User login
For MD-IQ use only
How physician-inventors create new, life-saving products
WakeMed emergency department physician and medical director, Graham Snyder, MD, has seen his fair share of deaths: an average of one or two per day. That’s part of the job. Some of the deaths were the result of risky behavior, ongoing health problems, and other natural causes.
But what he didn’t find acceptable was losing a 6-year-old girl in a backyard pool drowning at what was meant to be a celebratory birthday party and family reunion.
“There were aunts and uncles and brothers and sisters and cousins, and the pool was packed, and they’re having a great time. One of the parents looked over and saw that she was swimming around underneath but acting weird. A relative pulled her up by the arm, and she was dead,” he said. “What nobody could tell me, and what they’ll live with the rest of their life, is how long was she under water?”
So Dr. Snyder invented a solution. The catch: The goal: Improving systemic and “unsolvable” issues that harm society.
The cool part: Any MD with an idea can get in on the game.
Keeping little heads above water
Drowning is the leading cause of death in young children ages 1-4 years, and the second leading cause for children ages 5-14 years. The issue, Dr. Snyder explained, is not that rescuers couldn’t get to these children in time. “It’s that nobody knew to start looking.”
Dr. Snyder created a collar that alerts those around the swimmer that they are in trouble. The SEAL SwimSafe drowning prevention technology sets off an alarm system if a child is under water for too long. The necklace has been used to protect more than 10,000 children, including at larger swim facilities, such as the YMCA.
When Dr. Snyder first started pursuing his invention, he asked himself two key questions: “Has someone already tried this? And if they did, why did they not succeed?” These questions help counteract the potential arrogance, he says, with imagining that you are the first person to have a certain idea. And using whatever reason others didn’t succeed as your “secret sauce” helps lead to more success. He also had to consider obstacles. People might resist wearing a collar or necklace while swimming or putting one on their child, like the reluctance around wearing bicycle helmets when they gained popularity in the 1980s. He concluded that the collars would work best at larger facilities, where they were mandated.
Another obstacle was false alarms. “It was possible to trigger a false alarm, and that could really scare people,” Dr. Snyder said. He is still considering systems to prevent the collars from being stolen or from “13-year-old boys hiding them in the water drain and making everyone really scared when an alarm is going off.”
The demand is real, however, and is based on alarming data. Safe Kids has reported that 66% of natural water drownings and around half of pool drownings happened with an adult supervising. They added, however, that supervision is often lacking or insufficient, such as a parent not being within arm’s reach of a young kid. As Dr. Snyder told reporters in a 2018 story, even the most well-intentioned parents still “miss something” sometimes, and this technology is for that moment.
“This is a completely solvable problem, but not a flip-a-switch, one and done,” he said, pointing to his product as a part of a more comprehensive approach, such as in Europe, where mandated public school swimming lessons are helping to decrease drowning deaths.
The pandemic slowed progress for the SEAL SwimSafe collar, which is currently waiting on a new funder or investor to take the reins. But the concept is alive and well with competitors pursuing related ideas. Dr. Snyder is holding out hope that entrepreneurs, scientists, public health workers, researchers, and others will be interested in continuing this work.
Eliminating the stigma of incontinence
Ever had an accident before making it to the bathroom? So have two-thirds of adult women, and almost one-third of older men. Incontinence is linked to a wide variety of conditions, from pelvic-floor trauma to neurological issues to diabetes, and others. Urologist Jessica Lubahn, MD, in Portland, Ore., saw one too many patients feeling this type of shame, unaware that the condition was so common. In addition, she personally experienced childbirth-related incontinence, and helped a relative who was having incontinence after prostate cancer surgery.
“He had a great result, but he had confided in me ... it was one of the only times in his life that he’s been truly depressed,” Dr. Lubahn said. “It’s not even the amount of leakage, but the smell, the stigma is so embarrassing, that not only is it an inconvenience, but [it affects] your entire psyche.” She thought there had to be a better solution than the “demeaning” act of wearing adult diapers.
Noting the explosion of the period panty industry in the past decade, Dr. Lubahn wanted to “destigmatize” incontinence in the same way menstruation education and products have been. She created ONDR incontinence underwear, specifically meant for urine, to ease the mental and physical burden on her patients and many others.
Dr. Lubahn said a process happens when you decide to start talking about the product you want to make rather than trying to find answers on your own. “A lot of people are so afraid to talk about their ideas because they’re afraid it’s going to get stolen or scooped, or it might fail,” she said. “I just openly discussed it, kind of like cocktail party conversation – ‘Wouldn’t it be funny if you just pee into your underwear?’ ” She noticed each connection led to finding more people to help her along her journey.
Dr. Lubahn studied the apparel industry, learning that overseas manufacturers were more helpful and cost-effective. She navigated issues such as a special stitch that prevented leakage and other details. She was also intent on using eco-friendly products that offset the environmental impact of pads, liners, and diapers. She said there’s a strong entrepreneurship community that can help other physician-inventors get grants, be part of accelerator programs, and receive support.
Six years after the original idea, Dr. Lubahn’s product was released in 2020. She now sells eight types of underwear for women and men’s boxer briefs. She wears them herself daily.
Deterring carjackers, saving lives
In 2022, carjackings tripled in Chicago and Memphis. The areas have the highest rates in 30 cities that the Council on Criminal Justice analyzed in a report on pandemic crime rates. According to the report, nearly 40% of offenders used a firearm, more than a quarter of victims were injured, and only around half of the vehicles taken were recovered. In addition, vehicles are sometimes used in secondary crimes, such as drive-by shootings. William Yates, MD, former trauma surgeon, now turned hair restoration surgeon in Chicago, saw the evidence of those crimes daily.
“I was perplexed by carjacking because there wasn’t any answer, and it just kept getting worse and worse. A lot of innocent people were being affected,” he said. “I was seeing deaths – needless. If you give them any push back at all, they will shoot you.”
As a deterrent to counter this “easy crime,” he invented the Yates Device, an alarm system designed to prevent or interrupt carjacking. The driver can activate a switch located beneath the foot pedal or an app on the phone to trigger a programmed high-decibel alarm. Critically, it allows the carjacker to drive a safe distance away from the victim before it starts going off.
The alarm “turns your car into a very noisy Christmas tree on a time delay,” Dr. Yates explained. An external siren blares “stolen vehicle” repeatedly. A camera records everything in the car. Lights flash. Only the original driver can turn off the system. Later, once the car is abandoned, the police can help recover the vehicle.
In Dr. Yates’ experience, the invention process takes longer than you think. He worked through earlier iterations with strobe lights, but these could lead to bystanders getting hurt if the carjacker couldn’t see, for example. Developing the final product and applying for patents was a two-part process.
“The first is part is a pending patent phase, which secures your place in line,” he said. “After 1 year, we filed the utility patent as the final documentation that the invention is truly unique. That has been in process for a year now and the attorneys say we should receive approval soon.”
The product has initially been tested in seven cars for about 1 year. Dr. Yates is measuring how the system performs in all types of weather, including Chicago’s below-zero temperatures. The product is not available to the public for purchase yet because Dr. Yates is still seeking funding to have it mass produced, but it is currently being evaluated by Korean automakers for their car manufacturers.
“Everybody was saying ‘Let’s do something about this,’ but I didn’t see anybody doing anything yet,” Dr. Yates recalled. In the surgeon’s lounge, everybody has ideas. “You go around the room, and every doctor would have five ideas that would make them the richest doctor, but nobody takes it beyond that stage – talk. You have to synthesize that into a plan, to take action.”
Dr. Yates said that many doctors have the intellect to invent, but they aren’t in a network like entrepreneurs to bring their ideas to life.
For Dr. Yates, it takes a curious mindset to solve these daunting problems. “I’m always curious, always looking for how to improve something, to get better outcomes you have to be asking questions and just never let it go.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
WakeMed emergency department physician and medical director, Graham Snyder, MD, has seen his fair share of deaths: an average of one or two per day. That’s part of the job. Some of the deaths were the result of risky behavior, ongoing health problems, and other natural causes.
But what he didn’t find acceptable was losing a 6-year-old girl in a backyard pool drowning at what was meant to be a celebratory birthday party and family reunion.
“There were aunts and uncles and brothers and sisters and cousins, and the pool was packed, and they’re having a great time. One of the parents looked over and saw that she was swimming around underneath but acting weird. A relative pulled her up by the arm, and she was dead,” he said. “What nobody could tell me, and what they’ll live with the rest of their life, is how long was she under water?”
So Dr. Snyder invented a solution. The catch: The goal: Improving systemic and “unsolvable” issues that harm society.
The cool part: Any MD with an idea can get in on the game.
Keeping little heads above water
Drowning is the leading cause of death in young children ages 1-4 years, and the second leading cause for children ages 5-14 years. The issue, Dr. Snyder explained, is not that rescuers couldn’t get to these children in time. “It’s that nobody knew to start looking.”
Dr. Snyder created a collar that alerts those around the swimmer that they are in trouble. The SEAL SwimSafe drowning prevention technology sets off an alarm system if a child is under water for too long. The necklace has been used to protect more than 10,000 children, including at larger swim facilities, such as the YMCA.
When Dr. Snyder first started pursuing his invention, he asked himself two key questions: “Has someone already tried this? And if they did, why did they not succeed?” These questions help counteract the potential arrogance, he says, with imagining that you are the first person to have a certain idea. And using whatever reason others didn’t succeed as your “secret sauce” helps lead to more success. He also had to consider obstacles. People might resist wearing a collar or necklace while swimming or putting one on their child, like the reluctance around wearing bicycle helmets when they gained popularity in the 1980s. He concluded that the collars would work best at larger facilities, where they were mandated.
Another obstacle was false alarms. “It was possible to trigger a false alarm, and that could really scare people,” Dr. Snyder said. He is still considering systems to prevent the collars from being stolen or from “13-year-old boys hiding them in the water drain and making everyone really scared when an alarm is going off.”
The demand is real, however, and is based on alarming data. Safe Kids has reported that 66% of natural water drownings and around half of pool drownings happened with an adult supervising. They added, however, that supervision is often lacking or insufficient, such as a parent not being within arm’s reach of a young kid. As Dr. Snyder told reporters in a 2018 story, even the most well-intentioned parents still “miss something” sometimes, and this technology is for that moment.
“This is a completely solvable problem, but not a flip-a-switch, one and done,” he said, pointing to his product as a part of a more comprehensive approach, such as in Europe, where mandated public school swimming lessons are helping to decrease drowning deaths.
The pandemic slowed progress for the SEAL SwimSafe collar, which is currently waiting on a new funder or investor to take the reins. But the concept is alive and well with competitors pursuing related ideas. Dr. Snyder is holding out hope that entrepreneurs, scientists, public health workers, researchers, and others will be interested in continuing this work.
Eliminating the stigma of incontinence
Ever had an accident before making it to the bathroom? So have two-thirds of adult women, and almost one-third of older men. Incontinence is linked to a wide variety of conditions, from pelvic-floor trauma to neurological issues to diabetes, and others. Urologist Jessica Lubahn, MD, in Portland, Ore., saw one too many patients feeling this type of shame, unaware that the condition was so common. In addition, she personally experienced childbirth-related incontinence, and helped a relative who was having incontinence after prostate cancer surgery.
“He had a great result, but he had confided in me ... it was one of the only times in his life that he’s been truly depressed,” Dr. Lubahn said. “It’s not even the amount of leakage, but the smell, the stigma is so embarrassing, that not only is it an inconvenience, but [it affects] your entire psyche.” She thought there had to be a better solution than the “demeaning” act of wearing adult diapers.
Noting the explosion of the period panty industry in the past decade, Dr. Lubahn wanted to “destigmatize” incontinence in the same way menstruation education and products have been. She created ONDR incontinence underwear, specifically meant for urine, to ease the mental and physical burden on her patients and many others.
Dr. Lubahn said a process happens when you decide to start talking about the product you want to make rather than trying to find answers on your own. “A lot of people are so afraid to talk about their ideas because they’re afraid it’s going to get stolen or scooped, or it might fail,” she said. “I just openly discussed it, kind of like cocktail party conversation – ‘Wouldn’t it be funny if you just pee into your underwear?’ ” She noticed each connection led to finding more people to help her along her journey.
Dr. Lubahn studied the apparel industry, learning that overseas manufacturers were more helpful and cost-effective. She navigated issues such as a special stitch that prevented leakage and other details. She was also intent on using eco-friendly products that offset the environmental impact of pads, liners, and diapers. She said there’s a strong entrepreneurship community that can help other physician-inventors get grants, be part of accelerator programs, and receive support.
Six years after the original idea, Dr. Lubahn’s product was released in 2020. She now sells eight types of underwear for women and men’s boxer briefs. She wears them herself daily.
Deterring carjackers, saving lives
In 2022, carjackings tripled in Chicago and Memphis. The areas have the highest rates in 30 cities that the Council on Criminal Justice analyzed in a report on pandemic crime rates. According to the report, nearly 40% of offenders used a firearm, more than a quarter of victims were injured, and only around half of the vehicles taken were recovered. In addition, vehicles are sometimes used in secondary crimes, such as drive-by shootings. William Yates, MD, former trauma surgeon, now turned hair restoration surgeon in Chicago, saw the evidence of those crimes daily.
“I was perplexed by carjacking because there wasn’t any answer, and it just kept getting worse and worse. A lot of innocent people were being affected,” he said. “I was seeing deaths – needless. If you give them any push back at all, they will shoot you.”
As a deterrent to counter this “easy crime,” he invented the Yates Device, an alarm system designed to prevent or interrupt carjacking. The driver can activate a switch located beneath the foot pedal or an app on the phone to trigger a programmed high-decibel alarm. Critically, it allows the carjacker to drive a safe distance away from the victim before it starts going off.
The alarm “turns your car into a very noisy Christmas tree on a time delay,” Dr. Yates explained. An external siren blares “stolen vehicle” repeatedly. A camera records everything in the car. Lights flash. Only the original driver can turn off the system. Later, once the car is abandoned, the police can help recover the vehicle.
In Dr. Yates’ experience, the invention process takes longer than you think. He worked through earlier iterations with strobe lights, but these could lead to bystanders getting hurt if the carjacker couldn’t see, for example. Developing the final product and applying for patents was a two-part process.
“The first is part is a pending patent phase, which secures your place in line,” he said. “After 1 year, we filed the utility patent as the final documentation that the invention is truly unique. That has been in process for a year now and the attorneys say we should receive approval soon.”
The product has initially been tested in seven cars for about 1 year. Dr. Yates is measuring how the system performs in all types of weather, including Chicago’s below-zero temperatures. The product is not available to the public for purchase yet because Dr. Yates is still seeking funding to have it mass produced, but it is currently being evaluated by Korean automakers for their car manufacturers.
“Everybody was saying ‘Let’s do something about this,’ but I didn’t see anybody doing anything yet,” Dr. Yates recalled. In the surgeon’s lounge, everybody has ideas. “You go around the room, and every doctor would have five ideas that would make them the richest doctor, but nobody takes it beyond that stage – talk. You have to synthesize that into a plan, to take action.”
Dr. Yates said that many doctors have the intellect to invent, but they aren’t in a network like entrepreneurs to bring their ideas to life.
For Dr. Yates, it takes a curious mindset to solve these daunting problems. “I’m always curious, always looking for how to improve something, to get better outcomes you have to be asking questions and just never let it go.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
WakeMed emergency department physician and medical director, Graham Snyder, MD, has seen his fair share of deaths: an average of one or two per day. That’s part of the job. Some of the deaths were the result of risky behavior, ongoing health problems, and other natural causes.
But what he didn’t find acceptable was losing a 6-year-old girl in a backyard pool drowning at what was meant to be a celebratory birthday party and family reunion.
“There were aunts and uncles and brothers and sisters and cousins, and the pool was packed, and they’re having a great time. One of the parents looked over and saw that she was swimming around underneath but acting weird. A relative pulled her up by the arm, and she was dead,” he said. “What nobody could tell me, and what they’ll live with the rest of their life, is how long was she under water?”
So Dr. Snyder invented a solution. The catch: The goal: Improving systemic and “unsolvable” issues that harm society.
The cool part: Any MD with an idea can get in on the game.
Keeping little heads above water
Drowning is the leading cause of death in young children ages 1-4 years, and the second leading cause for children ages 5-14 years. The issue, Dr. Snyder explained, is not that rescuers couldn’t get to these children in time. “It’s that nobody knew to start looking.”
Dr. Snyder created a collar that alerts those around the swimmer that they are in trouble. The SEAL SwimSafe drowning prevention technology sets off an alarm system if a child is under water for too long. The necklace has been used to protect more than 10,000 children, including at larger swim facilities, such as the YMCA.
When Dr. Snyder first started pursuing his invention, he asked himself two key questions: “Has someone already tried this? And if they did, why did they not succeed?” These questions help counteract the potential arrogance, he says, with imagining that you are the first person to have a certain idea. And using whatever reason others didn’t succeed as your “secret sauce” helps lead to more success. He also had to consider obstacles. People might resist wearing a collar or necklace while swimming or putting one on their child, like the reluctance around wearing bicycle helmets when they gained popularity in the 1980s. He concluded that the collars would work best at larger facilities, where they were mandated.
Another obstacle was false alarms. “It was possible to trigger a false alarm, and that could really scare people,” Dr. Snyder said. He is still considering systems to prevent the collars from being stolen or from “13-year-old boys hiding them in the water drain and making everyone really scared when an alarm is going off.”
The demand is real, however, and is based on alarming data. Safe Kids has reported that 66% of natural water drownings and around half of pool drownings happened with an adult supervising. They added, however, that supervision is often lacking or insufficient, such as a parent not being within arm’s reach of a young kid. As Dr. Snyder told reporters in a 2018 story, even the most well-intentioned parents still “miss something” sometimes, and this technology is for that moment.
“This is a completely solvable problem, but not a flip-a-switch, one and done,” he said, pointing to his product as a part of a more comprehensive approach, such as in Europe, where mandated public school swimming lessons are helping to decrease drowning deaths.
The pandemic slowed progress for the SEAL SwimSafe collar, which is currently waiting on a new funder or investor to take the reins. But the concept is alive and well with competitors pursuing related ideas. Dr. Snyder is holding out hope that entrepreneurs, scientists, public health workers, researchers, and others will be interested in continuing this work.
