The European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology has updated its recommendations for the management of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis (AAV).

The 2022 revision – which was unveiled at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology – includes guidance on using new drugs, such as avacopan (Tavneos) and mepolizumab (Nucala), as well as revised recommendations on the use of rituximab and glucocorticosteroids.

EULAR

The overhaul also contains specific recommendations for treating eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA), separating it out from granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) and microscopic polyangiitis (MPA) for the first time.

“Until now, EGPA has usually been managed in the same way as [the] other diseases,” Bernhard Hellmich, MD, of the University of Tübingen (Germany) said in an interview ahead of his presentation at the congress.

“But we now have data on each type specifically, so there is good reason to make separate recommendations,” he added.

Indeed, so much new data has become available in the past few years there are only three recommendations that remain unchanged from the previous iteration published in 2016.

Since then, “several high-impact studies in AAV have been published and the results of these studies required an update of the existing recommendations,” Dr. Hellmich said.

Developed in record time – just 7 months from start to finish – the process of updating the recommendations on AAV followed EULAR’s standard operating procedures. An important step in this process is to perform a systemic literature review. Perhaps crucially, and in contrast to the first U.S. vasculitis guidelines published only in 2021, the most recent literature search was able to include data on avacopan, which was approved for use in Europe in January as an adjunctive treatment for adults with severe active GPA and MPA.

The results of the literature review were reported separately at the EULAR 2022 Congress, with separate presentations highlighting the data behind the amended treatment and diagnostic and follow-up procedure recommendations.
 

Highlights of the changes

A key change is the introduction of four overarching principles, which weren’t included in the previous update, said Dr. Hellmich.

“We moved some of the existing recommendations with low level of evidence to overarching principles,” he added, stating that the first general principle was that all patients should be offered “the best care which must be based on shared decision-making between the patient and the physician considering efficacy, safety, and costs.”

The second principle states that patients should have access to education that covers the prognosis and impact of AAV, including recognizing warning symptoms and treatment options.

The third focuses on screening for adverse effects and comorbidities, recommending that patients are given appropriate prophylaxis and lifestyle advice.

Finally, the fourth general principle recognizes that AAV is a rare group of heterogenous and potentially life-threatening diseases that need multidisciplinary care, with access to specific vasculitis expertise.
 

New recommendations

Of the 17 recommendations made, 6 are completely new, including one on ANCA testing in patients who are suspected of having AAV.

“We recommend testing for both PR3- and MPO-ANCA using a high-quality antigen-specific assay as the primary method of testing,” Dr. Hellmich said. This is based on strong new evidence that antigen-specific assays have superior diagnostic accuracy, compared with indirect immunofluorescence.

“We also want to emphasize that ANCA testing should be done in patients with signs and symptoms in order to minimize the risk of false-positive results,” Dr. Hellmich said.

Also new is the recommendation to use oral steroids to induce remission in GPA/MPA, followed by a stepwise reduction in the dose, aiming for a dose of not more than 5 mg prednisolone per day by 4-5 months of treatment.

“Glucocorticoids are very effective, but also are the major trigger of infections in AAV,” said Dr. Hellmich. This is important since infections are a major driver of early mortality in AAV.

“Another possibility to reduce glucocorticoid exposure is avacopan,” he said. It’s recommended to be used in combination with rituximab or cyclophosphamide for remission induction in GPA/MPA as a strategy to basically “get rid of steroids.”

Indeed, “for patients who really have a high burden of glucocorticoid-associated adverse effects, especially relapsing patients, I think it would make sense just to give avacopan and no steroids,” Dr. Hellmich said.

Other new recommendations concern remission induction and maintenance therapy in new-onset EGPA. Regarding the latter, the choice of treatment depends on whether there is an organ- or life-threatening situation, with methotrexate, azathioprine, mepolizumab, or rituximab all recommended equally, or if there is no organ- or life-threatening situation, then mepolizumab is preferred.
 

Revised and unchanged recommendations

Eight of the recommendations have been revised, with rituximab being placed more prominently as a treatment in some. For remission induction in GPA and MPA with organ- or life threatening disease, rituximab is now the preferred option for relapsing disease. Rituximab also replaced methotrexate as the preferred option for maintaining remission, although methotrexate and azathioprine can still be considered as alternatives.

Another changed statement is on the duration of maintenance treatment in GPA and MPA, which now advocates 1-2 years of treatment after achieving remission. Longer therapy might be needed in relapsing cases, but the benefits and risks need to be carefully considered and patient preferences taken into account.

Prophylaxis against pneumonia and other infections is still recommended, with the revised guidance noting that patients receiving cyclophosphamide, rituximab, or high-dose steroids, should be treated with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (co-trimoxazole).

