Who gets paid, and how much?

While $27.5 million was going to research and grants, most of the payments ($403.3 million) were general payments; out of the total payments to specialists, $30 million went to hepatology, and $400.8 million went to gastroenterology. Nearly all of the general payments ($398.1 million) were for noneducation purposes; 90.5% of general payments went to men and 9.5% went to women, at an average of $17,167 per person. Nearly half the payments (43.8%) were for speaker fees, totaling $174.3 million, followed by 18.4% going to consulting ($73.1 million) and 12.9% going to food and beverages ($51.5 million).

Most of the physicians accepting payments (86.6%) received less than $10,000, but this made up only 8.3% of all payments. Meanwhile, 74% of all the payments, $294.6 million, went to just 3.1% of the physicians, all of whom received more than $100,000.

That breakdown is what most caught Dr. Kosinki’s attention.

“It’s one thing for a speaker to declare that they are receiving funds from pharma, but they never let us know how much,” Dr. Kosinski said. “Some of these speakers are realizing a very significant payment, which could change the opinions of those listening to their presentations.”

The authors reported that a group of 50 top earners (0.2%) received more than $1 million between 2014 and 2020. Their payments totaled $94.8 million and accounted for nearly a quarter (23.8%) of all the payments. All but one of these physicians were men, and one physician has received more than $1 million every year since 2014.
 

Payments for guideline authors explored

The authors examined payments to practicing U.S. gastroenterologists and hepatologists who helped write clinical guidelines for the following organizations:

• American Gastroenterological Association (AGA).
• American College of Gastroenterology (ACG).
• American Association for the Study of Liver Disease (AASLD).
• North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition (NASPGHAN).
• American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE).

The 186 guidelines published between 2014 and 2020 had 632 physician authors, 415 of whom were practicing gastroenterologists and hepatologists in the United States. Most of these physicians (85.8%) received at least one industry payment, with payments to guideline authors totaling $43.6 million.

Similar to the lopsided breakdown for total payments across all physicians, the majority of the payments (87.4%, or $38.1 million) went to one-quarter of the authors, who each received more than $100,000 per person. Meanwhile, 38.2% of the guideline authors received less than $10,000.

“However, these numbers are likely to decrease in the future as professional societies, such as AASLD, require a majority of the guideline authors to be free of conflict of interest relevant to the subject matter,” the authors wrote. They added that members selected as part of the AGA’s guideline development group (GDG) must report all conflicts of interest, including indirect and intellectual ones, and are recused or excluded when appropriate. These guideline development group participants must also forgo speaking and consulting arrangements until one year after the guideline’s publication.
 

Trends have been shifting

Total industry payments initially grew at a rate of 11.4% a year between 2014 and 2016 before decreasing at a rate of 5.8% per year after 2016 (P = .03). Though a similar trend occurred at the individual level, it did not reach significance.

However, the trend differed slightly between men and women: Payments to men increased 10.4% annually until 2016 then decreased 6.8% per year thereafter, but women’s payments increased 11.3% per year until 2019. Between 2014 and 2019, the amount per person payment dropped 3.5% annually to physicians overall, but payments to women initially increased 35.4% a year between 2014 and 2016 before decreasing.

Although not statistically significant, trends for types of payments showed that speaker and food/beverage fees have been declining since 2016 while consulting fees have been declining since 2014.

“The reduction in industry payments could be due to the Hawthorne effect, where physicians alter their behavior after becoming aware that their payments were being monitored,” the authors wrote. “Although many physicians see themselves as less vulnerable to be biased by industry compensation, studies have shown that even small payments can affect behavior such as prescription pattern. Additionally, studies have found that patients are less likely to trust physicians who have received industry payments.”

The authors acknowledged the role of industry payments in funding clinical trials but noted that pharmaceutical companies themselves have been taking on more design and execution of trials in recent decades. Further, only 6% of all payments went to research and grant funding, a little more than half the payments for food and beverages.

“While industry research funding is undeniably crucial, it simply plays a very small role in total industry compensation for physicians,” the authors wrote. “While speaker events could be beneficial and educational for physicians and other audiences, these events could also be utilized as means to promote specific products. While it is beneficial to seek input from experienced gastroenterologists for novel therapies and devices, actions should be taken to place limitations on industry payments to physicians, especially for the top earners.”

One author reported speaker fees from W.L. Gore & Associates and Cook Medical. The other two others had no disclosures. No external funding was noted. Dr. Kosinski reported having no relevant disclosures.

This article was updated Aug. 9, 2022.

Researchers published the study covered in this summary on researchsquare.com as a preprint that has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaways

• In Japanese adults with type 1 diabetes insulin-pump treatment (continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion) and higher problem-solving perception appear protective against impaired awareness of hypoglycemia (IAH), while diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is associated with increased risk.
• Diabetes distress and fear of hypoglycemia are common in people with IAH.