Eliminating the stigma of incontinence
Ever had an accident before making it to the bathroom? So have two-thirds of adult women, and almost one-third of older men. Incontinence is linked to a wide variety of conditions, from pelvic-floor trauma to neurological issues to diabetes, and others. Urologist Jessica Lubahn, MD, in Portland, Ore., saw one too many patients feeling this type of shame, unaware that the condition was so common. In addition, she personally experienced childbirth-related incontinence, and helped a relative who was having incontinence after prostate cancer surgery.
“He had a great result, but he had confided in me ... it was one of the only times in his life that he’s been truly depressed,” Dr. Lubahn said. “It’s not even the amount of leakage, but the smell, the stigma is so embarrassing, that not only is it an inconvenience, but [it affects] your entire psyche.” She thought there had to be a better solution than the “demeaning” act of wearing adult diapers.
Noting the explosion of the period panty industry in the past decade, Dr. Lubahn wanted to “destigmatize” incontinence in the same way menstruation education and products have been. She created ONDR incontinence underwear, specifically meant for urine, to ease the mental and physical burden on her patients and many others.
Dr. Lubahn said a process happens when you decide to start talking about the product you want to make rather than trying to find answers on your own. “A lot of people are so afraid to talk about their ideas because they’re afraid it’s going to get stolen or scooped, or it might fail,” she said. “I just openly discussed it, kind of like cocktail party conversation – ‘Wouldn’t it be funny if you just pee into your underwear?’ ” She noticed each connection led to finding more people to help her along her journey.
Dr. Lubahn studied the apparel industry, learning that overseas manufacturers were more helpful and cost-effective. She navigated issues such as a special stitch that prevented leakage and other details. She was also intent on using eco-friendly products that offset the environmental impact of pads, liners, and diapers. She said there’s a strong entrepreneurship community that can help other physician-inventors get grants, be part of accelerator programs, and receive support.
Six years after the original idea, Dr. Lubahn’s product was released in 2020. She now sells eight types of underwear for women and men’s boxer briefs. She wears them herself daily.
Deterring carjackers, saving lives
In 2022, carjackings tripled in Chicago and Memphis. The areas have the highest rates in 30 cities that the Council on Criminal Justice analyzed in a report on pandemic crime rates. According to the report, nearly 40% of offenders used a firearm, more than a quarter of victims were injured, and only around half of the vehicles taken were recovered. In addition, vehicles are sometimes used in secondary crimes, such as drive-by shootings. William Yates, MD, former trauma surgeon, now turned hair restoration surgeon in Chicago, saw the evidence of those crimes daily.
“I was perplexed by carjacking because there wasn’t any answer, and it just kept getting worse and worse. A lot of innocent people were being affected,” he said. “I was seeing deaths – needless. If you give them any push back at all, they will shoot you.”
As a deterrent to counter this “easy crime,” he invented the Yates Device, an alarm system designed to prevent or interrupt carjacking. The driver can activate a switch located beneath the foot pedal or an app on the phone to trigger a programmed high-decibel alarm. Critically, it allows the carjacker to drive a safe distance away from the victim before it starts going off.
The alarm “turns your car into a very noisy Christmas tree on a time delay,” Dr. Yates explained. An external siren blares “stolen vehicle” repeatedly. A camera records everything in the car. Lights flash. Only the original driver can turn off the system. Later, once the car is abandoned, the police can help recover the vehicle.
In Dr. Yates’ experience, the invention process takes longer than you think. He worked through earlier iterations with strobe lights, but these could lead to bystanders getting hurt if the carjacker couldn’t see, for example. Developing the final product and applying for patents was a two-part process.
“The first is part is a pending patent phase, which secures your place in line,” he said. “After 1 year, we filed the utility patent as the final documentation that the invention is truly unique. That has been in process for a year now and the attorneys say we should receive approval soon.”
The product has initially been tested in seven cars for about 1 year. Dr. Yates is measuring how the system performs in all types of weather, including Chicago’s below-zero temperatures. The product is not available to the public for purchase yet because Dr. Yates is still seeking funding to have it mass produced, but it is currently being evaluated by Korean automakers for their car manufacturers.
“Everybody was saying ‘Let’s do something about this,’ but I didn’t see anybody doing anything yet,” Dr. Yates recalled. In the surgeon’s lounge, everybody has ideas. “You go around the room, and every doctor would have five ideas that would make them the richest doctor, but nobody takes it beyond that stage – talk. You have to synthesize that into a plan, to take action.”
Dr. Yates said that many doctors have the intellect to invent, but they aren’t in a network like entrepreneurs to bring their ideas to life.
For Dr. Yates, it takes a curious mindset to solve these daunting problems. “I’m always curious, always looking for how to improve something, to get better outcomes you have to be asking questions and just never let it go.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Cutting-edge nasal tech could usher in a new era of medicine
Noses are like caverns – twisting, turning, no two exactly the same. But if you nose past anyone’s nostrils, you’ll discover a surprisingly sprawling space.
“The size of the nasal cavity is about the same as a large handkerchief,” said Hugh Smyth, PhD, a professor of molecular pharmaceutics and drug delivery at the University of Texas at Austin.
“It’s very accessible tissue, and it has a lot of blood flow,” said Dr. Smyth. “The speed of onset can often be as fast as injections, sometimes even faster.”
It’s nothing new to get medicines via your nose. For decades, we’ve squirted various sprays into our nostrils to treat local maladies like allergies or infections. Even the ancients saw wisdom in the nasal route.
But recently, the nose has gained scientific attention as a gateway to the rest of the body – even the brain, a notoriously difficult target.
The upshot: Someday, inhaling therapies could be as routine as swallowing pills.
The nasal route is quick, needle free, and user friendly, and it often requires a smaller dose than other methods, since the drug doesn’t have to pass through the digestive tract, losing potency during digestion.
But there are challenges.
How hard can it be?
Old-school nasal sprayers, mostly unchanged since the 1800s, aren’t cut out for deep-nose delivery. “The technology is relatively limited because you’ve just got a single spray nozzle,” said Michael Hindle, PhD, a professor of pharmaceutics at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.
These traditional devices (similar to perfume sprayers) don’t consistently push meds past the lower to middle sections inside the nose, called the nasal valve – if they do so at all: In a 2020 Rhinology study (doi: 10.4193/Rhin18.304) conventional nasal sprays only reached this first segment of the nose, a less-than-ideal spot to land.
Inside the nasal valve, the surface is skin-like and doesn’t absorb very well. Its narrow design slows airflow, preventing particles from moving to deeper regions, where tissue is vascular and porous like the lungs. And even if this structural roadblock is surpassed, other hurdles remain.
The nose is designed to keep stuff out. Nose hair, cilia, mucus, sneezing, coughing – all make “distributing drugs evenly across the nasal cavity difficult,” said Dr. Smyth. “The spray gets filtered out before it reaches those deeper zones,” potentially dripping out of the nostrils instead of being absorbed.
Complicating matters is how every person’s nose is different. In a 2018 study, Dr. Smyth and a research team created three dimensional–printed models of people’s nasal cavities. They varied widely. “Nasal cavities are very different in size, length, and internal geometry,” he said. “This makes it challenging to target specific areas.”
Although carefully positioning the spray nozzle can help, even something as minor as sniffing too hard (constricting the nostrils) can keep sprays from reaching the absorptive deeper regions.
Still, the benefits are enough to compel researchers to find a way in.
“This really is a drug delivery challenge we’ve been wrestling with,” said Dr. Hindle. “It’s not new formulations we hear about. It’s new devices and delivery methods trying to target the different nasal regions.”
Delivering the goods
In the late aughts, John Hoekman was a graduate student in the University of Washington’s pharmaceutics program, studying nasal drug delivery. In his experiments, he noticed that drugs distributed differently, depending on the region targeted – aiming for the upper nasal cavity led to a spike in absorption.
The results convinced Mr. Hoekman to stake his future on nasal drug delivery.
In 2008, while still in graduate school, he started his own company, now known as Impel Pharmaceuticals. In 2021, Impel released its first product: Trudhesa, a nasal spray for migraines. Although the drug itself – dihydroergotamine mesylate – was hardly novel, used for migraine relief since 1946 (Headache. 2020 Jan;60[1]:40-57), it was usually delivered through an intravenous line, often in the ED.
But with Mr. Hoekman’s POD device – short for precision olfactory delivery – the drug can be given by the patient, via the nose. This generally means faster, more reliable relief, with fewer side effects. “We were able to lower the dose and improve the overall absorption,” said Mr. Hoekman.
The POD’s nozzle is engineered to spray a soft, narrow plume. It’s gas propelled, so patients don’t have to breathe in any special way to ensure delivery. The drug can zip right through the nasal valve into the upper nasal cavity.
Another company – OptiNose – has a “bidirectional” delivery method that propels drugs, either liquid or dry powder, deep into the nose.
“You insert the nozzle into your nose, and as you blow through the mouthpiece, your soft palate closes,” said Dr. Hindle. With the throat sealed off, “the only place for the drug to go is into one nostril and out the other, coating both sides of the nasal passageways.”
The device is only available for Onzetra Xsail, a powder for migraines. But another application is on its way.
In May, OptiNose announced that the FDA is reviewing Xhance, which uses the system to direct a steroid to the sinuses. In a clinical trial, patients with chronic sinusitis who tried the drug-device combo saw a decline in congestion, facial pain, and inflammation.
Targeting the brain
Both of those migraine drugs – Trudhesa and Onzetra Xsail – are thought to penetrate the upper nasal cavity. That’s where you’ll find the olfactory zone, a sheet of neurons that connects to the olfactory bulb. Located behind the eyes, these two nerve bundles detect odors.
“The olfactory region is almost like a back door to the brain,” said Mr. Hoekman.
By bypassing the blood-brain barrier, it offers a direct pathway – the only direct pathway, actually – between an exposed area of the body and the brain. Meaning it can ferry drugs straight from the nasal cavity to the central nervous system.
Nose-to-brain treatments could be game-changing for central nervous system disorders, such as Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s, or anxiety.
But reaching the olfactory zone is notoriously hard. “The vasculature in your nose is like a big freeway, and the olfactory tract is like a side alley,” explained Mr. Hoekman. “It’s very limiting in what it will allow through.” The region is also small, occupying only 3%-10% of the nasal cavity’s surface area.
Again, POD means “precision olfactory delivery.” But the device isn’t quite as laser focused on the region as its name implies. “We’re not at the stage where we’re able to exclusively deliver to one target site in the nose,” said Dr. Hindle.
While wending its way toward the olfactory zone, some of the drug will be absorbed by other regions, then circulate throughout the body.
“About 59% of the drug that we put into the upper nasal space gets absorbed into the bloodstream,” said Mr. Hoekman.
Janssen Pharmaceuticals’ Spravato – a nasal spray for drug-resistant depression – is thought to work similarly: Some goes straight to the brain via the olfactory nerves, while the rest takes a more roundabout route, passing through the blood vessels to circulate in your system.
A needle-free option
Sometimes, the bloodstream is the main target. Because the nose’s middle and upper stretches are so vascular, drugs can be rapidly absorbed.
This is especially valuable for time-sensitive conditions. “If you give something nasally, you can have peak uptake in 15-30 minutes,” said Mr. Hoekman.
Take Narcan nasal spray, which delivers a burst of naloxone to quickly reverse the effects of opioid an overdose. Or Noctiva nasal spray. Taken just half an hour before bed, it can prevent frequent nighttime urination.
There’s also a group of seizure-stopping sprays, known as “rescue treatments.” One works by temporarily loosening the space between nasal cells, allowing the seizure drug to be quickly absorbed through the vessels.
This systemic access also has potential for drugs that would otherwise have to be injected, such as biologics.
The same goes for vaccines. Mucosal tissue inside the nasal cavity offers direct access to the infection-fighting lymphatic system, making the nose a prime target for inoculation against certain viruses.
Inhaling protection against viruses
Despite the recent surge of interest, nasal vaccines faced a rocky start. After the first nasal flu vaccine hit the market in 2001, it was pulled due to potential toxicity and reports of Bell’s palsy, a type of facial paralysis.
FluMist came in 2003 and has been plagued by problems ever since. Because it contains a weakened live virus, flu-like side effects can occur. And it doesn’t always work. During the 2016-2017 flu season, FluMist protected only 3% of kids, prompting the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to advise against the nasal route that year.
Why FluMist can be so hit-or-miss is poorly understood. But generally, the nose can pose an effectiveness challenge. “The nose is highly cycling,” said Dr. Hindle. “Anything we deposit usually gets transported out within 15-20 minutes.”
For kids – big fans of not using needles – chronically runny noses can be an issue. “You squirt it in the nose, and it will probably just come back out in their snot,” said Jay Kolls, MD, a professor of medicine and pediatrics at Tulane University, New Orleans, who is developing an intranasal pneumonia vaccine.
Even so, nasal vaccines became a hot topic among researchers after the world was shut down by a virus that invades through the nose.
“We realized that intramuscular vaccines were effective at preventing severe disease, but they weren’t that effective at preventing transmission,” said Michael Diamond, MD, PhD, an immunologist at Washington University in St. Louis.
Nasal vaccines could solve that problem by putting an immune barrier at the point of entry, denying access to the rest of the body. “You squash the infection early enough that it not only prevents disease,” said Dr. Kolls, “but potentially prevents transmission.”
And yes, a nasal COVID vaccine is on the way
In March 2020, Dr. Diamond’s team began exploring a nasal COVID vaccine. Promising results in animals prompted a vaccine development company to license the technology. The resulting nasal vaccine – the first for COVID – has been approved in India, both as a primary vaccine and a booster.
It works by stimulating an influx of IgA, a type of antibody found in the nasal passages, and production of resident memory T cells, immune cells on standby just beneath the surface tissue in the nose.
By contrast, injected vaccines generate mostly IgG antibodies, which struggle to enter the respiratory tract. Only a tiny fraction – an estimated 1% – typically reach the nose.
Nasal vaccines could also be used along with shots. The latter could prime the whole body to fight back, while a nasal spritz could pull that immune protection to the mucosal surfaces.
Nasal technology could yield more effective vaccines for infections like tuberculosis or malaria, or even safeguard against new – sometimes surprising – conditions.
In a 2021 Nature study, an intranasal vaccine derived from fentanyl was better at preventing overdose than an injected vaccine. “Through some clever chemistry, the drug [in the vaccine] isn’t fentanyl anymore,” said study author Elizabeth Norton, PhD, an assistant professor of microbiology and immunology at Tulane University. “But the immune system still has an antibody response to it.”
Novel applications like this represent the future of nasal drug delivery.
“We’re not going to innovate in asthma or COPD. We’re not going to innovate in local delivery to the nose,” said Dr. Hindle. “Innovation will only come if we look to treat new conditions.”
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
Noses are like caverns – twisting, turning, no two exactly the same. But if you nose past anyone’s nostrils, you’ll discover a surprisingly sprawling space.
“The size of the nasal cavity is about the same as a large handkerchief,” said Hugh Smyth, PhD, a professor of molecular pharmaceutics and drug delivery at the University of Texas at Austin.
“It’s very accessible tissue, and it has a lot of blood flow,” said Dr. Smyth. “The speed of onset can often be as fast as injections, sometimes even faster.”
It’s nothing new to get medicines via your nose. For decades, we’ve squirted various sprays into our nostrils to treat local maladies like allergies or infections. Even the ancients saw wisdom in the nasal route.
But recently, the nose has gained scientific attention as a gateway to the rest of the body – even the brain, a notoriously difficult target.
The upshot: Someday, inhaling therapies could be as routine as swallowing pills.
The nasal route is quick, needle free, and user friendly, and it often requires a smaller dose than other methods, since the drug doesn’t have to pass through the digestive tract, losing potency during digestion.
But there are challenges.
How hard can it be?
Old-school nasal sprayers, mostly unchanged since the 1800s, aren’t cut out for deep-nose delivery. “The technology is relatively limited because you’ve just got a single spray nozzle,” said Michael Hindle, PhD, a professor of pharmaceutics at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.
These traditional devices (similar to perfume sprayers) don’t consistently push meds past the lower to middle sections inside the nose, called the nasal valve – if they do so at all: In a 2020 Rhinology study (doi: 10.4193/Rhin18.304) conventional nasal sprays only reached this first segment of the nose, a less-than-ideal spot to land.
Inside the nasal valve, the surface is skin-like and doesn’t absorb very well. Its narrow design slows airflow, preventing particles from moving to deeper regions, where tissue is vascular and porous like the lungs. And even if this structural roadblock is surpassed, other hurdles remain.
The nose is designed to keep stuff out. Nose hair, cilia, mucus, sneezing, coughing – all make “distributing drugs evenly across the nasal cavity difficult,” said Dr. Smyth. “The spray gets filtered out before it reaches those deeper zones,” potentially dripping out of the nostrils instead of being absorbed.
Complicating matters is how every person’s nose is different. In a 2018 study, Dr. Smyth and a research team created three dimensional–printed models of people’s nasal cavities. They varied widely. “Nasal cavities are very different in size, length, and internal geometry,” he said. “This makes it challenging to target specific areas.”
Although carefully positioning the spray nozzle can help, even something as minor as sniffing too hard (constricting the nostrils) can keep sprays from reaching the absorptive deeper regions.
Still, the benefits are enough to compel researchers to find a way in.
“This really is a drug delivery challenge we’ve been wrestling with,” said Dr. Hindle. “It’s not new formulations we hear about. It’s new devices and delivery methods trying to target the different nasal regions.”
Delivering the goods
In the late aughts, John Hoekman was a graduate student in the University of Washington’s pharmaceutics program, studying nasal drug delivery. In his experiments, he noticed that drugs distributed differently, depending on the region targeted – aiming for the upper nasal cavity led to a spike in absorption.
The results convinced Mr. Hoekman to stake his future on nasal drug delivery.
In 2008, while still in graduate school, he started his own company, now known as Impel Pharmaceuticals. In 2021, Impel released its first product: Trudhesa, a nasal spray for migraines. Although the drug itself – dihydroergotamine mesylate – was hardly novel, used for migraine relief since 1946 (Headache. 2020 Jan;60[1]:40-57), it was usually delivered through an intravenous line, often in the ED.
But with Mr. Hoekman’s POD device – short for precision olfactory delivery – the drug can be given by the patient, via the nose. This generally means faster, more reliable relief, with fewer side effects. “We were able to lower the dose and improve the overall absorption,” said Mr. Hoekman.
The POD’s nozzle is engineered to spray a soft, narrow plume. It’s gas propelled, so patients don’t have to breathe in any special way to ensure delivery. The drug can zip right through the nasal valve into the upper nasal cavity.