“There are retrospective data in the AAV population that the administration of co-trimoxazole reduces not only the incidence of pneumocystis, but also of other infections. So, this is important recommendation for clinical practice,” Dr. Hellmich said.
 

Summing up

“For a rare disease group, I think this is very good progress,” said Dr. Hellmich, but “there are still many open questions, so we have a long research agenda.”

There is purposefully no recommendation on COVID-19, however, as “the conditions that impact COVID outcomes change rapidly and any recommendation made now is likely to be outdated soon; the AAV recommendations are intended to last for at least a couple of years.”

In a press release issued by the German Society for Rheumatology, which was unrelated to Dr. Hellmich’s talk, experts commented on vasculitis guidelines generally, noting that there has been a move toward using biologic therapies such as rituximab and mepolizumab as a new standard of therapy.

DGRh President and chief physician at the Immanuel Hospital in Berlin Andreas Krause, MD, observed that “cyclophosphamide, which was used in the past and which inhibits blood formation in the bone marrow and can lead to infertility, can now often be dispensed with.”

Julia Holle, MD, of Rheumazentrum Schleswig-Holstein Mitte in Neumünster, Germany, was also quoted in the press release, saying that, “for patients, the successful use of biologics and the reduction in the glucocorticoid dose is important progress.”

Dr. Holle was involved in the development of revised European guidelines. She is also the lead author of a recent publication on treatment of vasculitis on available evidence. Dr. Hellmich acknowledged having ties to multiple pharma companies, acting as speaker, consultant, or both to Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, GlaxoSmithKline, InflaRx, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Vifor.


 

The European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology has updated its recommendations for the management of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis (AAV).

The 2022 revision – which was unveiled at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology – includes guidance on using new drugs, such as avacopan (Tavneos) and mepolizumab (Nucala), as well as revised recommendations on the use of rituximab and glucocorticosteroids.

EULAR

The overhaul also contains specific recommendations for treating eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA), separating it out from granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) and microscopic polyangiitis (MPA) for the first time.

“Until now, EGPA has usually been managed in the same way as [the] other diseases,” Bernhard Hellmich, MD, of the University of Tübingen (Germany) said in an interview ahead of his presentation at the congress.

“But we now have data on each type specifically, so there is good reason to make separate recommendations,” he added.

Indeed, so much new data has become available in the past few years there are only three recommendations that remain unchanged from the previous iteration published in 2016.

Since then, “several high-impact studies in AAV have been published and the results of these studies required an update of the existing recommendations,” Dr. Hellmich said.

Developed in record time – just 7 months from start to finish – the process of updating the recommendations on AAV followed EULAR’s standard operating procedures. An important step in this process is to perform a systemic literature review. Perhaps crucially, and in contrast to the first U.S. vasculitis guidelines published only in 2021, the most recent literature search was able to include data on avacopan, which was approved for use in Europe in January as an adjunctive treatment for adults with severe active GPA and MPA.

The results of the literature review were reported separately at the EULAR 2022 Congress, with separate presentations highlighting the data behind the amended treatment and diagnostic and follow-up procedure recommendations.
 

Highlights of the changes

A key change is the introduction of four overarching principles, which weren’t included in the previous update, said Dr. Hellmich.

“We moved some of the existing recommendations with low level of evidence to overarching principles,” he added, stating that the first general principle was that all patients should be offered “the best care which must be based on shared decision-making between the patient and the physician considering efficacy, safety, and costs.”

The second principle states that patients should have access to education that covers the prognosis and impact of AAV, including recognizing warning symptoms and treatment options.

The third focuses on screening for adverse effects and comorbidities, recommending that patients are given appropriate prophylaxis and lifestyle advice.

Finally, the fourth general principle recognizes that AAV is a rare group of heterogenous and potentially life-threatening diseases that need multidisciplinary care, with access to specific vasculitis expertise.
 

New recommendations

Of the 17 recommendations made, 6 are completely new, including one on ANCA testing in patients who are suspected of having AAV.

“We recommend testing for both PR3- and MPO-ANCA using a high-quality antigen-specific assay as the primary method of testing,” Dr. Hellmich said. This is based on strong new evidence that antigen-specific assays have superior diagnostic accuracy, compared with indirect immunofluorescence.

“We also want to emphasize that ANCA testing should be done in patients with signs and symptoms in order to minimize the risk of false-positive results,” Dr. Hellmich said.

Also new is the recommendation to use oral steroids to induce remission in GPA/MPA, followed by a stepwise reduction in the dose, aiming for a dose of not more than 5 mg prednisolone per day by 4-5 months of treatment.