Why this matters

• Adults with type 1 diabetes and IAH have a reduced ability to perceive hypoglycemic symptoms and are at risk of severe hypoglycemic events because they are unable to take immediate corrective action.
• This is the first study to identify protective factors and risk factors of IAH in Japanese adults with type 1 diabetes.
• People with IAH may plan to loosen tight glucose management and intentionally omit insulin injection to prevent severe hypoglycemia.
• The information in this report may help improve the management of people with problematic hypoglycemia, the authors suggested. Treatment with an insulin pump and structured education aimed at improving problem-solving skills may be useful interventions for adults with type 1 diabetes and IAH, they suggested.

Study design

• The study involved a cross-sectional analysis of 288 Japanese adults with type 1 diabetes who averaged 50 years old, had diabetes for an average of about 18 years, had an average hemoglobin A1c at baseline of 7.7%, and included about 37% men and 63% women.
• The cohort included 55 people with IAH (19%) and 233 with no impairment of their hypoglycemia awareness, based on their score on the .

Key results

• DPN was significantly more prevalent in the IAH group than in the control group (12.0% vs. 26.5%). A logistic regression analysis showed that the odds ratio for DPN was 2.63-fold higher among people with IAH, compared with those without IAH, but there were no differences in other complications or by HbA1c levels.
• Treatment with continuous subcutaneous insulin therapy (an insulin pump) was significantly less prevalent in the IAH group, compared with those without IAH (23.6% vs 39.5%), with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.48. The two subgroups showed no differences in use of continuous glucose monitoring, used by 56% of the people in each of the two subgroups.
• The two subgroups showed no differences in their healthy lifestyle score, sleep debt, or rates of excessive drinking.
• Mean autonomic symptom scores for both sweating and shaking were significantly reduced in the IAH group, but no between-group differences appeared for palpations or hunger.
• All mean neuroglycopenic symptom scores were significantly lower in those without IAH, including confusion and speech difficulty.
• Scores for measures of diabetes distress and for the worry component of the fear of hypoglycemia were significantly higher in the IAH group, but there were no differences in other psychological measures.
• Higher were significantly associated with decreased IAH risk with a calculated odds ratio of 0.54, but other aspects of hypoglycemia problem-solving such as detection control, goal setting, and strategy evaluation showed no significant links.

Limitations

• The study used a cross-sectional design, which is not suited to making causal inferences.
• The authors characterized DPN as either present or absent. They did not evaluate or analyze the severity of peripheral neuropathy.
• The authors evaluated diabetic cardiac autonomic neuropathy (DCAN) by a person’s coefficient of variation of R-R intervals, and definitive diagnosis of DCAN required at least two positive results on a cardiac autonomic test. More vigorous evaluation using a more definitive assessment of DCAN is needed to relate DCAN and IAH status.

Disclosures

• The study received no commercial funding.
• The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This is a summary of a preprint research study, “Protective and risk factors of impaired awareness of hypoglycemia in patients with type 1 diabetes: a cross- sectional analysis of baseline data from the PR-IAH study,” written by researchers at several hospitals in Japan, all affiliated with the National Hospital Organization, on Research Square. The study has not yet been peer reviewed. The full text of the study can be found on researchsquare.com.

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

Researchers published the study covered in this summary on researchsquare.com as a preprint that has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaways

• In Japanese adults with type 1 diabetes insulin-pump treatment (continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion) and higher problem-solving perception appear protective against impaired awareness of hypoglycemia (IAH), while diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is associated with increased risk.
• Diabetes distress and fear of hypoglycemia are common in people with IAH.

Why this matters

• Adults with type 1 diabetes and IAH have a reduced ability to perceive hypoglycemic symptoms and are at risk of severe hypoglycemic events because they are unable to take immediate corrective action.
• This is the first study to identify protective factors and risk factors of IAH in Japanese adults with type 1 diabetes.
• People with IAH may plan to loosen tight glucose management and intentionally omit insulin injection to prevent severe hypoglycemia.
• The information in this report may help improve the management of people with problematic hypoglycemia, the authors suggested. Treatment with an insulin pump and structured education aimed at improving problem-solving skills may be useful interventions for adults with type 1 diabetes and IAH, they suggested.

Study design

• The study involved a cross-sectional analysis of 288 Japanese adults with type 1 diabetes who averaged 50 years old, had diabetes for an average of about 18 years, had an average hemoglobin A1c at baseline of 7.7%, and included about 37% men and 63% women.
• The cohort included 55 people with IAH (19%) and 233 with no impairment of their hypoglycemia awareness, based on their score on the .

Key results

• DPN was significantly more prevalent in the IAH group than in the control group (12.0% vs. 26.5%). A logistic regression analysis showed that the odds ratio for DPN was 2.63-fold higher among people with IAH, compared with those without IAH, but there were no differences in other complications or by HbA1c levels.
• Treatment with continuous subcutaneous insulin therapy (an insulin pump) was significantly less prevalent in the IAH group, compared with those without IAH (23.6% vs 39.5%), with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.48. The two subgroups showed no differences in use of continuous glucose monitoring, used by 56% of the people in each of the two subgroups.
• The two subgroups showed no differences in their healthy lifestyle score, sleep debt, or rates of excessive drinking.
• Mean autonomic symptom scores for both sweating and shaking were significantly reduced in the IAH group, but no between-group differences appeared for palpations or hunger.
• All mean neuroglycopenic symptom scores were significantly lower in those without IAH, including confusion and speech difficulty.
• Scores for measures of diabetes distress and for the worry component of the fear of hypoglycemia were significantly higher in the IAH group, but there were no differences in other psychological measures.
• Higher were significantly associated with decreased IAH risk with a calculated odds ratio of 0.54, but other aspects of hypoglycemia problem-solving such as detection control, goal setting, and strategy evaluation showed no significant links.