Another company – OptiNose – has a “bidirectional” delivery method that propels drugs, either liquid or dry powder, deep into the nose.
“You insert the nozzle into your nose, and as you blow through the mouthpiece, your soft palate closes,” said Dr. Hindle. With the throat sealed off, “the only place for the drug to go is into one nostril and out the other, coating both sides of the nasal passageways.”
The device is only available for Onzetra Xsail, a powder for migraines. But another application is on its way.
In May, OptiNose announced that the FDA is reviewing Xhance, which uses the system to direct a steroid to the sinuses. In a clinical trial, patients with chronic sinusitis who tried the drug-device combo saw a decline in congestion, facial pain, and inflammation.
Targeting the brain
Both of those migraine drugs – Trudhesa and Onzetra Xsail – are thought to penetrate the upper nasal cavity. That’s where you’ll find the olfactory zone, a sheet of neurons that connects to the olfactory bulb. Located behind the eyes, these two nerve bundles detect odors.
“The olfactory region is almost like a back door to the brain,” said Mr. Hoekman.
By bypassing the blood-brain barrier, it offers a direct pathway – the only direct pathway, actually – between an exposed area of the body and the brain. Meaning it can ferry drugs straight from the nasal cavity to the central nervous system.
Nose-to-brain treatments could be game-changing for central nervous system disorders, such as Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s, or anxiety.
But reaching the olfactory zone is notoriously hard. “The vasculature in your nose is like a big freeway, and the olfactory tract is like a side alley,” explained Mr. Hoekman. “It’s very limiting in what it will allow through.” The region is also small, occupying only 3%-10% of the nasal cavity’s surface area.
Again, POD means “precision olfactory delivery.” But the device isn’t quite as laser focused on the region as its name implies. “We’re not at the stage where we’re able to exclusively deliver to one target site in the nose,” said Dr. Hindle.
While wending its way toward the olfactory zone, some of the drug will be absorbed by other regions, then circulate throughout the body.
“About 59% of the drug that we put into the upper nasal space gets absorbed into the bloodstream,” said Mr. Hoekman.
Janssen Pharmaceuticals’ Spravato – a nasal spray for drug-resistant depression – is thought to work similarly: Some goes straight to the brain via the olfactory nerves, while the rest takes a more roundabout route, passing through the blood vessels to circulate in your system.
A needle-free option
Sometimes, the bloodstream is the main target. Because the nose’s middle and upper stretches are so vascular, drugs can be rapidly absorbed.
This is especially valuable for time-sensitive conditions. “If you give something nasally, you can have peak uptake in 15-30 minutes,” said Mr. Hoekman.
Take Narcan nasal spray, which delivers a burst of naloxone to quickly reverse the effects of opioid an overdose. Or Noctiva nasal spray. Taken just half an hour before bed, it can prevent frequent nighttime urination.
There’s also a group of seizure-stopping sprays, known as “rescue treatments.” One works by temporarily loosening the space between nasal cells, allowing the seizure drug to be quickly absorbed through the vessels.
This systemic access also has potential for drugs that would otherwise have to be injected, such as biologics.
The same goes for vaccines. Mucosal tissue inside the nasal cavity offers direct access to the infection-fighting lymphatic system, making the nose a prime target for inoculation against certain viruses.
Inhaling protection against viruses
Despite the recent surge of interest, nasal vaccines faced a rocky start. After the first nasal flu vaccine hit the market in 2001, it was pulled due to potential toxicity and reports of Bell’s palsy, a type of facial paralysis.
FluMist came in 2003 and has been plagued by problems ever since. Because it contains a weakened live virus, flu-like side effects can occur. And it doesn’t always work. During the 2016-2017 flu season, FluMist protected only 3% of kids, prompting the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to advise against the nasal route that year.
Why FluMist can be so hit-or-miss is poorly understood. But generally, the nose can pose an effectiveness challenge. “The nose is highly cycling,” said Dr. Hindle. “Anything we deposit usually gets transported out within 15-20 minutes.”
For kids – big fans of not using needles – chronically runny noses can be an issue. “You squirt it in the nose, and it will probably just come back out in their snot,” said Jay Kolls, MD, a professor of medicine and pediatrics at Tulane University, New Orleans, who is developing an intranasal pneumonia vaccine.
Even so, nasal vaccines became a hot topic among researchers after the world was shut down by a virus that invades through the nose.
“We realized that intramuscular vaccines were effective at preventing severe disease, but they weren’t that effective at preventing transmission,” said Michael Diamond, MD, PhD, an immunologist at Washington University in St. Louis.
Nasal vaccines could solve that problem by putting an immune barrier at the point of entry, denying access to the rest of the body. “You squash the infection early enough that it not only prevents disease,” said Dr. Kolls, “but potentially prevents transmission.”
And yes, a nasal COVID vaccine is on the way
In March 2020, Dr. Diamond’s team began exploring a nasal COVID vaccine. Promising results in animals prompted a vaccine development company to license the technology. The resulting nasal vaccine – the first for COVID – has been approved in India, both as a primary vaccine and a booster.
It works by stimulating an influx of IgA, a type of antibody found in the nasal passages, and production of resident memory T cells, immune cells on standby just beneath the surface tissue in the nose.
By contrast, injected vaccines generate mostly IgG antibodies, which struggle to enter the respiratory tract. Only a tiny fraction – an estimated 1% – typically reach the nose.
Nasal vaccines could also be used along with shots. The latter could prime the whole body to fight back, while a nasal spritz could pull that immune protection to the mucosal surfaces.
Nasal technology could yield more effective vaccines for infections like tuberculosis or malaria, or even safeguard against new – sometimes surprising – conditions.
In a 2021 Nature study, an intranasal vaccine derived from fentanyl was better at preventing overdose than an injected vaccine. “Through some clever chemistry, the drug [in the vaccine] isn’t fentanyl anymore,” said study author Elizabeth Norton, PhD, an assistant professor of microbiology and immunology at Tulane University. “But the immune system still has an antibody response to it.”
Novel applications like this represent the future of nasal drug delivery.
“We’re not going to innovate in asthma or COPD. We’re not going to innovate in local delivery to the nose,” said Dr. Hindle. “Innovation will only come if we look to treat new conditions.”
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
Noses are like caverns – twisting, turning, no two exactly the same. But if you nose past anyone’s nostrils, you’ll discover a surprisingly sprawling space.
“The size of the nasal cavity is about the same as a large handkerchief,” said Hugh Smyth, PhD, a professor of molecular pharmaceutics and drug delivery at the University of Texas at Austin.
“It’s very accessible tissue, and it has a lot of blood flow,” said Dr. Smyth. “The speed of onset can often be as fast as injections, sometimes even faster.”
It’s nothing new to get medicines via your nose. For decades, we’ve squirted various sprays into our nostrils to treat local maladies like allergies or infections. Even the ancients saw wisdom in the nasal route.
But recently, the nose has gained scientific attention as a gateway to the rest of the body – even the brain, a notoriously difficult target.
The upshot: Someday, inhaling therapies could be as routine as swallowing pills.
The nasal route is quick, needle free, and user friendly, and it often requires a smaller dose than other methods, since the drug doesn’t have to pass through the digestive tract, losing potency during digestion.
But there are challenges.
How hard can it be?
Old-school nasal sprayers, mostly unchanged since the 1800s, aren’t cut out for deep-nose delivery. “The technology is relatively limited because you’ve just got a single spray nozzle,” said Michael Hindle, PhD, a professor of pharmaceutics at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.
These traditional devices (similar to perfume sprayers) don’t consistently push meds past the lower to middle sections inside the nose, called the nasal valve – if they do so at all: In a 2020 Rhinology study (doi: 10.4193/Rhin18.304) conventional nasal sprays only reached this first segment of the nose, a less-than-ideal spot to land.
Inside the nasal valve, the surface is skin-like and doesn’t absorb very well. Its narrow design slows airflow, preventing particles from moving to deeper regions, where tissue is vascular and porous like the lungs. And even if this structural roadblock is surpassed, other hurdles remain.
The nose is designed to keep stuff out. Nose hair, cilia, mucus, sneezing, coughing – all make “distributing drugs evenly across the nasal cavity difficult,” said Dr. Smyth. “The spray gets filtered out before it reaches those deeper zones,” potentially dripping out of the nostrils instead of being absorbed.
Complicating matters is how every person’s nose is different. In a 2018 study, Dr. Smyth and a research team created three dimensional–printed models of people’s nasal cavities. They varied widely. “Nasal cavities are very different in size, length, and internal geometry,” he said. “This makes it challenging to target specific areas.”
Although carefully positioning the spray nozzle can help, even something as minor as sniffing too hard (constricting the nostrils) can keep sprays from reaching the absorptive deeper regions.
Still, the benefits are enough to compel researchers to find a way in.
“This really is a drug delivery challenge we’ve been wrestling with,” said Dr. Hindle. “It’s not new formulations we hear about. It’s new devices and delivery methods trying to target the different nasal regions.”
Delivering the goods
In the late aughts, John Hoekman was a graduate student in the University of Washington’s pharmaceutics program, studying nasal drug delivery. In his experiments, he noticed that drugs distributed differently, depending on the region targeted – aiming for the upper nasal cavity led to a spike in absorption.
The results convinced Mr. Hoekman to stake his future on nasal drug delivery.
In 2008, while still in graduate school, he started his own company, now known as Impel Pharmaceuticals. In 2021, Impel released its first product: Trudhesa, a nasal spray for migraines. Although the drug itself – dihydroergotamine mesylate – was hardly novel, used for migraine relief since 1946 (Headache. 2020 Jan;60[1]:40-57), it was usually delivered through an intravenous line, often in the ED.
But with Mr. Hoekman’s POD device – short for precision olfactory delivery – the drug can be given by the patient, via the nose. This generally means faster, more reliable relief, with fewer side effects. “We were able to lower the dose and improve the overall absorption,” said Mr. Hoekman.
The POD’s nozzle is engineered to spray a soft, narrow plume. It’s gas propelled, so patients don’t have to breathe in any special way to ensure delivery. The drug can zip right through the nasal valve into the upper nasal cavity.
Another company – OptiNose – has a “bidirectional” delivery method that propels drugs, either liquid or dry powder, deep into the nose.
“You insert the nozzle into your nose, and as you blow through the mouthpiece, your soft palate closes,” said Dr. Hindle. With the throat sealed off, “the only place for the drug to go is into one nostril and out the other, coating both sides of the nasal passageways.”
The device is only available for Onzetra Xsail, a powder for migraines. But another application is on its way.
In May, OptiNose announced that the FDA is reviewing Xhance, which uses the system to direct a steroid to the sinuses. In a clinical trial, patients with chronic sinusitis who tried the drug-device combo saw a decline in congestion, facial pain, and inflammation.
Targeting the brain
Both of those migraine drugs – Trudhesa and Onzetra Xsail – are thought to penetrate the upper nasal cavity. That’s where you’ll find the olfactory zone, a sheet of neurons that connects to the olfactory bulb. Located behind the eyes, these two nerve bundles detect odors.
“The olfactory region is almost like a back door to the brain,” said Mr. Hoekman.
By bypassing the blood-brain barrier, it offers a direct pathway – the only direct pathway, actually – between an exposed area of the body and the brain. Meaning it can ferry drugs straight from the nasal cavity to the central nervous system.
Nose-to-brain treatments could be game-changing for central nervous system disorders, such as Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s, or anxiety.
But reaching the olfactory zone is notoriously hard. “The vasculature in your nose is like a big freeway, and the olfactory tract is like a side alley,” explained Mr. Hoekman. “It’s very limiting in what it will allow through.” The region is also small, occupying only 3%-10% of the nasal cavity’s surface area.
Again, POD means “precision olfactory delivery.” But the device isn’t quite as laser focused on the region as its name implies. “We’re not at the stage where we’re able to exclusively deliver to one target site in the nose,” said Dr. Hindle.
While wending its way toward the olfactory zone, some of the drug will be absorbed by other regions, then circulate throughout the body.
“About 59% of the drug that we put into the upper nasal space gets absorbed into the bloodstream,” said Mr. Hoekman.
Janssen Pharmaceuticals’ Spravato – a nasal spray for drug-resistant depression – is thought to work similarly: Some goes straight to the brain via the olfactory nerves, while the rest takes a more roundabout route, passing through the blood vessels to circulate in your system.
A needle-free option
Sometimes, the bloodstream is the main target. Because the nose’s middle and upper stretches are so vascular, drugs can be rapidly absorbed.
This is especially valuable for time-sensitive conditions. “If you give something nasally, you can have peak uptake in 15-30 minutes,” said Mr. Hoekman.
Take Narcan nasal spray, which delivers a burst of naloxone to quickly reverse the effects of opioid an overdose. Or Noctiva nasal spray. Taken just half an hour before bed, it can prevent frequent nighttime urination.
There’s also a group of seizure-stopping sprays, known as “rescue treatments.” One works by temporarily loosening the space between nasal cells, allowing the seizure drug to be quickly absorbed through the vessels.
This systemic access also has potential for drugs that would otherwise have to be injected, such as biologics.
The same goes for vaccines. Mucosal tissue inside the nasal cavity offers direct access to the infection-fighting lymphatic system, making the nose a prime target for inoculation against certain viruses.
Inhaling protection against viruses
Despite the recent surge of interest, nasal vaccines faced a rocky start. After the first nasal flu vaccine hit the market in 2001, it was pulled due to potential toxicity and reports of Bell’s palsy, a type of facial paralysis.
FluMist came in 2003 and has been plagued by problems ever since. Because it contains a weakened live virus, flu-like side effects can occur. And it doesn’t always work. During the 2016-2017 flu season, FluMist protected only 3% of kids, prompting the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to advise against the nasal route that year.
Why FluMist can be so hit-or-miss is poorly understood. But generally, the nose can pose an effectiveness challenge. “The nose is highly cycling,” said Dr. Hindle. “Anything we deposit usually gets transported out within 15-20 minutes.”
For kids – big fans of not using needles – chronically runny noses can be an issue. “You squirt it in the nose, and it will probably just come back out in their snot,” said Jay Kolls, MD, a professor of medicine and pediatrics at Tulane University, New Orleans, who is developing an intranasal pneumonia vaccine.
Even so, nasal vaccines became a hot topic among researchers after the world was shut down by a virus that invades through the nose.
“We realized that intramuscular vaccines were effective at preventing severe disease, but they weren’t that effective at preventing transmission,” said Michael Diamond, MD, PhD, an immunologist at Washington University in St. Louis.
Nasal vaccines could solve that problem by putting an immune barrier at the point of entry, denying access to the rest of the body. “You squash the infection early enough that it not only prevents disease,” said Dr. Kolls, “but potentially prevents transmission.”
And yes, a nasal COVID vaccine is on the way
In March 2020, Dr. Diamond’s team began exploring a nasal COVID vaccine. Promising results in animals prompted a vaccine development company to license the technology. The resulting nasal vaccine – the first for COVID – has been approved in India, both as a primary vaccine and a booster.
It works by stimulating an influx of IgA, a type of antibody found in the nasal passages, and production of resident memory T cells, immune cells on standby just beneath the surface tissue in the nose.
By contrast, injected vaccines generate mostly IgG antibodies, which struggle to enter the respiratory tract. Only a tiny fraction – an estimated 1% – typically reach the nose.
Nasal vaccines could also be used along with shots. The latter could prime the whole body to fight back, while a nasal spritz could pull that immune protection to the mucosal surfaces.
Nasal technology could yield more effective vaccines for infections like tuberculosis or malaria, or even safeguard against new – sometimes surprising – conditions.
In a 2021 Nature study, an intranasal vaccine derived from fentanyl was better at preventing overdose than an injected vaccine. “Through some clever chemistry, the drug [in the vaccine] isn’t fentanyl anymore,” said study author Elizabeth Norton, PhD, an assistant professor of microbiology and immunology at Tulane University. “But the immune system still has an antibody response to it.”
Novel applications like this represent the future of nasal drug delivery.
“We’re not going to innovate in asthma or COPD. We’re not going to innovate in local delivery to the nose,” said Dr. Hindle. “Innovation will only come if we look to treat new conditions.”
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
West Nile virus cases rising nationwide amid mosquito season
In the past 2 weeks, new cases have been reported in Iowa and Nebraska, adding to previous 2023 reports from Arizona, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming. A mosquito at a monitoring site near Houston tested positive last week for the potentially fatal virus, prompting local health officials to begin evening spray operations in the area where the mosquito was found, according to an announcement from Harris County Public Health.
According to the CDC, which compiles local reports, there have been 13 human cases of West Nile virus in 2023. In 2022, there were 1,126 cases, including 90 deaths.
Among this year’s 13 cases reported to the CDC so far, eight people add severe neuroinvasive disease, which means the disease spread to the nervous system. Such severe symptoms typically occur in 1 in every 150 cases of West Nile virus and can include encephalitis, which is inflammation of the brain, or meningitis, which is inflammation of the membranes that surround the brain and spinal cord. Three of the neuroinvasive cases occurred earlier this year amid an outbreak in Maricopa County, Arizona, where the disease is considered endemic, according to an April 28 report from the CDC.
The CDC says West Nile virus is the most common disease spread by mosquitoes in the continental United States. Local health officials sample mosquitoes to guide mosquito control strategies. So far this year, the CDC has received 28 reports of mosquitoes testing positive. Those mosquito testing reports came from Arizona, California, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, and Texas.
West Nile virus is transmitted to people by the bite of an infected mosquito, but it can also be spread to humans if they handle a dead bird that is infected. The CDC says there are no medications to treat the virus in people. Most people who are infected do not feel sick, and 1 in 5 people infected develop a fever and other symptoms like headache, body ache, or a rash.
Prevention strategies are to wear insect repellent and to wear long-sleeved shirts and long pants to avoid mosquito bites.
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
In the past 2 weeks, new cases have been reported in Iowa and Nebraska, adding to previous 2023 reports from Arizona, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming. A mosquito at a monitoring site near Houston tested positive last week for the potentially fatal virus, prompting local health officials to begin evening spray operations in the area where the mosquito was found, according to an announcement from Harris County Public Health.
According to the CDC, which compiles local reports, there have been 13 human cases of West Nile virus in 2023. In 2022, there were 1,126 cases, including 90 deaths.