“Glucocorticoids are very effective, but also are the major trigger of infections in AAV,” said Dr. Hellmich. This is important since infections are a major driver of early mortality in AAV.

“Another possibility to reduce glucocorticoid exposure is avacopan,” he said. It’s recommended to be used in combination with rituximab or cyclophosphamide for remission induction in GPA/MPA as a strategy to basically “get rid of steroids.”

Indeed, “for patients who really have a high burden of glucocorticoid-associated adverse effects, especially relapsing patients, I think it would make sense just to give avacopan and no steroids,” Dr. Hellmich said.

Other new recommendations concern remission induction and maintenance therapy in new-onset EGPA. Regarding the latter, the choice of treatment depends on whether there is an organ- or life-threatening situation, with methotrexate, azathioprine, mepolizumab, or rituximab all recommended equally, or if there is no organ- or life-threatening situation, then mepolizumab is preferred.
 

Revised and unchanged recommendations

Eight of the recommendations have been revised, with rituximab being placed more prominently as a treatment in some. For remission induction in GPA and MPA with organ- or life threatening disease, rituximab is now the preferred option for relapsing disease. Rituximab also replaced methotrexate as the preferred option for maintaining remission, although methotrexate and azathioprine can still be considered as alternatives.

Another changed statement is on the duration of maintenance treatment in GPA and MPA, which now advocates 1-2 years of treatment after achieving remission. Longer therapy might be needed in relapsing cases, but the benefits and risks need to be carefully considered and patient preferences taken into account.

Prophylaxis against pneumonia and other infections is still recommended, with the revised guidance noting that patients receiving cyclophosphamide, rituximab, or high-dose steroids, should be treated with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (co-trimoxazole).

“There are retrospective data in the AAV population that the administration of co-trimoxazole reduces not only the incidence of pneumocystis, but also of other infections. So, this is important recommendation for clinical practice,” Dr. Hellmich said.
 

Summing up

“For a rare disease group, I think this is very good progress,” said Dr. Hellmich, but “there are still many open questions, so we have a long research agenda.”

There is purposefully no recommendation on COVID-19, however, as “the conditions that impact COVID outcomes change rapidly and any recommendation made now is likely to be outdated soon; the AAV recommendations are intended to last for at least a couple of years.”

In a press release issued by the German Society for Rheumatology, which was unrelated to Dr. Hellmich’s talk, experts commented on vasculitis guidelines generally, noting that there has been a move toward using biologic therapies such as rituximab and mepolizumab as a new standard of therapy.

DGRh President and chief physician at the Immanuel Hospital in Berlin Andreas Krause, MD, observed that “cyclophosphamide, which was used in the past and which inhibits blood formation in the bone marrow and can lead to infertility, can now often be dispensed with.”

Julia Holle, MD, of Rheumazentrum Schleswig-Holstein Mitte in Neumünster, Germany, was also quoted in the press release, saying that, “for patients, the successful use of biologics and the reduction in the glucocorticoid dose is important progress.”

Dr. Holle was involved in the development of revised European guidelines. She is also the lead author of a recent publication on treatment of vasculitis on available evidence. Dr. Hellmich acknowledged having ties to multiple pharma companies, acting as speaker, consultant, or both to Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, GlaxoSmithKline, InflaRx, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Vifor.


 

The European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology has updated its recommendations for the management of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis (AAV).

The 2022 revision – which was unveiled at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology – includes guidance on using new drugs, such as avacopan (Tavneos) and mepolizumab (Nucala), as well as revised recommendations on the use of rituximab and glucocorticosteroids.

EULAR

The overhaul also contains specific recommendations for treating eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA), separating it out from granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) and microscopic polyangiitis (MPA) for the first time.

“Until now, EGPA has usually been managed in the same way as [the] other diseases,” Bernhard Hellmich, MD, of the University of Tübingen (Germany) said in an interview ahead of his presentation at the congress.

“But we now have data on each type specifically, so there is good reason to make separate recommendations,” he added.

Indeed, so much new data has become available in the past few years there are only three recommendations that remain unchanged from the previous iteration published in 2016.

Since then, “several high-impact studies in AAV have been published and the results of these studies required an update of the existing recommendations,” Dr. Hellmich said.

Developed in record time – just 7 months from start to finish – the process of updating the recommendations on AAV followed EULAR’s standard operating procedures. An important step in this process is to perform a systemic literature review. Perhaps crucially, and in contrast to the first U.S. vasculitis guidelines published only in 2021, the most recent literature search was able to include data on avacopan, which was approved for use in Europe in January as an adjunctive treatment for adults with severe active GPA and MPA.