Limitations

• The study used a cross-sectional design, which is not suited to making causal inferences.
• The authors characterized DPN as either present or absent. They did not evaluate or analyze the severity of peripheral neuropathy.
• The authors evaluated diabetic cardiac autonomic neuropathy (DCAN) by a person’s coefficient of variation of R-R intervals, and definitive diagnosis of DCAN required at least two positive results on a cardiac autonomic test. More vigorous evaluation using a more definitive assessment of DCAN is needed to relate DCAN and IAH status.

Disclosures

• The study received no commercial funding.
• The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This is a summary of a preprint research study, “Protective and risk factors of impaired awareness of hypoglycemia in patients with type 1 diabetes: a cross- sectional analysis of baseline data from the PR-IAH study,” written by researchers at several hospitals in Japan, all affiliated with the National Hospital Organization, on Research Square. The study has not yet been peer reviewed. The full text of the study can be found on researchsquare.com.

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

Researchers published the study covered in this summary on researchsquare.com as a preprint that has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaways

• In Japanese adults with type 1 diabetes insulin-pump treatment (continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion) and higher problem-solving perception appear protective against impaired awareness of hypoglycemia (IAH), while diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is associated with increased risk.
• Diabetes distress and fear of hypoglycemia are common in people with IAH.

Why this matters

• Adults with type 1 diabetes and IAH have a reduced ability to perceive hypoglycemic symptoms and are at risk of severe hypoglycemic events because they are unable to take immediate corrective action.
• This is the first study to identify protective factors and risk factors of IAH in Japanese adults with type 1 diabetes.
• People with IAH may plan to loosen tight glucose management and intentionally omit insulin injection to prevent severe hypoglycemia.
• The information in this report may help improve the management of people with problematic hypoglycemia, the authors suggested. Treatment with an insulin pump and structured education aimed at improving problem-solving skills may be useful interventions for adults with type 1 diabetes and IAH, they suggested.

Study design

• The study involved a cross-sectional analysis of 288 Japanese adults with type 1 diabetes who averaged 50 years old, had diabetes for an average of about 18 years, had an average hemoglobin A1c at baseline of 7.7%, and included about 37% men and 63% women.
• The cohort included 55 people with IAH (19%) and 233 with no impairment of their hypoglycemia awareness, based on their score on the .

Key results

• DPN was significantly more prevalent in the IAH group than in the control group (12.0% vs. 26.5%). A logistic regression analysis showed that the odds ratio for DPN was 2.63-fold higher among people with IAH, compared with those without IAH, but there were no differences in other complications or by HbA1c levels.
• Treatment with continuous subcutaneous insulin therapy (an insulin pump) was significantly less prevalent in the IAH group, compared with those without IAH (23.6% vs 39.5%), with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.48. The two subgroups showed no differences in use of continuous glucose monitoring, used by 56% of the people in each of the two subgroups.
• The two subgroups showed no differences in their healthy lifestyle score, sleep debt, or rates of excessive drinking.
• Mean autonomic symptom scores for both sweating and shaking were significantly reduced in the IAH group, but no between-group differences appeared for palpations or hunger.
• All mean neuroglycopenic symptom scores were significantly lower in those without IAH, including confusion and speech difficulty.
• Scores for measures of diabetes distress and for the worry component of the fear of hypoglycemia were significantly higher in the IAH group, but there were no differences in other psychological measures.
• Higher were significantly associated with decreased IAH risk with a calculated odds ratio of 0.54, but other aspects of hypoglycemia problem-solving such as detection control, goal setting, and strategy evaluation showed no significant links.

Limitations

• The study used a cross-sectional design, which is not suited to making causal inferences.
• The authors characterized DPN as either present or absent. They did not evaluate or analyze the severity of peripheral neuropathy.
• The authors evaluated diabetic cardiac autonomic neuropathy (DCAN) by a person’s coefficient of variation of R-R intervals, and definitive diagnosis of DCAN required at least two positive results on a cardiac autonomic test. More vigorous evaluation using a more definitive assessment of DCAN is needed to relate DCAN and IAH status.

Disclosures

• The study received no commercial funding.
• The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This is a summary of a preprint research study, “Protective and risk factors of impaired awareness of hypoglycemia in patients with type 1 diabetes: a cross- sectional analysis of baseline data from the PR-IAH study,” written by researchers at several hospitals in Japan, all affiliated with the National Hospital Organization, on Research Square. The study has not yet been peer reviewed. The full text of the study can be found on researchsquare.com.

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