Among this year’s 13 cases reported to the CDC so far, eight people add severe neuroinvasive disease, which means the disease spread to the nervous system. Such severe symptoms typically occur in 1 in every 150 cases of West Nile virus and can include encephalitis, which is inflammation of the brain, or meningitis, which is inflammation of the membranes that surround the brain and spinal cord. Three of the neuroinvasive cases occurred earlier this year amid an outbreak in Maricopa County, Arizona, where the disease is considered endemic, according to an April 28 report from the CDC.
The CDC says West Nile virus is the most common disease spread by mosquitoes in the continental United States. Local health officials sample mosquitoes to guide mosquito control strategies. So far this year, the CDC has received 28 reports of mosquitoes testing positive. Those mosquito testing reports came from Arizona, California, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, and Texas.
West Nile virus is transmitted to people by the bite of an infected mosquito, but it can also be spread to humans if they handle a dead bird that is infected. The CDC says there are no medications to treat the virus in people. Most people who are infected do not feel sick, and 1 in 5 people infected develop a fever and other symptoms like headache, body ache, or a rash.
Prevention strategies are to wear insect repellent and to wear long-sleeved shirts and long pants to avoid mosquito bites.
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
In the past 2 weeks, new cases have been reported in Iowa and Nebraska, adding to previous 2023 reports from Arizona, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming. A mosquito at a monitoring site near Houston tested positive last week for the potentially fatal virus, prompting local health officials to begin evening spray operations in the area where the mosquito was found, according to an announcement from Harris County Public Health.
According to the CDC, which compiles local reports, there have been 13 human cases of West Nile virus in 2023. In 2022, there were 1,126 cases, including 90 deaths.
Among this year’s 13 cases reported to the CDC so far, eight people add severe neuroinvasive disease, which means the disease spread to the nervous system. Such severe symptoms typically occur in 1 in every 150 cases of West Nile virus and can include encephalitis, which is inflammation of the brain, or meningitis, which is inflammation of the membranes that surround the brain and spinal cord. Three of the neuroinvasive cases occurred earlier this year amid an outbreak in Maricopa County, Arizona, where the disease is considered endemic, according to an April 28 report from the CDC.
The CDC says West Nile virus is the most common disease spread by mosquitoes in the continental United States. Local health officials sample mosquitoes to guide mosquito control strategies. So far this year, the CDC has received 28 reports of mosquitoes testing positive. Those mosquito testing reports came from Arizona, California, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, and Texas.
West Nile virus is transmitted to people by the bite of an infected mosquito, but it can also be spread to humans if they handle a dead bird that is infected. The CDC says there are no medications to treat the virus in people. Most people who are infected do not feel sick, and 1 in 5 people infected develop a fever and other symptoms like headache, body ache, or a rash.
Prevention strategies are to wear insect repellent and to wear long-sleeved shirts and long pants to avoid mosquito bites.
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
Prognostic factors of SCCs in organ transplant recipients worse compared with general population
, results from a dual cohort study demonstrated.
The findings build on previous research and underscore the need for early diagnosis and aggressive surveillance in this patient population, corresponding author Adele C. Green, MBBS, PhD, professor and senior scientist at the QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, and colleagues wrote in the study, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology. “Squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) of the skin develop up to 77 times more frequently in immunosuppressed organ transplant recipients (OTRs) than the general population,” they wrote. “Because SCCs cause substantially more morbidity and death in the former, they are postulated to be innately more aggressive than in immunocompetent patients, but OTRs’ higher SCC mortality may simply reflect greater SCC tumor burdens per patient.”
In what is believed to be the first study of its kind, Dr. Green and colleagues drew data from two cohort studies to evaluate five key clinicopathologic indicators of poor SCC outcomes in organ transplant recipients, and in those from the general population in Queensland, Australia: cephalic location, perineural invasion, invasion to/beyond subcutaneous fat, poor differentiation, and tumor size greater than 20 mm. The study population included organ transplant recipients at high risk of skin cancer, who were enrolled in the Skin Tumours in Allograft Recipients (STAR) study, and those from a population-based cohort, the QSkin Sun and Health Study. STAR consisted of lung transplant recipients and kidney and liver transplant recipients at high risk of skin cancer who were recruited from tertiary centers and diagnosed with histopathologically confirmed SCC from 2012 to 2015. QSkin consisted of individuals from Queensland’s general adult population diagnosed with SCCs from 2012 to 2015.
SCC cases in QSkin were ascertained through Australia’s universal health insurance agency and linked with histopathology records. Next, the researchers performed data analysis from both cohort studies to determine the prevalence ratio (PR) of head/neck location, perineural invasion, tumor invasion to/beyond subcutaneous fat, poor cellular differentiation, and tumor diameter greater than 20 mm among SCCs among organ transplant recipients compared with the general population.
After combining the two studies, the researchers compared 741 SCCs excised from 191 organ transplant recipients and 2,558 SCCs excised from 1,507 individuals in the general population. Their median ages were similar (62.7 and 63.7 years, respectively) and most were male (78% and 63.4%, respectively).
As for site of involvement, SCCs developed most often on the head and neck in the transplant recipients (38.6%) and on the arms and hands in the general population (35.2%). After adjustment for age and sex, perineural invasion of SCCs was more than twice as common in transplant recipients than among cases in the general population, as was invasion to/beyond subcutaneous fat (PR of 2.37 for both associations).
In other findings, compared with SCCs in the general population, poorly vs. well-differentiated SCCs were more than threefold more common in transplant recipients (PR, 3.45), while the prevalence of tumors greater than 20 mm vs. 20 mm or smaller was moderately higher in transplant recipients (PR, 1.52).
“These findings are considered generalizable, confirming that OTRs’ poorer SCC outcomes are associated with not only their sheer numbers of SCC tumors, but also with a strong shift toward more invasive, less differentiated, and larger SCC tumors, in agreement with previous findings,” the researchers wrote. “This shift is likely associated with decreased immunosurveillance resulting from immunosuppressive therapy (since carcinogenesis decelerates with therapy cessation) interacting with effects of high UV radiation exposure.”
They acknowledged certain limitations of their analysis, chiefly the lack of central review of SCCs to ensure standard assessment of histopathologic features “including caliber of nerves with perineural invasion and cell differentiation; such a review would not have been feasible logistically.”
The study was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. The researchers reported having no disclosures related to the submitted work.
, results from a dual cohort study demonstrated.
The findings build on previous research and underscore the need for early diagnosis and aggressive surveillance in this patient population, corresponding author Adele C. Green, MBBS, PhD, professor and senior scientist at the QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, and colleagues wrote in the study, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology. “Squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) of the skin develop up to 77 times more frequently in immunosuppressed organ transplant recipients (OTRs) than the general population,” they wrote. “Because SCCs cause substantially more morbidity and death in the former, they are postulated to be innately more aggressive than in immunocompetent patients, but OTRs’ higher SCC mortality may simply reflect greater SCC tumor burdens per patient.”
In what is believed to be the first study of its kind, Dr. Green and colleagues drew data from two cohort studies to evaluate five key clinicopathologic indicators of poor SCC outcomes in organ transplant recipients, and in those from the general population in Queensland, Australia: cephalic location, perineural invasion, invasion to/beyond subcutaneous fat, poor differentiation, and tumor size greater than 20 mm. The study population included organ transplant recipients at high risk of skin cancer, who were enrolled in the Skin Tumours in Allograft Recipients (STAR) study, and those from a population-based cohort, the QSkin Sun and Health Study. STAR consisted of lung transplant recipients and kidney and liver transplant recipients at high risk of skin cancer who were recruited from tertiary centers and diagnosed with histopathologically confirmed SCC from 2012 to 2015. QSkin consisted of individuals from Queensland’s general adult population diagnosed with SCCs from 2012 to 2015.
SCC cases in QSkin were ascertained through Australia’s universal health insurance agency and linked with histopathology records. Next, the researchers performed data analysis from both cohort studies to determine the prevalence ratio (PR) of head/neck location, perineural invasion, tumor invasion to/beyond subcutaneous fat, poor cellular differentiation, and tumor diameter greater than 20 mm among SCCs among organ transplant recipients compared with the general population.
After combining the two studies, the researchers compared 741 SCCs excised from 191 organ transplant recipients and 2,558 SCCs excised from 1,507 individuals in the general population. Their median ages were similar (62.7 and 63.7 years, respectively) and most were male (78% and 63.4%, respectively).
As for site of involvement, SCCs developed most often on the head and neck in the transplant recipients (38.6%) and on the arms and hands in the general population (35.2%). After adjustment for age and sex, perineural invasion of SCCs was more than twice as common in transplant recipients than among cases in the general population, as was invasion to/beyond subcutaneous fat (PR of 2.37 for both associations).
In other findings, compared with SCCs in the general population, poorly vs. well-differentiated SCCs were more than threefold more common in transplant recipients (PR, 3.45), while the prevalence of tumors greater than 20 mm vs. 20 mm or smaller was moderately higher in transplant recipients (PR, 1.52).
“These findings are considered generalizable, confirming that OTRs’ poorer SCC outcomes are associated with not only their sheer numbers of SCC tumors, but also with a strong shift toward more invasive, less differentiated, and larger SCC tumors, in agreement with previous findings,” the researchers wrote. “This shift is likely associated with decreased immunosurveillance resulting from immunosuppressive therapy (since carcinogenesis decelerates with therapy cessation) interacting with effects of high UV radiation exposure.”
They acknowledged certain limitations of their analysis, chiefly the lack of central review of SCCs to ensure standard assessment of histopathologic features “including caliber of nerves with perineural invasion and cell differentiation; such a review would not have been feasible logistically.”
The study was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. The researchers reported having no disclosures related to the submitted work.
, results from a dual cohort study demonstrated.
The findings build on previous research and underscore the need for early diagnosis and aggressive surveillance in this patient population, corresponding author Adele C. Green, MBBS, PhD, professor and senior scientist at the QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, and colleagues wrote in the study, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology. “Squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) of the skin develop up to 77 times more frequently in immunosuppressed organ transplant recipients (OTRs) than the general population,” they wrote. “Because SCCs cause substantially more morbidity and death in the former, they are postulated to be innately more aggressive than in immunocompetent patients, but OTRs’ higher SCC mortality may simply reflect greater SCC tumor burdens per patient.”
In what is believed to be the first study of its kind, Dr. Green and colleagues drew data from two cohort studies to evaluate five key clinicopathologic indicators of poor SCC outcomes in organ transplant recipients, and in those from the general population in Queensland, Australia: cephalic location, perineural invasion, invasion to/beyond subcutaneous fat, poor differentiation, and tumor size greater than 20 mm. The study population included organ transplant recipients at high risk of skin cancer, who were enrolled in the Skin Tumours in Allograft Recipients (STAR) study, and those from a population-based cohort, the QSkin Sun and Health Study. STAR consisted of lung transplant recipients and kidney and liver transplant recipients at high risk of skin cancer who were recruited from tertiary centers and diagnosed with histopathologically confirmed SCC from 2012 to 2015. QSkin consisted of individuals from Queensland’s general adult population diagnosed with SCCs from 2012 to 2015.
SCC cases in QSkin were ascertained through Australia’s universal health insurance agency and linked with histopathology records. Next, the researchers performed data analysis from both cohort studies to determine the prevalence ratio (PR) of head/neck location, perineural invasion, tumor invasion to/beyond subcutaneous fat, poor cellular differentiation, and tumor diameter greater than 20 mm among SCCs among organ transplant recipients compared with the general population.
After combining the two studies, the researchers compared 741 SCCs excised from 191 organ transplant recipients and 2,558 SCCs excised from 1,507 individuals in the general population. Their median ages were similar (62.7 and 63.7 years, respectively) and most were male (78% and 63.4%, respectively).
As for site of involvement, SCCs developed most often on the head and neck in the transplant recipients (38.6%) and on the arms and hands in the general population (35.2%). After adjustment for age and sex, perineural invasion of SCCs was more than twice as common in transplant recipients than among cases in the general population, as was invasion to/beyond subcutaneous fat (PR of 2.37 for both associations).
In other findings, compared with SCCs in the general population, poorly vs. well-differentiated SCCs were more than threefold more common in transplant recipients (PR, 3.45), while the prevalence of tumors greater than 20 mm vs. 20 mm or smaller was moderately higher in transplant recipients (PR, 1.52).
“These findings are considered generalizable, confirming that OTRs’ poorer SCC outcomes are associated with not only their sheer numbers of SCC tumors, but also with a strong shift toward more invasive, less differentiated, and larger SCC tumors, in agreement with previous findings,” the researchers wrote. “This shift is likely associated with decreased immunosurveillance resulting from immunosuppressive therapy (since carcinogenesis decelerates with therapy cessation) interacting with effects of high UV radiation exposure.”
They acknowledged certain limitations of their analysis, chiefly the lack of central review of SCCs to ensure standard assessment of histopathologic features “including caliber of nerves with perineural invasion and cell differentiation; such a review would not have been feasible logistically.”
The study was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. The researchers reported having no disclosures related to the submitted work.
FROM JAMA DERMATOLOGY
CMML: GM-CSF inhibitor lenzilumab shows early promise
There is currently no international standard of care for patients with CMML, but given its overlap with other myelodysplastic and myeloproliferative syndromes, CMML is usually treated with the hypomethylating agent azacitidine (Vidaza, Onureg), which is associated with objective response rates of 40%-50% and a complete response rate of less than 20%. Alternatively, some patients are treated with the antimetabolite hydroxurea in the palliative setting.
CMML is “insidious, it’s rare, but we think the incidence is increasing because more patients are now getting sequencing done by their doctors, and therapy [related] cases, patients that have survived chemo in the last 10 years, can also develop this disease,” said Daniel Thomas, MD, PhD, from the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, in an interview.
Dr. Thomas is a co-investigator of the ongoing phase 2/3 PREACH-M trial, which is testing a novel strategy of treating CMML with mutations in the RAS pathway with a combination of azacitidine and the investigational antibody lenzilumab, which is a targeted inhibitor of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF).
Preliminary results from the trial, reported at the European Hematology Association (EHA) annual meeting, showed that among 10 patients with CMML bearing mutations in the RAS pathway, the combination was associated with durable decreases in monocyte counts, increases in platelet counts and hemoglobin levels, and reductions in both spleen size and C-reactive protein level.
Targeting GM-CSF
More than 90% of cases of CMML carry somatic mutations that are thought to be leukemogenic, with an estimated 46%-60% of cases having mutations in TET2, a tumor suppressor, and an estimated 40% having mutations in KRAS, NRAS, or CBL, all of which are involved in cellular proliferation, and which, research suggests, are sensitive to GM-CSF inhibition.
“I was very surprised that the RAS-mutant arm – so, patients that have KRAS, NRAS, or CBL mutations – are just responding beautifully to [lenzilumab], ” Dr. Thomas said.
“It’s [in the] early days, but if what we’re seeing is durable across the next 10 patients, then I think we’re looking at a game changer,” he added.
Cameron Durrant, MD, DRCOG, MRCGP, chairman and CEO of lenzilumab’s maker Humanigen, said in an interview that the development of the antibody for CMML was spurred in part by research from investigators at the Mayo Clinic, showing that patients with mutations that increased sensitivity to GM-CSF seemed to have better clinical outcomes when the growth factor was blocked.
In addition, Dr. Durrant said, preclinical research from investigators at the Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, found that myeloid and monocytic progenitors “fed” on GM-CSF and were sensitive to GM-CSF signal inhibition.
“The biological idea that’s being explored here in the clinic in this study is that by blocking, or starving, if you will, those cells of that food, then you can prevent this overgrowth of certain blood cells that lead to chronic myelomonocytic leukemia,” he said.
PREACH-M details
Lenzilumab is an engineered human immunoglobulin G1-kappa monoclonal antibody with high affinity for human GM-CSF.
In the open label, nonrandomized PREACH-M trial, 72 patients with CMML were enrolled and were assigned to receive 24 monthly cycles of therapy depending on mutational status.
Patients with RAS pathway mutations were assigned to receive azacitidine delivered subcutaneously 75 mg/m2 for 7 days, plus intravenous lenzilumab 552 mg on days 1 and 15 of cycle 1 and on day 1 only of all subsequent cycles.
Patients with TET2 mutations only were assigned to receive azacitidine on the same schedule, plus IV sodium ascorbate 30 g for 7 days, with the first dose 15 g, and subsequent doses 30 g if there is no evidence of tumor lysis syndrome. Following IV administration, patients continue on oral sodium ascorbate 1.1 g on all other days.
The primary endpoint of complete and partial responses any time during the first 12 cycles is planned for reporting at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology in December, Dr. Thomas said.
At EHA 2023, the investigators reported available data on 10 patients enrolled in the lenzilumab arm and one enrolled in the azacitidine-sodium ascorbate arm.
Among patients in the lenzilumab arm there was a 5.1-fold decrease in monocyte counts (P = .03) and 2.4-fold decrease in blast counts (P = .04) at 12 months of follow-up.
In addition there was a trend toward increased platelet counts over baseline at 12 months, a significant increase in blood hemoglobin concentration (P = .024), a significant reduction in spleen size (P = .03) and a trend toward lower levels of the inflammatory marker C-reactive protein.
There were 21 grade 3 or 4 adverse events reported, of which 5 were deemed to be possibly related to lenzilumab.
Dr. Thomas told this news organization that the investigators have been “pleasantly surprised” at how well patients tolerated the monoclonal antibody.
“We haven’t had any infusion reactions, we haven’t had any pulmonary alveolar proteinosis, [and] we haven’t had any fevers from the infusion, from the antibody,” he said.
There were some instances of neutropenia and thrombocytopenia that the investigators think may have been related to azacitidine, he noted.
The study is sponsored by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Dr. Thomas reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Durrant is an employee and director of Humanigen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
There is currently no international standard of care for patients with CMML, but given its overlap with other myelodysplastic and myeloproliferative syndromes, CMML is usually treated with the hypomethylating agent azacitidine (Vidaza, Onureg), which is associated with objective response rates of 40%-50% and a complete response rate of less than 20%. Alternatively, some patients are treated with the antimetabolite hydroxurea in the palliative setting.
CMML is “insidious, it’s rare, but we think the incidence is increasing because more patients are now getting sequencing done by their doctors, and therapy [related] cases, patients that have survived chemo in the last 10 years, can also develop this disease,” said Daniel Thomas, MD, PhD, from the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, in an interview.