The results of the literature review were reported separately at the EULAR 2022 Congress, with separate presentations highlighting the data behind the amended treatment and diagnostic and follow-up procedure recommendations.
 

Highlights of the changes

A key change is the introduction of four overarching principles, which weren’t included in the previous update, said Dr. Hellmich.

“We moved some of the existing recommendations with low level of evidence to overarching principles,” he added, stating that the first general principle was that all patients should be offered “the best care which must be based on shared decision-making between the patient and the physician considering efficacy, safety, and costs.”

The second principle states that patients should have access to education that covers the prognosis and impact of AAV, including recognizing warning symptoms and treatment options.

The third focuses on screening for adverse effects and comorbidities, recommending that patients are given appropriate prophylaxis and lifestyle advice.

Finally, the fourth general principle recognizes that AAV is a rare group of heterogenous and potentially life-threatening diseases that need multidisciplinary care, with access to specific vasculitis expertise.
 

New recommendations

Of the 17 recommendations made, 6 are completely new, including one on ANCA testing in patients who are suspected of having AAV.

“We recommend testing for both PR3- and MPO-ANCA using a high-quality antigen-specific assay as the primary method of testing,” Dr. Hellmich said. This is based on strong new evidence that antigen-specific assays have superior diagnostic accuracy, compared with indirect immunofluorescence.

“We also want to emphasize that ANCA testing should be done in patients with signs and symptoms in order to minimize the risk of false-positive results,” Dr. Hellmich said.

Also new is the recommendation to use oral steroids to induce remission in GPA/MPA, followed by a stepwise reduction in the dose, aiming for a dose of not more than 5 mg prednisolone per day by 4-5 months of treatment.

“Glucocorticoids are very effective, but also are the major trigger of infections in AAV,” said Dr. Hellmich. This is important since infections are a major driver of early mortality in AAV.

“Another possibility to reduce glucocorticoid exposure is avacopan,” he said. It’s recommended to be used in combination with rituximab or cyclophosphamide for remission induction in GPA/MPA as a strategy to basically “get rid of steroids.”

Indeed, “for patients who really have a high burden of glucocorticoid-associated adverse effects, especially relapsing patients, I think it would make sense just to give avacopan and no steroids,” Dr. Hellmich said.

Other new recommendations concern remission induction and maintenance therapy in new-onset EGPA. Regarding the latter, the choice of treatment depends on whether there is an organ- or life-threatening situation, with methotrexate, azathioprine, mepolizumab, or rituximab all recommended equally, or if there is no organ- or life-threatening situation, then mepolizumab is preferred.
 

Revised and unchanged recommendations

Eight of the recommendations have been revised, with rituximab being placed more prominently as a treatment in some. For remission induction in GPA and MPA with organ- or life threatening disease, rituximab is now the preferred option for relapsing disease. Rituximab also replaced methotrexate as the preferred option for maintaining remission, although methotrexate and azathioprine can still be considered as alternatives.

Another changed statement is on the duration of maintenance treatment in GPA and MPA, which now advocates 1-2 years of treatment after achieving remission. Longer therapy might be needed in relapsing cases, but the benefits and risks need to be carefully considered and patient preferences taken into account.

Prophylaxis against pneumonia and other infections is still recommended, with the revised guidance noting that patients receiving cyclophosphamide, rituximab, or high-dose steroids, should be treated with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (co-trimoxazole).

“There are retrospective data in the AAV population that the administration of co-trimoxazole reduces not only the incidence of pneumocystis, but also of other infections. So, this is important recommendation for clinical practice,” Dr. Hellmich said.
 

Summing up

“For a rare disease group, I think this is very good progress,” said Dr. Hellmich, but “there are still many open questions, so we have a long research agenda.”

There is purposefully no recommendation on COVID-19, however, as “the conditions that impact COVID outcomes change rapidly and any recommendation made now is likely to be outdated soon; the AAV recommendations are intended to last for at least a couple of years.”

In a press release issued by the German Society for Rheumatology, which was unrelated to Dr. Hellmich’s talk, experts commented on vasculitis guidelines generally, noting that there has been a move toward using biologic therapies such as rituximab and mepolizumab as a new standard of therapy.

DGRh President and chief physician at the Immanuel Hospital in Berlin Andreas Krause, MD, observed that “cyclophosphamide, which was used in the past and which inhibits blood formation in the bone marrow and can lead to infertility, can now often be dispensed with.”

Julia Holle, MD, of Rheumazentrum Schleswig-Holstein Mitte in Neumünster, Germany, was also quoted in the press release, saying that, “for patients, the successful use of biologics and the reduction in the glucocorticoid dose is important progress.”