Dr. Thomas is a co-investigator of the ongoing phase 2/3 PREACH-M trial, which is testing a novel strategy of treating CMML with mutations in the RAS pathway with a combination of azacitidine and the investigational antibody lenzilumab, which is a targeted inhibitor of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF).
Preliminary results from the trial, reported at the European Hematology Association (EHA) annual meeting, showed that among 10 patients with CMML bearing mutations in the RAS pathway, the combination was associated with durable decreases in monocyte counts, increases in platelet counts and hemoglobin levels, and reductions in both spleen size and C-reactive protein level.
Targeting GM-CSF
More than 90% of cases of CMML carry somatic mutations that are thought to be leukemogenic, with an estimated 46%-60% of cases having mutations in TET2, a tumor suppressor, and an estimated 40% having mutations in KRAS, NRAS, or CBL, all of which are involved in cellular proliferation, and which, research suggests, are sensitive to GM-CSF inhibition.
“I was very surprised that the RAS-mutant arm – so, patients that have KRAS, NRAS, or CBL mutations – are just responding beautifully to [lenzilumab], ” Dr. Thomas said.
“It’s [in the] early days, but if what we’re seeing is durable across the next 10 patients, then I think we’re looking at a game changer,” he added.
Cameron Durrant, MD, DRCOG, MRCGP, chairman and CEO of lenzilumab’s maker Humanigen, said in an interview that the development of the antibody for CMML was spurred in part by research from investigators at the Mayo Clinic, showing that patients with mutations that increased sensitivity to GM-CSF seemed to have better clinical outcomes when the growth factor was blocked.
In addition, Dr. Durrant said, preclinical research from investigators at the Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, found that myeloid and monocytic progenitors “fed” on GM-CSF and were sensitive to GM-CSF signal inhibition.
“The biological idea that’s being explored here in the clinic in this study is that by blocking, or starving, if you will, those cells of that food, then you can prevent this overgrowth of certain blood cells that lead to chronic myelomonocytic leukemia,” he said.
PREACH-M details
Lenzilumab is an engineered human immunoglobulin G1-kappa monoclonal antibody with high affinity for human GM-CSF.
In the open label, nonrandomized PREACH-M trial, 72 patients with CMML were enrolled and were assigned to receive 24 monthly cycles of therapy depending on mutational status.
Patients with RAS pathway mutations were assigned to receive azacitidine delivered subcutaneously 75 mg/m2 for 7 days, plus intravenous lenzilumab 552 mg on days 1 and 15 of cycle 1 and on day 1 only of all subsequent cycles.
Patients with TET2 mutations only were assigned to receive azacitidine on the same schedule, plus IV sodium ascorbate 30 g for 7 days, with the first dose 15 g, and subsequent doses 30 g if there is no evidence of tumor lysis syndrome. Following IV administration, patients continue on oral sodium ascorbate 1.1 g on all other days.
The primary endpoint of complete and partial responses any time during the first 12 cycles is planned for reporting at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology in December, Dr. Thomas said.
At EHA 2023, the investigators reported available data on 10 patients enrolled in the lenzilumab arm and one enrolled in the azacitidine-sodium ascorbate arm.
Among patients in the lenzilumab arm there was a 5.1-fold decrease in monocyte counts (P = .03) and 2.4-fold decrease in blast counts (P = .04) at 12 months of follow-up.
In addition there was a trend toward increased platelet counts over baseline at 12 months, a significant increase in blood hemoglobin concentration (P = .024), a significant reduction in spleen size (P = .03) and a trend toward lower levels of the inflammatory marker C-reactive protein.
There were 21 grade 3 or 4 adverse events reported, of which 5 were deemed to be possibly related to lenzilumab.
Dr. Thomas told this news organization that the investigators have been “pleasantly surprised” at how well patients tolerated the monoclonal antibody.
“We haven’t had any infusion reactions, we haven’t had any pulmonary alveolar proteinosis, [and] we haven’t had any fevers from the infusion, from the antibody,” he said.
There were some instances of neutropenia and thrombocytopenia that the investigators think may have been related to azacitidine, he noted.
The study is sponsored by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Dr. Thomas reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Durrant is an employee and director of Humanigen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
There is currently no international standard of care for patients with CMML, but given its overlap with other myelodysplastic and myeloproliferative syndromes, CMML is usually treated with the hypomethylating agent azacitidine (Vidaza, Onureg), which is associated with objective response rates of 40%-50% and a complete response rate of less than 20%. Alternatively, some patients are treated with the antimetabolite hydroxurea in the palliative setting.
CMML is “insidious, it’s rare, but we think the incidence is increasing because more patients are now getting sequencing done by their doctors, and therapy [related] cases, patients that have survived chemo in the last 10 years, can also develop this disease,” said Daniel Thomas, MD, PhD, from the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, in an interview.
Dr. Thomas is a co-investigator of the ongoing phase 2/3 PREACH-M trial, which is testing a novel strategy of treating CMML with mutations in the RAS pathway with a combination of azacitidine and the investigational antibody lenzilumab, which is a targeted inhibitor of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF).
Preliminary results from the trial, reported at the European Hematology Association (EHA) annual meeting, showed that among 10 patients with CMML bearing mutations in the RAS pathway, the combination was associated with durable decreases in monocyte counts, increases in platelet counts and hemoglobin levels, and reductions in both spleen size and C-reactive protein level.
Targeting GM-CSF
More than 90% of cases of CMML carry somatic mutations that are thought to be leukemogenic, with an estimated 46%-60% of cases having mutations in TET2, a tumor suppressor, and an estimated 40% having mutations in KRAS, NRAS, or CBL, all of which are involved in cellular proliferation, and which, research suggests, are sensitive to GM-CSF inhibition.
“I was very surprised that the RAS-mutant arm – so, patients that have KRAS, NRAS, or CBL mutations – are just responding beautifully to [lenzilumab], ” Dr. Thomas said.
“It’s [in the] early days, but if what we’re seeing is durable across the next 10 patients, then I think we’re looking at a game changer,” he added.
Cameron Durrant, MD, DRCOG, MRCGP, chairman and CEO of lenzilumab’s maker Humanigen, said in an interview that the development of the antibody for CMML was spurred in part by research from investigators at the Mayo Clinic, showing that patients with mutations that increased sensitivity to GM-CSF seemed to have better clinical outcomes when the growth factor was blocked.
In addition, Dr. Durrant said, preclinical research from investigators at the Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, found that myeloid and monocytic progenitors “fed” on GM-CSF and were sensitive to GM-CSF signal inhibition.
“The biological idea that’s being explored here in the clinic in this study is that by blocking, or starving, if you will, those cells of that food, then you can prevent this overgrowth of certain blood cells that lead to chronic myelomonocytic leukemia,” he said.
PREACH-M details
Lenzilumab is an engineered human immunoglobulin G1-kappa monoclonal antibody with high affinity for human GM-CSF.
In the open label, nonrandomized PREACH-M trial, 72 patients with CMML were enrolled and were assigned to receive 24 monthly cycles of therapy depending on mutational status.
Patients with RAS pathway mutations were assigned to receive azacitidine delivered subcutaneously 75 mg/m2 for 7 days, plus intravenous lenzilumab 552 mg on days 1 and 15 of cycle 1 and on day 1 only of all subsequent cycles.
Patients with TET2 mutations only were assigned to receive azacitidine on the same schedule, plus IV sodium ascorbate 30 g for 7 days, with the first dose 15 g, and subsequent doses 30 g if there is no evidence of tumor lysis syndrome. Following IV administration, patients continue on oral sodium ascorbate 1.1 g on all other days.
The primary endpoint of complete and partial responses any time during the first 12 cycles is planned for reporting at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology in December, Dr. Thomas said.
At EHA 2023, the investigators reported available data on 10 patients enrolled in the lenzilumab arm and one enrolled in the azacitidine-sodium ascorbate arm.
Among patients in the lenzilumab arm there was a 5.1-fold decrease in monocyte counts (P = .03) and 2.4-fold decrease in blast counts (P = .04) at 12 months of follow-up.
In addition there was a trend toward increased platelet counts over baseline at 12 months, a significant increase in blood hemoglobin concentration (P = .024), a significant reduction in spleen size (P = .03) and a trend toward lower levels of the inflammatory marker C-reactive protein.
There were 21 grade 3 or 4 adverse events reported, of which 5 were deemed to be possibly related to lenzilumab.
Dr. Thomas told this news organization that the investigators have been “pleasantly surprised” at how well patients tolerated the monoclonal antibody.
“We haven’t had any infusion reactions, we haven’t had any pulmonary alveolar proteinosis, [and] we haven’t had any fevers from the infusion, from the antibody,” he said.
There were some instances of neutropenia and thrombocytopenia that the investigators think may have been related to azacitidine, he noted.
The study is sponsored by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Dr. Thomas reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Durrant is an employee and director of Humanigen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM EHA 2023
Book review: “Sexual Citizens”
The Sexual Health Initiative to Foster Transformation (SHIFT)1 is a landmark study about sexual assault at college, which has generated 20 scientific articles and several chapters in books, but unfortunately, has not made its way into the psychiatric literature.
“Sexual Citizens: Sex, Power and Assault on Campus,” by Jennifer Hirsch and Shamus Khan, (available in audio book and paperback) was written as a follow up to the SHIFT study, so the rest of us can absorb the findings.2 This mixed-methods study included a survey of over 1,600 students aged 18-29 from Columbia University and Barnard College regarding their relationships and sexual histories, including assault. Data were collected using daily diaries, focus groups, and hundreds of hours of field work observation by young researchers. One- to 3-hour in-depth interviews exploring sexual experiences on campus were conducted with 151 students. These interviews are the focus of the book. It is a well-written, provocative story brimming with insights for those of us who lack the time to scour social science literature.
“Sexual Citizens” and the SHIFT study confirmed much of what we know. Sexual assault is common and has enduring effects. The study found that 36% of women and 15% of men had experienced unwanted, nonconsensual sexual contact by senior year. Twenty percent of women and 6% of men were rape survivors. Freshman, LGBTQ, and minority students were found at highest risk of assault. SHIFT reaffirmed that abstinence-only education is not a protective factor against college sexual assault, but neither was knowledge of affirmative consent (the practice of “ongoing and explicit” checking-in with partners) which few students ever employed. Encouragingly, students taught refusal skills were less likely to experience sexual assault.
Many of the book’s valuable lessons fall under the umbrella of failures of language and communication. For example, after drinking, they went to his room. She was expecting a social interaction, but with no other place to sit, they sat on his bed where she was coaxed or pressured into a sexual encounter. Afterward, she leaves, and it is never discussed again. One partner desires emotional intimacy, and the other, bragging rights in the fraternity or at the girls’ weekly brunch. Numerous personal stories like these, though at times heart wrenching, provide perspective on the barriers to addressing assault.
Subjects relayed experiences of assault by strangers or friends, and some provided details of their own actions as perpetrators. Stumbling around words and emotions, an avoidance of explicit language stemmed from shame, a fear of personal responsibility, the desire to maintain social cohesion, and concern for potential consequences for the perpetrator. Many subjects were resistant to calling nonconsensual sexual activity rape or even assault. Some who had perpetrated were unaware their behavior may have been experienced as assault, with recognition of this fact dawning during interviews.
This apparent limitation in self-reflective capacity may be in part due to the conceptualization of what assault is. Focus groups identified a discernible difference in how men and women understood assaults, with men believing rapes looked like a woman fighting back and screaming for help ... which is rarely what happens.
Notably absent among the interviewed are any flagrant perpetrators. The methodology section theorizes that individuals who intentionally harmed their peers were unlikely to choose to participate in this study. In addition, the characterization of assailants as “sociopathic predators” is based in a history of racialized imagery that leads us astray from the truth about campus sexual assault. Most assaults do not involve force, and SHIFT data showed 75% of victims knew their assailants. Ultimately, a major aim of the research was to study assault alongside healthy sex to “understand those pivotal moments when encounters change from being sex, to being assault.” Doing this requires understanding the where, how, and why students have sex, a more complicated undertaking than we may think.
In discussing their sexual lives, subjects frequently noted they did not have space to talk about their assaults. Though 81% of students discussed their experiences with someone, friend groups were often overburdened with stories, which minimized the victim’s experience. Furthermore, most had not sought help from the student counseling centers. Students navigating this complex field were frequently doing so in isolation. SHIFT found subjects to be eager to participate; they would often express thankfulness, and a sense of freedom in sharing with researchers. Commonly, students expressly did not want retribution for perpetrators, but simply a place to be heard without challenge. The current legal system precludes that possibility, leaving individuals without the option to confront perpetrators, and perpetrators often not knowing the extent of the damage they caused.
Where can psychiatrists have an impact right now? “Sexual Citizens” identifies four key areas for intervention to work toward a world with less sexual assault. These are:
- Improving diversity, inequality, and power distortions.
- Education about sex and sexual assault.
- Substance use.
- Mental health.
Substance use and mental health are especially relevant for psychiatrists (That substance use contributes to sexual assault is known by approximately ... everybody!). Unwanted sexual contact prior to college (20% of students) increased the odds of experiencing assault during college. Harm reduction strategies should be introduced before college, according to the SHIFT research, particularly in skills-based training on how to say “No” to unwanted sex. Psychiatrists are likely used to asking brief history questions related to sexual assault and rape. “Sexual Citizens” highlights the inadequacy of this blunt language and guides the reader toward a refined knowledge of the language needed to address sexual assault.
Dr. Whisler is a child and adolescent psychiatry fellow at the Stanford (Calif.) University. Dr. Higgins is affiliate associate professor of psychiatry and family medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.
References
1. Hirsch JS et al. Social dimensions of sexual consent among cisgender heterosexual college students: Insights from ethnographic research. J Adolesc Health. 2019 Jan;64(1):26-35. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.06.011.
2. Hirsch JS and Khan S. Sexual citizens: Sex, power, and assault on campus. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2020.
The Sexual Health Initiative to Foster Transformation (SHIFT)1 is a landmark study about sexual assault at college, which has generated 20 scientific articles and several chapters in books, but unfortunately, has not made its way into the psychiatric literature.
“Sexual Citizens: Sex, Power and Assault on Campus,” by Jennifer Hirsch and Shamus Khan, (available in audio book and paperback) was written as a follow up to the SHIFT study, so the rest of us can absorb the findings.2 This mixed-methods study included a survey of over 1,600 students aged 18-29 from Columbia University and Barnard College regarding their relationships and sexual histories, including assault. Data were collected using daily diaries, focus groups, and hundreds of hours of field work observation by young researchers. One- to 3-hour in-depth interviews exploring sexual experiences on campus were conducted with 151 students. These interviews are the focus of the book. It is a well-written, provocative story brimming with insights for those of us who lack the time to scour social science literature.
“Sexual Citizens” and the SHIFT study confirmed much of what we know. Sexual assault is common and has enduring effects. The study found that 36% of women and 15% of men had experienced unwanted, nonconsensual sexual contact by senior year. Twenty percent of women and 6% of men were rape survivors. Freshman, LGBTQ, and minority students were found at highest risk of assault. SHIFT reaffirmed that abstinence-only education is not a protective factor against college sexual assault, but neither was knowledge of affirmative consent (the practice of “ongoing and explicit” checking-in with partners) which few students ever employed. Encouragingly, students taught refusal skills were less likely to experience sexual assault.
Many of the book’s valuable lessons fall under the umbrella of failures of language and communication. For example, after drinking, they went to his room. She was expecting a social interaction, but with no other place to sit, they sat on his bed where she was coaxed or pressured into a sexual encounter. Afterward, she leaves, and it is never discussed again. One partner desires emotional intimacy, and the other, bragging rights in the fraternity or at the girls’ weekly brunch. Numerous personal stories like these, though at times heart wrenching, provide perspective on the barriers to addressing assault.
Subjects relayed experiences of assault by strangers or friends, and some provided details of their own actions as perpetrators. Stumbling around words and emotions, an avoidance of explicit language stemmed from shame, a fear of personal responsibility, the desire to maintain social cohesion, and concern for potential consequences for the perpetrator. Many subjects were resistant to calling nonconsensual sexual activity rape or even assault. Some who had perpetrated were unaware their behavior may have been experienced as assault, with recognition of this fact dawning during interviews.
This apparent limitation in self-reflective capacity may be in part due to the conceptualization of what assault is. Focus groups identified a discernible difference in how men and women understood assaults, with men believing rapes looked like a woman fighting back and screaming for help ... which is rarely what happens.
Notably absent among the interviewed are any flagrant perpetrators. The methodology section theorizes that individuals who intentionally harmed their peers were unlikely to choose to participate in this study. In addition, the characterization of assailants as “sociopathic predators” is based in a history of racialized imagery that leads us astray from the truth about campus sexual assault. Most assaults do not involve force, and SHIFT data showed 75% of victims knew their assailants. Ultimately, a major aim of the research was to study assault alongside healthy sex to “understand those pivotal moments when encounters change from being sex, to being assault.” Doing this requires understanding the where, how, and why students have sex, a more complicated undertaking than we may think.
In discussing their sexual lives, subjects frequently noted they did not have space to talk about their assaults. Though 81% of students discussed their experiences with someone, friend groups were often overburdened with stories, which minimized the victim’s experience. Furthermore, most had not sought help from the student counseling centers. Students navigating this complex field were frequently doing so in isolation. SHIFT found subjects to be eager to participate; they would often express thankfulness, and a sense of freedom in sharing with researchers. Commonly, students expressly did not want retribution for perpetrators, but simply a place to be heard without challenge. The current legal system precludes that possibility, leaving individuals without the option to confront perpetrators, and perpetrators often not knowing the extent of the damage they caused.
Where can psychiatrists have an impact right now? “Sexual Citizens” identifies four key areas for intervention to work toward a world with less sexual assault. These are:
- Improving diversity, inequality, and power distortions.
- Education about sex and sexual assault.
- Substance use.
- Mental health.
Substance use and mental health are especially relevant for psychiatrists (That substance use contributes to sexual assault is known by approximately ... everybody!). Unwanted sexual contact prior to college (20% of students) increased the odds of experiencing assault during college. Harm reduction strategies should be introduced before college, according to the SHIFT research, particularly in skills-based training on how to say “No” to unwanted sex. Psychiatrists are likely used to asking brief history questions related to sexual assault and rape. “Sexual Citizens” highlights the inadequacy of this blunt language and guides the reader toward a refined knowledge of the language needed to address sexual assault.
Dr. Whisler is a child and adolescent psychiatry fellow at the Stanford (Calif.) University. Dr. Higgins is affiliate associate professor of psychiatry and family medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.
References
1. Hirsch JS et al. Social dimensions of sexual consent among cisgender heterosexual college students: Insights from ethnographic research. J Adolesc Health. 2019 Jan;64(1):26-35. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.06.011.
2. Hirsch JS and Khan S. Sexual citizens: Sex, power, and assault on campus. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2020.
The Sexual Health Initiative to Foster Transformation (SHIFT)1 is a landmark study about sexual assault at college, which has generated 20 scientific articles and several chapters in books, but unfortunately, has not made its way into the psychiatric literature.
“Sexual Citizens: Sex, Power and Assault on Campus,” by Jennifer Hirsch and Shamus Khan, (available in audio book and paperback) was written as a follow up to the SHIFT study, so the rest of us can absorb the findings.2 This mixed-methods study included a survey of over 1,600 students aged 18-29 from Columbia University and Barnard College regarding their relationships and sexual histories, including assault. Data were collected using daily diaries, focus groups, and hundreds of hours of field work observation by young researchers. One- to 3-hour in-depth interviews exploring sexual experiences on campus were conducted with 151 students. These interviews are the focus of the book. It is a well-written, provocative story brimming with insights for those of us who lack the time to scour social science literature.
“Sexual Citizens” and the SHIFT study confirmed much of what we know. Sexual assault is common and has enduring effects. The study found that 36% of women and 15% of men had experienced unwanted, nonconsensual sexual contact by senior year. Twenty percent of women and 6% of men were rape survivors. Freshman, LGBTQ, and minority students were found at highest risk of assault. SHIFT reaffirmed that abstinence-only education is not a protective factor against college sexual assault, but neither was knowledge of affirmative consent (the practice of “ongoing and explicit” checking-in with partners) which few students ever employed. Encouragingly, students taught refusal skills were less likely to experience sexual assault.
Many of the book’s valuable lessons fall under the umbrella of failures of language and communication. For example, after drinking, they went to his room. She was expecting a social interaction, but with no other place to sit, they sat on his bed where she was coaxed or pressured into a sexual encounter. Afterward, she leaves, and it is never discussed again. One partner desires emotional intimacy, and the other, bragging rights in the fraternity or at the girls’ weekly brunch. Numerous personal stories like these, though at times heart wrenching, provide perspective on the barriers to addressing assault.
Subjects relayed experiences of assault by strangers or friends, and some provided details of their own actions as perpetrators. Stumbling around words and emotions, an avoidance of explicit language stemmed from shame, a fear of personal responsibility, the desire to maintain social cohesion, and concern for potential consequences for the perpetrator. Many subjects were resistant to calling nonconsensual sexual activity rape or even assault. Some who had perpetrated were unaware their behavior may have been experienced as assault, with recognition of this fact dawning during interviews.
This apparent limitation in self-reflective capacity may be in part due to the conceptualization of what assault is. Focus groups identified a discernible difference in how men and women understood assaults, with men believing rapes looked like a woman fighting back and screaming for help ... which is rarely what happens.
Notably absent among the interviewed are any flagrant perpetrators. The methodology section theorizes that individuals who intentionally harmed their peers were unlikely to choose to participate in this study. In addition, the characterization of assailants as “sociopathic predators” is based in a history of racialized imagery that leads us astray from the truth about campus sexual assault. Most assaults do not involve force, and SHIFT data showed 75% of victims knew their assailants. Ultimately, a major aim of the research was to study assault alongside healthy sex to “understand those pivotal moments when encounters change from being sex, to being assault.” Doing this requires understanding the where, how, and why students have sex, a more complicated undertaking than we may think.
In discussing their sexual lives, subjects frequently noted they did not have space to talk about their assaults. Though 81% of students discussed their experiences with someone, friend groups were often overburdened with stories, which minimized the victim’s experience. Furthermore, most had not sought help from the student counseling centers. Students navigating this complex field were frequently doing so in isolation. SHIFT found subjects to be eager to participate; they would often express thankfulness, and a sense of freedom in sharing with researchers. Commonly, students expressly did not want retribution for perpetrators, but simply a place to be heard without challenge. The current legal system precludes that possibility, leaving individuals without the option to confront perpetrators, and perpetrators often not knowing the extent of the damage they caused.
Where can psychiatrists have an impact right now? “Sexual Citizens” identifies four key areas for intervention to work toward a world with less sexual assault. These are:
- Improving diversity, inequality, and power distortions.
- Education about sex and sexual assault.
- Substance use.
- Mental health.
Substance use and mental health are especially relevant for psychiatrists (That substance use contributes to sexual assault is known by approximately ... everybody!). Unwanted sexual contact prior to college (20% of students) increased the odds of experiencing assault during college. Harm reduction strategies should be introduced before college, according to the SHIFT research, particularly in skills-based training on how to say “No” to unwanted sex. Psychiatrists are likely used to asking brief history questions related to sexual assault and rape. “Sexual Citizens” highlights the inadequacy of this blunt language and guides the reader toward a refined knowledge of the language needed to address sexual assault.
Dr. Whisler is a child and adolescent psychiatry fellow at the Stanford (Calif.) University. Dr. Higgins is affiliate associate professor of psychiatry and family medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.
References
1. Hirsch JS et al. Social dimensions of sexual consent among cisgender heterosexual college students: Insights from ethnographic research. J Adolesc Health. 2019 Jan;64(1):26-35. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.06.011.
2. Hirsch JS and Khan S. Sexual citizens: Sex, power, and assault on campus. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2020.
Aspirin warning: Anemia may increase with daily use
, according to results from a new randomized controlled trial.
In the study, which was published in Annals of Internal Medicine, investigators analyzed data from the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) trial and examined hemoglobin concentrations among 19,114 healthy, community-dwelling older patients.
“We knew from large clinical trials, including our ASPREE trial, that daily low-dose aspirin increased the risk of clinically significant bleeding,” said Zoe McQuilten, MBBS, PhD, a hematologist at Monash University in Australia and the study’s lead author. “From our study, we found that low-dose aspirin also increased the risk of anemia during the trial, and this was most likely due to bleeding that was not clinically apparent.”
Anemia is common among elderly patients. It can cause fatigue, fast or irregular heartbeat, headache, chest pain, and pounding or whooshing sounds in the ear, according to the Cleveland Clinic. It can also worsen conditions such as heart failure, cognitive impairment, and depression in people aged 65 and older.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force changed its recommendation on aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in 2022, recommending against initiating low-dose aspirin for adults aged 60 years or older. For adults aged 40-59 who have a 10% or greater 10-year risk for cardiovascular disease, the agency recommends that patients and clinicians make the decision to initiate low-dose aspirin use on a case-by-case basis, as the net benefit is small.
Dr. McQuilten said she spent the last 5 years designing substages of anemia and conditions such as blood cancer. In many cases of anemia, doctors are unable to determine the underlying cause, she said. One study published in the Journal of American Geriatrics Society in 2021 found that in about one-third of anemia cases, the etiology was not clear.
About 50% of people older than 60 who were involved in the latest study took aspirin for prevention from 2011 to 2018. That number likely dropped after changes were made to the guidelines in 2022, according to Dr. McQuilten, but long-term use may have continued among older patients. The researchers also examined ferritin levels, which serve as a proxy for iron levels, at baseline and after 3 years.
The incidence of anemia was 51 events per 1,000 person-years in the aspirin group compared with 43 events per 1,000 person-years in the placebo group, according to the researchers. The estimated probability of experiencing anemia within 5 years was 23.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 22.4%-24.6%) in the aspirin group and 20.3% (95% CI: 19.3% to 21.4%) in the placebo group. Aspirin therapy resulted in a 20% increase in the risk for anemia (95% CI, 1.12-1.29).
People who took aspirin were more likely to have lower serum levels of ferritin at the 3-year mark than were those who received placebo. The average decrease in ferritin among participants who took aspirin was 11.5% greater (95% CI, 9.3%-13.7%) than among those who took placebo.
Basil Eldadah, MD, PhD, supervisory medical officer at the National Institute on Aging, part of the National Institutes of Health, said the findings should encourage clinicians to pay closer attention to hemoglobin levels and have conversations with patients to discuss their need for taking aspirin.
“If somebody is already taking aspirin for any reason, keep an eye on hemoglobin,” said Dr. Eldadah, who was not involved in the study. “For somebody who’s taking aspirin and who’s older, and it’s not for an indication like cardiovascular disease, consider seriously whether that’s the best treatment option.”
The study did not examine the functional consequences of anemia on participants, which Dr. Eldadah said could be fodder for future research. The researchers said one limitation was that it was not clear whether anemia was sufficient to cause symptoms that affected participants’ quality of life or whether occult bleeding caused the anemia. The researchers also did not document whether patients saw their regular physicians and received treatment for anemia over the course of the trial.
The study was funded through grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The authors reported receiving consulting fees, honoraria, and stock options, and have participated on data monitoring boards not related to the study for Vifor Pharma, ITL Biomedical, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer Healthcare, AbbVie, and Abbott Diagnostics.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to results from a new randomized controlled trial.
In the study, which was published in Annals of Internal Medicine, investigators analyzed data from the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) trial and examined hemoglobin concentrations among 19,114 healthy, community-dwelling older patients.
“We knew from large clinical trials, including our ASPREE trial, that daily low-dose aspirin increased the risk of clinically significant bleeding,” said Zoe McQuilten, MBBS, PhD, a hematologist at Monash University in Australia and the study’s lead author. “From our study, we found that low-dose aspirin also increased the risk of anemia during the trial, and this was most likely due to bleeding that was not clinically apparent.”
Anemia is common among elderly patients. It can cause fatigue, fast or irregular heartbeat, headache, chest pain, and pounding or whooshing sounds in the ear, according to the Cleveland Clinic. It can also worsen conditions such as heart failure, cognitive impairment, and depression in people aged 65 and older.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force changed its recommendation on aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in 2022, recommending against initiating low-dose aspirin for adults aged 60 years or older. For adults aged 40-59 who have a 10% or greater 10-year risk for cardiovascular disease, the agency recommends that patients and clinicians make the decision to initiate low-dose aspirin use on a case-by-case basis, as the net benefit is small.
Dr. McQuilten said she spent the last 5 years designing substages of anemia and conditions such as blood cancer. In many cases of anemia, doctors are unable to determine the underlying cause, she said. One study published in the Journal of American Geriatrics Society in 2021 found that in about one-third of anemia cases, the etiology was not clear.
About 50% of people older than 60 who were involved in the latest study took aspirin for prevention from 2011 to 2018. That number likely dropped after changes were made to the guidelines in 2022, according to Dr. McQuilten, but long-term use may have continued among older patients. The researchers also examined ferritin levels, which serve as a proxy for iron levels, at baseline and after 3 years.
The incidence of anemia was 51 events per 1,000 person-years in the aspirin group compared with 43 events per 1,000 person-years in the placebo group, according to the researchers. The estimated probability of experiencing anemia within 5 years was 23.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 22.4%-24.6%) in the aspirin group and 20.3% (95% CI: 19.3% to 21.4%) in the placebo group. Aspirin therapy resulted in a 20% increase in the risk for anemia (95% CI, 1.12-1.29).
People who took aspirin were more likely to have lower serum levels of ferritin at the 3-year mark than were those who received placebo. The average decrease in ferritin among participants who took aspirin was 11.5% greater (95% CI, 9.3%-13.7%) than among those who took placebo.
Basil Eldadah, MD, PhD, supervisory medical officer at the National Institute on Aging, part of the National Institutes of Health, said the findings should encourage clinicians to pay closer attention to hemoglobin levels and have conversations with patients to discuss their need for taking aspirin.
“If somebody is already taking aspirin for any reason, keep an eye on hemoglobin,” said Dr. Eldadah, who was not involved in the study. “For somebody who’s taking aspirin and who’s older, and it’s not for an indication like cardiovascular disease, consider seriously whether that’s the best treatment option.”
The study did not examine the functional consequences of anemia on participants, which Dr. Eldadah said could be fodder for future research. The researchers said one limitation was that it was not clear whether anemia was sufficient to cause symptoms that affected participants’ quality of life or whether occult bleeding caused the anemia. The researchers also did not document whether patients saw their regular physicians and received treatment for anemia over the course of the trial.
The study was funded through grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The authors reported receiving consulting fees, honoraria, and stock options, and have participated on data monitoring boards not related to the study for Vifor Pharma, ITL Biomedical, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer Healthcare, AbbVie, and Abbott Diagnostics.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to results from a new randomized controlled trial.
In the study, which was published in Annals of Internal Medicine, investigators analyzed data from the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) trial and examined hemoglobin concentrations among 19,114 healthy, community-dwelling older patients.
“We knew from large clinical trials, including our ASPREE trial, that daily low-dose aspirin increased the risk of clinically significant bleeding,” said Zoe McQuilten, MBBS, PhD, a hematologist at Monash University in Australia and the study’s lead author. “From our study, we found that low-dose aspirin also increased the risk of anemia during the trial, and this was most likely due to bleeding that was not clinically apparent.”
Anemia is common among elderly patients. It can cause fatigue, fast or irregular heartbeat, headache, chest pain, and pounding or whooshing sounds in the ear, according to the Cleveland Clinic. It can also worsen conditions such as heart failure, cognitive impairment, and depression in people aged 65 and older.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force changed its recommendation on aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in 2022, recommending against initiating low-dose aspirin for adults aged 60 years or older. For adults aged 40-59 who have a 10% or greater 10-year risk for cardiovascular disease, the agency recommends that patients and clinicians make the decision to initiate low-dose aspirin use on a case-by-case basis, as the net benefit is small.
Dr. McQuilten said she spent the last 5 years designing substages of anemia and conditions such as blood cancer. In many cases of anemia, doctors are unable to determine the underlying cause, she said. One study published in the Journal of American Geriatrics Society in 2021 found that in about one-third of anemia cases, the etiology was not clear.
About 50% of people older than 60 who were involved in the latest study took aspirin for prevention from 2011 to 2018. That number likely dropped after changes were made to the guidelines in 2022, according to Dr. McQuilten, but long-term use may have continued among older patients. The researchers also examined ferritin levels, which serve as a proxy for iron levels, at baseline and after 3 years.
The incidence of anemia was 51 events per 1,000 person-years in the aspirin group compared with 43 events per 1,000 person-years in the placebo group, according to the researchers. The estimated probability of experiencing anemia within 5 years was 23.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 22.4%-24.6%) in the aspirin group and 20.3% (95% CI: 19.3% to 21.4%) in the placebo group. Aspirin therapy resulted in a 20% increase in the risk for anemia (95% CI, 1.12-1.29).
People who took aspirin were more likely to have lower serum levels of ferritin at the 3-year mark than were those who received placebo. The average decrease in ferritin among participants who took aspirin was 11.5% greater (95% CI, 9.3%-13.7%) than among those who took placebo.
Basil Eldadah, MD, PhD, supervisory medical officer at the National Institute on Aging, part of the National Institutes of Health, said the findings should encourage clinicians to pay closer attention to hemoglobin levels and have conversations with patients to discuss their need for taking aspirin.
“If somebody is already taking aspirin for any reason, keep an eye on hemoglobin,” said Dr. Eldadah, who was not involved in the study. “For somebody who’s taking aspirin and who’s older, and it’s not for an indication like cardiovascular disease, consider seriously whether that’s the best treatment option.”
The study did not examine the functional consequences of anemia on participants, which Dr. Eldadah said could be fodder for future research. The researchers said one limitation was that it was not clear whether anemia was sufficient to cause symptoms that affected participants’ quality of life or whether occult bleeding caused the anemia. The researchers also did not document whether patients saw their regular physicians and received treatment for anemia over the course of the trial.
The study was funded through grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The authors reported receiving consulting fees, honoraria, and stock options, and have participated on data monitoring boards not related to the study for Vifor Pharma, ITL Biomedical, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer Healthcare, AbbVie, and Abbott Diagnostics.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
Docs misdiagnose aneurysm and patient dies; must pay $29M; more
and untreated, according to a story posted on Boston.com, among other news sites.
On the morning of Jan. 13, 2018, Joseph Brown awoke with shortness of breath and upper abdominal pain, which eventually spread to his chest and back. Taken to Salem Hospital’s emergency department, Mr. Brown was seen by Steven D. Browell, MD, an emergency medicine specialist.
Dr. Browell ordered tests that ruled out both a heart attack and a pulmonary embolism. He called for a blood test, which indicated that the patient’s white blood count was elevated. Suspecting an infection, Dr. Browell ordered that Mr. Brown be admitted to the hospital.
Accepting Mr. Brown’s admission was William D. Kenyon, MD, a hospitalist, who also examined the patient and concurred with Dr. Browell’s probable diagnosis. The patient was then sent to the medical floor.
There he underwent additional testing, including a chest x-ray, which proved negative except for one finding: a “mild hazy interstitial opacity that could represent a small airway inflammation or developing/early pneumonia.” Because Mr. Brown had reported that he had punctured his foot several days earlier, he also underwent a foot x-ray, which showed a possible foreign body. It was thought that might be the source of his infection.
Neither Dr. Browell nor Dr. Kenyon had completely ruled out a possible aortic aneurysm and dissection. Mr. Brown’s symptoms, after all, were in some ways suggestive of those conditions. Then again, he was very young – only 43 at the time – and his pain, while severe, didn’t correspond to the “searing” pain that, at trial, Dr. Kenyon described as typical of an aneurysm and dissection. As the hospitalist testified at trial, Mr. Brown had “a constellation of nonspecific symptoms” and an “unusual presentation of a rare condition,” typically seen in patients aged 65 and older.
Given these factors – and the results of Mr. Brown’s tests, lab studies, and physical exam – Dr. Kenyon didn’t think that the case warranted a CT scan to rule out an aortic aneurysm or aortic dissection.
By early the next morning, though, Mr. Brown’s shortness of breath and pain had intensified significantly. The on-duty doctor ordered a CT scan, which showed “a massive aneurysm at the beginning of [the patient’s] aorta and a dissection extending through most of his aorta.”
Mr. Brown was flown to Boston to undergo emergency surgery. En route to the helicopter, his aorta ruptured, stopping his heart and causing his death.
During the 8-day trial, each side introduced expert witnesses. Speaking for the plaintiffs, experts in cardiothoracic surgery and emergency medicine testified that the treating physicians were negligent in failing to order a CT scan on Jan. 13. Had they done so, the patient would have almost certainly undergone surgery earlier, which would have prevented his death.
Experts for the defense saw things differently. They testified that, given the evidence, it was reasonable and appropriate for Dr. Browell and Dr. Kenyon to have treated their patient for an infection rather than an aneurysm or dissection.
The jury found the defense’s arguments unconvincing, however. After deliberating 3 hours, it awarded the plaintiffs $20,000,000, to be paid out over time largely to Mr. Brown’s two daughters, who were aged 12 and 18 when he died. Including interest, the total award is close to $29 million.
In a statement following the verdict, lead plaintiff’s attorney Robert M. Higgins, of Lubin & Meyer, Boston, said the takeaway from the case was: “If you just treat people based on what the likelihood is, statistically, you’re going to miss a lot of life-threatening conditions. And that’s what happened in this case.”
Urologists typically prevail in BPH suits
Malpractice claims following surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) tend to be limited in scope and are typically resolved in favor of the surgeon-defendant, as a study in The Cureus Journal of Medical Science makes clear.
The study – conducted by a team of researchers that included Joao G. Porto, MD, of the Desai Sethi Urology Institute, University of Miami – investigated whether such surgeries pose a significant malpractice risk for urologists.
With information gleaned from two well-known legal databases, the team used a variety of key terms to identify BPH-related claims from January 2000 to December 2021.
Within this universe of claims, researchers identified several significant trends:
- Among BPH-related procedures, transurethral resection of the prostate was the most frequently identified (37%);
- Among the most-often cited reasons cited for a claim, allegations of inadequate postoperative care were the most common (33%);
- Of possible postsurgical complications, those that led to the greatest number of suits were urinary incontinence (23%), erectile dysfunction (13%), and urinary retention (13%); and,
- Not unexpectedly, the specialist most frequently named in a suit was a urologist (57%).
Interestingly, in all but two of the claims, the verdict favored the doctor-defendant. In the two cases in which the plaintiff prevailed, each involved unexpected and serious postsurgical complications.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
and untreated, according to a story posted on Boston.com, among other news sites.
On the morning of Jan. 13, 2018, Joseph Brown awoke with shortness of breath and upper abdominal pain, which eventually spread to his chest and back. Taken to Salem Hospital’s emergency department, Mr. Brown was seen by Steven D. Browell, MD, an emergency medicine specialist.
Dr. Browell ordered tests that ruled out both a heart attack and a pulmonary embolism. He called for a blood test, which indicated that the patient’s white blood count was elevated. Suspecting an infection, Dr. Browell ordered that Mr. Brown be admitted to the hospital.
Accepting Mr. Brown’s admission was William D. Kenyon, MD, a hospitalist, who also examined the patient and concurred with Dr. Browell’s probable diagnosis. The patient was then sent to the medical floor.
There he underwent additional testing, including a chest x-ray, which proved negative except for one finding: a “mild hazy interstitial opacity that could represent a small airway inflammation or developing/early pneumonia.” Because Mr. Brown had reported that he had punctured his foot several days earlier, he also underwent a foot x-ray, which showed a possible foreign body. It was thought that might be the source of his infection.
Neither Dr. Browell nor Dr. Kenyon had completely ruled out a possible aortic aneurysm and dissection. Mr. Brown’s symptoms, after all, were in some ways suggestive of those conditions. Then again, he was very young – only 43 at the time – and his pain, while severe, didn’t correspond to the “searing” pain that, at trial, Dr. Kenyon described as typical of an aneurysm and dissection. As the hospitalist testified at trial, Mr. Brown had “a constellation of nonspecific symptoms” and an “unusual presentation of a rare condition,” typically seen in patients aged 65 and older.
Given these factors – and the results of Mr. Brown’s tests, lab studies, and physical exam – Dr. Kenyon didn’t think that the case warranted a CT scan to rule out an aortic aneurysm or aortic dissection.
By early the next morning, though, Mr. Brown’s shortness of breath and pain had intensified significantly. The on-duty doctor ordered a CT scan, which showed “a massive aneurysm at the beginning of [the patient’s] aorta and a dissection extending through most of his aorta.”
Mr. Brown was flown to Boston to undergo emergency surgery. En route to the helicopter, his aorta ruptured, stopping his heart and causing his death.
During the 8-day trial, each side introduced expert witnesses. Speaking for the plaintiffs, experts in cardiothoracic surgery and emergency medicine testified that the treating physicians were negligent in failing to order a CT scan on Jan. 13. Had they done so, the patient would have almost certainly undergone surgery earlier, which would have prevented his death.
Experts for the defense saw things differently. They testified that, given the evidence, it was reasonable and appropriate for Dr. Browell and Dr. Kenyon to have treated their patient for an infection rather than an aneurysm or dissection.
The jury found the defense’s arguments unconvincing, however. After deliberating 3 hours, it awarded the plaintiffs $20,000,000, to be paid out over time largely to Mr. Brown’s two daughters, who were aged 12 and 18 when he died. Including interest, the total award is close to $29 million.
In a statement following the verdict, lead plaintiff’s attorney Robert M. Higgins, of Lubin & Meyer, Boston, said the takeaway from the case was: “If you just treat people based on what the likelihood is, statistically, you’re going to miss a lot of life-threatening conditions. And that’s what happened in this case.”
Urologists typically prevail in BPH suits
Malpractice claims following surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) tend to be limited in scope and are typically resolved in favor of the surgeon-defendant, as a study in The Cureus Journal of Medical Science makes clear.
The study – conducted by a team of researchers that included Joao G. Porto, MD, of the Desai Sethi Urology Institute, University of Miami – investigated whether such surgeries pose a significant malpractice risk for urologists.
With information gleaned from two well-known legal databases, the team used a variety of key terms to identify BPH-related claims from January 2000 to December 2021.
Within this universe of claims, researchers identified several significant trends:
- Among BPH-related procedures, transurethral resection of the prostate was the most frequently identified (37%);
- Among the most-often cited reasons cited for a claim, allegations of inadequate postoperative care were the most common (33%);
- Of possible postsurgical complications, those that led to the greatest number of suits were urinary incontinence (23%), erectile dysfunction (13%), and urinary retention (13%); and,
- Not unexpectedly, the specialist most frequently named in a suit was a urologist (57%).
Interestingly, in all but two of the claims, the verdict favored the doctor-defendant. In the two cases in which the plaintiff prevailed, each involved unexpected and serious postsurgical complications.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
and untreated, according to a story posted on Boston.com, among other news sites.
On the morning of Jan. 13, 2018, Joseph Brown awoke with shortness of breath and upper abdominal pain, which eventually spread to his chest and back. Taken to Salem Hospital’s emergency department, Mr. Brown was seen by Steven D. Browell, MD, an emergency medicine specialist.
Dr. Browell ordered tests that ruled out both a heart attack and a pulmonary embolism. He called for a blood test, which indicated that the patient’s white blood count was elevated. Suspecting an infection, Dr. Browell ordered that Mr. Brown be admitted to the hospital.
Accepting Mr. Brown’s admission was William D. Kenyon, MD, a hospitalist, who also examined the patient and concurred with Dr. Browell’s probable diagnosis. The patient was then sent to the medical floor.
There he underwent additional testing, including a chest x-ray, which proved negative except for one finding: a “mild hazy interstitial opacity that could represent a small airway inflammation or developing/early pneumonia.” Because Mr. Brown had reported that he had punctured his foot several days earlier, he also underwent a foot x-ray, which showed a possible foreign body. It was thought that might be the source of his infection.
Neither Dr. Browell nor Dr. Kenyon had completely ruled out a possible aortic aneurysm and dissection. Mr. Brown’s symptoms, after all, were in some ways suggestive of those conditions. Then again, he was very young – only 43 at the time – and his pain, while severe, didn’t correspond to the “searing” pain that, at trial, Dr. Kenyon described as typical of an aneurysm and dissection. As the hospitalist testified at trial, Mr. Brown had “a constellation of nonspecific symptoms” and an “unusual presentation of a rare condition,” typically seen in patients aged 65 and older.
Given these factors – and the results of Mr. Brown’s tests, lab studies, and physical exam – Dr. Kenyon didn’t think that the case warranted a CT scan to rule out an aortic aneurysm or aortic dissection.
By early the next morning, though, Mr. Brown’s shortness of breath and pain had intensified significantly. The on-duty doctor ordered a CT scan, which showed “a massive aneurysm at the beginning of [the patient’s] aorta and a dissection extending through most of his aorta.”
Mr. Brown was flown to Boston to undergo emergency surgery. En route to the helicopter, his aorta ruptured, stopping his heart and causing his death.
During the 8-day trial, each side introduced expert witnesses. Speaking for the plaintiffs, experts in cardiothoracic surgery and emergency medicine testified that the treating physicians were negligent in failing to order a CT scan on Jan. 13. Had they done so, the patient would have almost certainly undergone surgery earlier, which would have prevented his death.
Experts for the defense saw things differently. They testified that, given the evidence, it was reasonable and appropriate for Dr. Browell and Dr. Kenyon to have treated their patient for an infection rather than an aneurysm or dissection.
The jury found the defense’s arguments unconvincing, however. After deliberating 3 hours, it awarded the plaintiffs $20,000,000, to be paid out over time largely to Mr. Brown’s two daughters, who were aged 12 and 18 when he died. Including interest, the total award is close to $29 million.
In a statement following the verdict, lead plaintiff’s attorney Robert M. Higgins, of Lubin & Meyer, Boston, said the takeaway from the case was: “If you just treat people based on what the likelihood is, statistically, you’re going to miss a lot of life-threatening conditions. And that’s what happened in this case.”
Urologists typically prevail in BPH suits
Malpractice claims following surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) tend to be limited in scope and are typically resolved in favor of the surgeon-defendant, as a study in The Cureus Journal of Medical Science makes clear.
The study – conducted by a team of researchers that included Joao G. Porto, MD, of the Desai Sethi Urology Institute, University of Miami – investigated whether such surgeries pose a significant malpractice risk for urologists.
With information gleaned from two well-known legal databases, the team used a variety of key terms to identify BPH-related claims from January 2000 to December 2021.
Within this universe of claims, researchers identified several significant trends:
- Among BPH-related procedures, transurethral resection of the prostate was the most frequently identified (37%);
- Among the most-often cited reasons cited for a claim, allegations of inadequate postoperative care were the most common (33%);
- Of possible postsurgical complications, those that led to the greatest number of suits were urinary incontinence (23%), erectile dysfunction (13%), and urinary retention (13%); and,
- Not unexpectedly, the specialist most frequently named in a suit was a urologist (57%).
Interestingly, in all but two of the claims, the verdict favored the doctor-defendant. In the two cases in which the plaintiff prevailed, each involved unexpected and serious postsurgical complications.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
ChatGPT in medicine: The good, the bad, and the unknown
CHICAGO – , so like them or not, physicians might as well figure out how to optimize their role in medicine and health care. That’s the takeaway from a three-expert panel session about the technology held at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).
The chatbot can help doctors to a certain extent by suggesting differential diagnoses, assisting with clinical note-taking, and producing rapid and easy-to-understand patient communication and educational materials, they noted. However, it can also make mistakes. And, unlike a medical trainee who might give a clinical answer and express some doubt, ChatGPT (Open AI/Microsoft) clearly states its findings as fact, even when it’s wrong.
Known as “hallucinating,” this problem of AI inaccuracy was displayed at the packed DDW session.
When asked when Leonardo da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa, for example, ChatGPT replied 1815. That’s off by about 300 years; the masterpiece was created sometime between 1503 and 1519. Asked for a fact about George Washington, ChatGPT said he invented the cotton gin. Also not true. (Eli Whitney patented the cotton gin.)
In an example more suited for gastroenterologists at DDW, ChatGPT correctly stated that Barrett esophagus can lead to adenocarcinoma of the esophagus in some cases. However, the technology also said that the condition could lead to prostate cancer.
So, if someone asked ChatGPT for a list of possible risks for Barrett’s esophagus, it would include prostate cancer. A person without medical knowledge “could take it at face value that it causes prostate cancer,” said panelist Sravanthi Parasa, MD, a gastroenterologist at Swedish Medical Center, Seattle.
“That is a lot of misinformation that is going to come our way,” she added at the session, which was sponsored by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.
The potential for inaccuracy is a downside to ChatGPT, agreed panelist Prateek Sharma, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City, Kansas.
“There is no quality control. You have to double check its answers,” said Dr. Sharma, who is president-elect of ASGE.
ChatGPT is not going to replace physicians in general or gastroenterologists doing endoscopies, said Ian Gralnek, MD, chief of the Institute of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Emek Medical Center in Afula, Israel.
Even though the tool could play a role in medicine, “we need to be very careful as a society going forward ... and see where things are going,” Dr. Gralnek said.
How you ask makes a difference
Future iterations of ChatGPT are likely to produce fewer hallucinations, the experts said. In the meantime, users can lower the risk by paying attention to how they’re wording their queries, a practice known as “prompt engineering.”
It’s best to ask a question that has a firm answer to it. If you ask a vague question, you’ll likely get a vague answer, Dr. Sharma said.
ChatGPT is a large language model (LLM). GPT stands for “generative pretrained transformer” – specialized algorithms that find long-range patterns in sequences of data. LLMs can predict the next word in a sentence.
“That’s why this is also called generative AI,” Dr. Sharma said. “For example, if you put in ‘Where are we?’, it will predict for you that perhaps the next word is ‘going?’ ”
The current public version is ChatGPT 3.5, which was trained on open-source online information up until early 2022. It can gather information from open-access scientific journals and medical society guidelines, as well as from Twitter, Reddit, and other social media. It does not have access to private information, like electronic health records.
The use of ChatGPT has exploded in the past 6 months, Dr. Sharma said.
“ChatGPT has been the most-searched website or platform ever in history since it was launched in December of 2022,” he said.
What’s in it for doctors?
Although not specifically trained for health care–related tasks, the panelists noted that ChatGPT does have potential as a virtual medical assistant, chatbot, clinical decision-support tool, source of medical education, natural language processor for documentation, or medical note-taker.
ChatGPT can help physicians write a letter of support to a patient who, for example, was just diagnosed with stage IV colon cancer. It can do that in only 15 seconds, whereas it would take us much longer, Dr. Sharma said.
ChatGPT is the “next frontier” for generating patient education materials, Dr. Parasa said. It can help time-constrained health care providers, as long as the information is accurate.
ChatGPT 4.0, now available by subscription, can do “almost real-time note-taking during patient encounters,” she added.
Another reason to be familiar with the technology: “Many of your patients are using it, even if you don’t know about it,” Dr. Sharma said.
Questions abound
A conference attendee asked the panel what to do when a patient comes in with ChatGPT medical advice that does not align with official guidelines.
Dr. Gralnek said that he would explain to patients that medical information based on guidelines are not “black and white.” The panel likened it to how patients come to an appointment now armed with information from the Internet, which is not always correct, that must then be countered by doctors. The same would likely happen with ChatGPT.
Another attendee asked whether ChatGPT eventually will work in accordance with electronic health record systems.
“Open AI and Microsoft are already working with Epic,” Dr. Parasa said.
A question arose about the reading level of information provided by ChatGPT. Dr. Parasa noted that it’s not standard. However, a person can prompt ChatGPT to provide an answer either at an eighth-grade reading level or for a well-trained physician.
Dr. Sharma offered a final warning: The technology learns over time.
“It knows what your habits are. It will learn what you’re doing,” Dr. Sharma said. “Everything else on your browsers that are open, it’s learning from that also. So be careful what websites you visit before you go to ChatGPT.”
Dr. Sharma is a stock shareholder in Microsoft. Dr. Parasa and Dr. Gralneck reported no relevant financial relationships.
DDW is sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
CHICAGO – , so like them or not, physicians might as well figure out how to optimize their role in medicine and health care. That’s the takeaway from a three-expert panel session about the technology held at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).
The chatbot can help doctors to a certain extent by suggesting differential diagnoses, assisting with clinical note-taking, and producing rapid and easy-to-understand patient communication and educational materials, they noted. However, it can also make mistakes. And, unlike a medical trainee who might give a clinical answer and express some doubt, ChatGPT (Open AI/Microsoft) clearly states its findings as fact, even when it’s wrong.
Known as “hallucinating,” this problem of AI inaccuracy was displayed at the packed DDW session.
When asked when Leonardo da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa, for example, ChatGPT replied 1815. That’s off by about 300 years; the masterpiece was created sometime between 1503 and 1519. Asked for a fact about George Washington, ChatGPT said he invented the cotton gin. Also not true. (Eli Whitney patented the cotton gin.)
In an example more suited for gastroenterologists at DDW, ChatGPT correctly stated that Barrett esophagus can lead to adenocarcinoma of the esophagus in some cases. However, the technology also said that the condition could lead to prostate cancer.
So, if someone asked ChatGPT for a list of possible risks for Barrett’s esophagus, it would include prostate cancer. A person without medical knowledge “could take it at face value that it causes prostate cancer,” said panelist Sravanthi Parasa, MD, a gastroenterologist at Swedish Medical Center, Seattle.
“That is a lot of misinformation that is going to come our way,” she added at the session, which was sponsored by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.
The potential for inaccuracy is a downside to ChatGPT, agreed panelist Prateek Sharma, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City, Kansas.
“There is no quality control. You have to double check its answers,” said Dr. Sharma, who is president-elect of ASGE.
ChatGPT is not going to replace physicians in general or gastroenterologists doing endoscopies, said Ian Gralnek, MD, chief of the Institute of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Emek Medical Center in Afula, Israel.
Even though the tool could play a role in medicine, “we need to be very careful as a society going forward ... and see where things are going,” Dr. Gralnek said.
How you ask makes a difference
Future iterations of ChatGPT are likely to produce fewer hallucinations, the experts said. In the meantime, users can lower the risk by paying attention to how they’re wording their queries, a practice known as “prompt engineering.”
It’s best to ask a question that has a firm answer to it. If you ask a vague question, you’ll likely get a vague answer, Dr. Sharma said.
ChatGPT is a large language model (LLM). GPT stands for “generative pretrained transformer” – specialized algorithms that find long-range patterns in sequences of data. LLMs can predict the next word in a sentence.
“That’s why this is also called generative AI,” Dr. Sharma said. “For example, if you put in ‘Where are we?’, it will predict for you that perhaps the next word is ‘going?’ ”
The current public version is ChatGPT 3.5, which was trained on open-source online information up until early 2022. It can gather information from open-access scientific journals and medical society guidelines, as well as from Twitter, Reddit, and other social media. It does not have access to private information, like electronic health records.
The use of ChatGPT has exploded in the past 6 months, Dr. Sharma said.
“ChatGPT has been the most-searched website or platform ever in history since it was launched in December of 2022,” he said.
What’s in it for doctors?
Although not specifically trained for health care–related tasks, the panelists noted that ChatGPT does have potential as a virtual medical assistant, chatbot, clinical decision-support tool, source of medical education, natural language processor for documentation, or medical note-taker.
ChatGPT can help physicians write a letter of support to a patient who, for example, was just diagnosed with stage IV colon cancer. It can do that in only 15 seconds, whereas it would take us much longer, Dr. Sharma said.
ChatGPT is the “next frontier” for generating patient education materials, Dr. Parasa said. It can help time-constrained health care providers, as long as the information is accurate.
ChatGPT 4.0, now available by subscription, can do “almost real-time note-taking during patient encounters,” she added.
Another reason to be familiar with the technology: “Many of your patients are using it, even if you don’t know about it,” Dr. Sharma said.
Questions abound
A conference attendee asked the panel what to do when a patient comes in with ChatGPT medical advice that does not align with official guidelines.
Dr. Gralnek said that he would explain to patients that medical information based on guidelines are not “black and white.” The panel likened it to how patients come to an appointment now armed with information from the Internet, which is not always correct, that must then be countered by doctors. The same would likely happen with ChatGPT.
Another attendee asked whether ChatGPT eventually will work in accordance with electronic health record systems.
“Open AI and Microsoft are already working with Epic,” Dr. Parasa said.
A question arose about the reading level of information provided by ChatGPT. Dr. Parasa noted that it’s not standard. However, a person can prompt ChatGPT to provide an answer either at an eighth-grade reading level or for a well-trained physician.
Dr. Sharma offered a final warning: The technology learns over time.
“It knows what your habits are. It will learn what you’re doing,” Dr. Sharma said. “Everything else on your browsers that are open, it’s learning from that also. So be careful what websites you visit before you go to ChatGPT.”
Dr. Sharma is a stock shareholder in Microsoft. Dr. Parasa and Dr. Gralneck reported no relevant financial relationships.
DDW is sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
CHICAGO – , so like them or not, physicians might as well figure out how to optimize their role in medicine and health care. That’s the takeaway from a three-expert panel session about the technology held at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).
The chatbot can help doctors to a certain extent by suggesting differential diagnoses, assisting with clinical note-taking, and producing rapid and easy-to-understand patient communication and educational materials, they noted. However, it can also make mistakes. And, unlike a medical trainee who might give a clinical answer and express some doubt, ChatGPT (Open AI/Microsoft) clearly states its findings as fact, even when it’s wrong.
Known as “hallucinating,” this problem of AI inaccuracy was displayed at the packed DDW session.
When asked when Leonardo da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa, for example, ChatGPT replied 1815. That’s off by about 300 years; the masterpiece was created sometime between 1503 and 1519. Asked for a fact about George Washington, ChatGPT said he invented the cotton gin. Also not true. (Eli Whitney patented the cotton gin.)
In an example more suited for gastroenterologists at DDW, ChatGPT correctly stated that Barrett esophagus can lead to adenocarcinoma of the esophagus in some cases. However, the technology also said that the condition could lead to prostate cancer.
So, if someone asked ChatGPT for a list of possible risks for Barrett’s esophagus, it would include prostate cancer. A person without medical knowledge “could take it at face value that it causes prostate cancer,” said panelist Sravanthi Parasa, MD, a gastroenterologist at Swedish Medical Center, Seattle.
“That is a lot of misinformation that is going to come our way,” she added at the session, which was sponsored by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.
The potential for inaccuracy is a downside to ChatGPT, agreed panelist Prateek Sharma, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City, Kansas.
“There is no quality control. You have to double check its answers,” said Dr. Sharma, who is president-elect of ASGE.
ChatGPT is not going to replace physicians in general or gastroenterologists doing endoscopies, said Ian Gralnek, MD, chief of the Institute of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Emek Medical Center in Afula, Israel.
Even though the tool could play a role in medicine, “we need to be very careful as a society going forward ... and see where things are going,” Dr. Gralnek said.
How you ask makes a difference
Future iterations of ChatGPT are likely to produce fewer hallucinations, the experts said. In the meantime, users can lower the risk by paying attention to how they’re wording their queries, a practice known as “prompt engineering.”
It’s best to ask a question that has a firm answer to it. If you ask a vague question, you’ll likely get a vague answer, Dr. Sharma said.
ChatGPT is a large language model (LLM). GPT stands for “generative pretrained transformer” – specialized algorithms that find long-range patterns in sequences of data. LLMs can predict the next word in a sentence.
“That’s why this is also called generative AI,” Dr. Sharma said. “For example, if you put in ‘Where are we?’, it will predict for you that perhaps the next word is ‘going?’ ”
The current public version is ChatGPT 3.5, which was trained on open-source online information up until early 2022. It can gather information from open-access scientific journals and medical society guidelines, as well as from Twitter, Reddit, and other social media. It does not have access to private information, like electronic health records.
The use of ChatGPT has exploded in the past 6 months, Dr. Sharma said.
“ChatGPT has been the most-searched website or platform ever in history since it was launched in December of 2022,” he said.
What’s in it for doctors?
Although not specifically trained for health care–related tasks, the panelists noted that ChatGPT does have potential as a virtual medical assistant, chatbot, clinical decision-support tool, source of medical education, natural language processor for documentation, or medical note-taker.
ChatGPT can help physicians write a letter of support to a patient who, for example, was just diagnosed with stage IV colon cancer. It can do that in only 15 seconds, whereas it would take us much longer, Dr. Sharma said.
ChatGPT is the “next frontier” for generating patient education materials, Dr. Parasa said. It can help time-constrained health care providers, as long as the information is accurate.
ChatGPT 4.0, now available by subscription, can do “almost real-time note-taking during patient encounters,” she added.
Another reason to be familiar with the technology: “Many of your patients are using it, even if you don’t know about it,” Dr. Sharma said.
Questions abound
A conference attendee asked the panel what to do when a patient comes in with ChatGPT medical advice that does not align with official guidelines.
Dr. Gralnek said that he would explain to patients that medical information based on guidelines are not “black and white.” The panel likened it to how patients come to an appointment now armed with information from the Internet, which is not always correct, that must then be countered by doctors. The same would likely happen with ChatGPT.
Another attendee asked whether ChatGPT eventually will work in accordance with electronic health record systems.
“Open AI and Microsoft are already working with Epic,” Dr. Parasa said.
A question arose about the reading level of information provided by ChatGPT. Dr. Parasa noted that it’s not standard. However, a person can prompt ChatGPT to provide an answer either at an eighth-grade reading level or for a well-trained physician.
Dr. Sharma offered a final warning: The technology learns over time.
“It knows what your habits are. It will learn what you’re doing,” Dr. Sharma said. “Everything else on your browsers that are open, it’s learning from that also. So be careful what websites you visit before you go to ChatGPT.”
Dr. Sharma is a stock shareholder in Microsoft. Dr. Parasa and Dr. Gralneck reported no relevant financial relationships.
DDW is sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
AT DDW 2023
A 63-year-old male presented for evaluation of worsening genital lesions and associated swelling
.1 Clinically, ENV presents as verrucous, hyperkeratotic, cobblestone-like patches, plaques, and nodules with associated nonpitting edema of the affected body area.1 Secondary bacterial infections are common and often worsen the clinical course. The etiology of ENV involves chronic lymphatic obstruction and venous insufficiency, with additional risk factors including obesity, chronic lymphedema, bacterial infection, surgery or trauma, neoplasia, radiation, congestive heart failure, or scleroderma.2,3 While most commonly presenting on the lower extremities, cases have been reported involving the abdomen, sacrum, ears, buttocks, and penoscrotal area.1,2
Regardless of location, the pathogenesis of ENV remains the same. Chronic lymphatic obstruction results in accumulation and lymphostasis of protein-rich dermal fluid, which subsequently precipitates fibroblast proliferation and activation, suppression of the local immune response and development of recurrent lymphangitis, chronic inflammation, and potential secondary bacterial infection.2,4
There is no standard of care for the treatment and management of ENV and recurrence is common. Interventions often involve those used for chronic lymphedema – including leg elevation, compression stockings or devices, skin hygiene, and lymphatic pumping.2,3 Medical management with topical and oral retinoids has been reported, as well as emphasis on weight loss and infection control.1,4 Surgical intervention is often reserved for refractory cases that fail to respond to more conservative management, or severe presentations resulting in extensive functional and aesthetic impairment. Less commonly reported treatment modalities include lymphaticovenular anastomosis and ablative carbon dioxide laser use, although this latter intervention demonstrated minimal improvement in this patient.5,6
Penoscrotal ENV is a rare form of ENV affecting the genital region of males, often resulting in significant disfigurement, functional impairment, and psychosocial distress. Penoscrotal elephantiasis can be idiopathic, due to filarial infections, scleroinflammatory stricture of the urethra, Chlamydia trachomatis infection, and lymphostasis secondary to chronic inflammatory conditions such as streptococcal infections, radiotherapy, surgery, chronic venous stasis, or Kaposi sarcoma.7
In addition, hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) has been documented multiple times in the literature in association with the development of ENV, detailing lymphatic scarring secondary to chronic inguinal HS as the main pathogenic factor.8,9
Surgery is the mainstay of treatment for penoscrotal ENV, which not only improves functionality and cosmesis, but also aids in prevention of rare malignant sequelae, such as lymphangiosarcoma.10 Such interventions can involve lymphangioplasty to aid in lymphatic drainage or excision of the mass and subcutaneous tissue with full-thickness skin grafting for reconstruction.7 Collaboration between urology, plastic surgery, and dermatology is often essential to obtain adequate care with satisfactory outcomes and minimal recurrence for patients with this uncommon condition.
This case and photo were submitted by Marlee Hill, a medical student at the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City; and Michael Franzetti, MD, and Jeffrey McBride, MD, department of dermatology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center. The column was edited by Donna Bilu Martin, MD.
Dr. Donna Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to dermnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Hadian Y et al. Dermatol Online J. 2019 Dec 15;25(12):13030/qt6rn1s8ff.
2. Judge N and Kilic A. J Dermatol Case Rep. 2016 Nov 13;10(2):32-4.
3. Dean SM et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011 Jun;64(6):1104-10.
4. Sisto K and Khachemoune A. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2008;9(3):141-6.
5. Motegi S et al. Dermatology. 2007;215(2):147-51.
6. Robinson CG et al. J Cutan Med Surg. 2018;22(6):611-3.
7. Koualla S et al. Ann Chir Plast Esthet. 2023 Apr 10;S0294-1260(23)00035-3.
8. Lelonek E et al. Acta Derm Venereol. 2021 Feb 11;101(2):adv00389.
9. Good LM et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011 May;64(5):993-4.
10. Cerri A et al. Eur J Dermatol. 1998 Oct-Nov;8(7):511-4.
.1 Clinically, ENV presents as verrucous, hyperkeratotic, cobblestone-like patches, plaques, and nodules with associated nonpitting edema of the affected body area.1 Secondary bacterial infections are common and often worsen the clinical course. The etiology of ENV involves chronic lymphatic obstruction and venous insufficiency, with additional risk factors including obesity, chronic lymphedema, bacterial infection, surgery or trauma, neoplasia, radiation, congestive heart failure, or scleroderma.2,3 While most commonly presenting on the lower extremities, cases have been reported involving the abdomen, sacrum, ears, buttocks, and penoscrotal area.1,2
Regardless of location, the pathogenesis of ENV remains the same. Chronic lymphatic obstruction results in accumulation and lymphostasis of protein-rich dermal fluid, which subsequently precipitates fibroblast proliferation and activation, suppression of the local immune response and development of recurrent lymphangitis, chronic inflammation, and potential secondary bacterial infection.2,4
There is no standard of care for the treatment and management of ENV and recurrence is common. Interventions often involve those used for chronic lymphedema – including leg elevation, compression stockings or devices, skin hygiene, and lymphatic pumping.2,3 Medical management with topical and oral retinoids has been reported, as well as emphasis on weight loss and infection control.1,4 Surgical intervention is often reserved for refractory cases that fail to respond to more conservative management, or severe presentations resulting in extensive functional and aesthetic impairment. Less commonly reported treatment modalities include lymphaticovenular anastomosis and ablative carbon dioxide laser use, although this latter intervention demonstrated minimal improvement in this patient.5,6
Penoscrotal ENV is a rare form of ENV affecting the genital region of males, often resulting in significant disfigurement, functional impairment, and psychosocial distress. Penoscrotal elephantiasis can be idiopathic, due to filarial infections, scleroinflammatory stricture of the urethra, Chlamydia trachomatis infection, and lymphostasis secondary to chronic inflammatory conditions such as streptococcal infections, radiotherapy, surgery, chronic venous stasis, or Kaposi sarcoma.7
In addition, hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) has been documented multiple times in the literature in association with the development of ENV, detailing lymphatic scarring secondary to chronic inguinal HS as the main pathogenic factor.8,9
Surgery is the mainstay of treatment for penoscrotal ENV, which not only improves functionality and cosmesis, but also aids in prevention of rare malignant sequelae, such as lymphangiosarcoma.10 Such interventions can involve lymphangioplasty to aid in lymphatic drainage or excision of the mass and subcutaneous tissue with full-thickness skin grafting for reconstruction.7 Collaboration between urology, plastic surgery, and dermatology is often essential to obtain adequate care with satisfactory outcomes and minimal recurrence for patients with this uncommon condition.
This case and photo were submitted by Marlee Hill, a medical student at the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City; and Michael Franzetti, MD, and Jeffrey McBride, MD, department of dermatology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center. The column was edited by Donna Bilu Martin, MD.
Dr. Donna Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to dermnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Hadian Y et al. Dermatol Online J. 2019 Dec 15;25(12):13030/qt6rn1s8ff.
2. Judge N and Kilic A. J Dermatol Case Rep. 2016 Nov 13;10(2):32-4.
3. Dean SM et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011 Jun;64(6):1104-10.
4. Sisto K and Khachemoune A. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2008;9(3):141-6.
5. Motegi S et al. Dermatology. 2007;215(2):147-51.
6. Robinson CG et al. J Cutan Med Surg. 2018;22(6):611-3.
7. Koualla S et al. Ann Chir Plast Esthet. 2023 Apr 10;S0294-1260(23)00035-3.
8. Lelonek E et al. Acta Derm Venereol. 2021 Feb 11;101(2):adv00389.
9. Good LM et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011 May;64(5):993-4.
10. Cerri A et al. Eur J Dermatol. 1998 Oct-Nov;8(7):511-4.
.1 Clinically, ENV presents as verrucous, hyperkeratotic, cobblestone-like patches, plaques, and nodules with associated nonpitting edema of the affected body area.1 Secondary bacterial infections are common and often worsen the clinical course. The etiology of ENV involves chronic lymphatic obstruction and venous insufficiency, with additional risk factors including obesity, chronic lymphedema, bacterial infection, surgery or trauma, neoplasia, radiation, congestive heart failure, or scleroderma.2,3 While most commonly presenting on the lower extremities, cases have been reported involving the abdomen, sacrum, ears, buttocks, and penoscrotal area.1,2
Regardless of location, the pathogenesis of ENV remains the same. Chronic lymphatic obstruction results in accumulation and lymphostasis of protein-rich dermal fluid, which subsequently precipitates fibroblast proliferation and activation, suppression of the local immune response and development of recurrent lymphangitis, chronic inflammation, and potential secondary bacterial infection.2,4
There is no standard of care for the treatment and management of ENV and recurrence is common. Interventions often involve those used for chronic lymphedema – including leg elevation, compression stockings or devices, skin hygiene, and lymphatic pumping.2,3 Medical management with topical and oral retinoids has been reported, as well as emphasis on weight loss and infection control.1,4 Surgical intervention is often reserved for refractory cases that fail to respond to more conservative management, or severe presentations resulting in extensive functional and aesthetic impairment. Less commonly reported treatment modalities include lymphaticovenular anastomosis and ablative carbon dioxide laser use, although this latter intervention demonstrated minimal improvement in this patient.5,6
Penoscrotal ENV is a rare form of ENV affecting the genital region of males, often resulting in significant disfigurement, functional impairment, and psychosocial distress. Penoscrotal elephantiasis can be idiopathic, due to filarial infections, scleroinflammatory stricture of the urethra, Chlamydia trachomatis infection, and lymphostasis secondary to chronic inflammatory conditions such as streptococcal infections, radiotherapy, surgery, chronic venous stasis, or Kaposi sarcoma.7
In addition, hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) has been documented multiple times in the literature in association with the development of ENV, detailing lymphatic scarring secondary to chronic inguinal HS as the main pathogenic factor.8,9
Surgery is the mainstay of treatment for penoscrotal ENV, which not only improves functionality and cosmesis, but also aids in prevention of rare malignant sequelae, such as lymphangiosarcoma.10 Such interventions can involve lymphangioplasty to aid in lymphatic drainage or excision of the mass and subcutaneous tissue with full-thickness skin grafting for reconstruction.7 Collaboration between urology, plastic surgery, and dermatology is often essential to obtain adequate care with satisfactory outcomes and minimal recurrence for patients with this uncommon condition.
This case and photo were submitted by Marlee Hill, a medical student at the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City; and Michael Franzetti, MD, and Jeffrey McBride, MD, department of dermatology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center. The column was edited by Donna Bilu Martin, MD.
Dr. Donna Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to dermnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Hadian Y et al. Dermatol Online J. 2019 Dec 15;25(12):13030/qt6rn1s8ff.
2. Judge N and Kilic A. J Dermatol Case Rep. 2016 Nov 13;10(2):32-4.
3. Dean SM et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011 Jun;64(6):1104-10.
4. Sisto K and Khachemoune A. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2008;9(3):141-6.
5. Motegi S et al. Dermatology. 2007;215(2):147-51.
6. Robinson CG et al. J Cutan Med Surg. 2018;22(6):611-3.
7. Koualla S et al. Ann Chir Plast Esthet. 2023 Apr 10;S0294-1260(23)00035-3.
8. Lelonek E et al. Acta Derm Venereol. 2021 Feb 11;101(2):adv00389.
9. Good LM et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011 May;64(5):993-4.
10. Cerri A et al. Eur J Dermatol. 1998 Oct-Nov;8(7):511-4.