Dr. Holle was involved in the development of revised European guidelines. She is also the lead author of a recent publication on treatment of vasculitis on available evidence. Dr. Hellmich acknowledged having ties to multiple pharma companies, acting as speaker, consultant, or both to Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, GlaxoSmithKline, InflaRx, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Vifor.


 

SAN DIEGO – In a 2006 report of complications from laser dermatologic surgery, one of the authors, Dieter Manstein, MD, PhD, who had subjected his forearm to treatment with a fractional laser skin resurfacing prototype device, was included as 1 of the 19 featured cases.

Dr. Manstein, of the Cutaneous Biology Research Center in the department of dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, was exposed to three test spots in the evaluation of the effects of different microscopic thermal zone densities for the prototype device, emitting at 1,450 nm and an energy per MTZ of 3 mJ.

Two years later, hypopigmentation persisted at the test site treated with the highest MTZ density, while two other sites treated with the lower MTZ densities did not show any dyspigmentation. But he noticed something else during the experiment: He felt minimal to no pain as each test site was being treated.

“It took 7 minutes without any cooling or anesthesia,” Dr. Manstein recalled at the annual meeting of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “It was not completely painless, but each time the laser was applied, sometimes I felt a little prick, sometimes I felt nothing.” Essentially, he added, “we created cell injury with a focused laser beam without anesthesia,” but this could also indicate that if skin is treated with a fractional laser very slowly, anesthesia is not needed. “Current devices are meant to treat very quickly, but if we [treat] slowly, maybe you could remove lesions painlessly without anesthesia.”

The observation from that experiment also led Dr. Manstein and colleagues to wonder: Could a focused laser beam pattern be used to assess cutaneous innervation? If so, they postulated, perhaps it could be used to not only assess nerve sensitivity of candidates for dermatologic surgery, but as a tool to help diagnose small fiber neuropathies such as diabetic neuropathy, and neuropathies in patients with HIV and sarcoidosis.

The current gold standard for making these diagnoses involves a skin biopsy, immunohistochemical analysis, and nerve fiber quantification, which is not widely available. It also requires strict histologic processing and nerve counting rules. Confocal microscopy of nerve fibers in the cornea is another approach, but is very difficult to perform, “so it would be nice if there was a simple way” to determine nerve fiber density in the skin using a focused laser beam, Dr. Manstein said.

With help from Payal Patel, MD, a dermatology research fellow at MGH, Dr. Manstein and colleagues have developed an intraepidermal nerve fiber density diagnostic device prototype that uses an erbium laser to conduct in vivo exposures, records each subject’s perception of a stimulus, and maps the areas of stimulus response. Current diameters being studied range from 0.076-1.15 mm and depths less than 0.71 mm. “We can focus the laser beam, preset the beam diameter, and very slowly, in a controlled manner, make a rectangular pattern, and after each time, inquire if the subject felt the pulse or not,” Dr. Manstein explained.

“This laser could become a new method for diagnosing nerve fiber neuropathies. If this works well, I think we can miniaturize the device,” he added.

Dr. Manstein disclosed that he is a consultant for Blossom Innovations, R2 Dermatology, and AVAVA. He is also a member of the advisory board for Blossom Innovations.

SAN DIEGO – In a 2006 report of complications from laser dermatologic surgery, one of the authors, Dieter Manstein, MD, PhD, who had subjected his forearm to treatment with a fractional laser skin resurfacing prototype device, was included as 1 of the 19 featured cases.

Dr. Manstein, of the Cutaneous Biology Research Center in the department of dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, was exposed to three test spots in the evaluation of the effects of different microscopic thermal zone densities for the prototype device, emitting at 1,450 nm and an energy per MTZ of 3 mJ.

Two years later, hypopigmentation persisted at the test site treated with the highest MTZ density, while two other sites treated with the lower MTZ densities did not show any dyspigmentation. But he noticed something else during the experiment: He felt minimal to no pain as each test site was being treated.

“It took 7 minutes without any cooling or anesthesia,” Dr. Manstein recalled at the annual meeting of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “It was not completely painless, but each time the laser was applied, sometimes I felt a little prick, sometimes I felt nothing.” Essentially, he added, “we created cell injury with a focused laser beam without anesthesia,” but this could also indicate that if skin is treated with a fractional laser very slowly, anesthesia is not needed. “Current devices are meant to treat very quickly, but if we [treat] slowly, maybe you could remove lesions painlessly without anesthesia.”

The observation from that experiment also led Dr. Manstein and colleagues to wonder: Could a focused laser beam pattern be used to assess cutaneous innervation? If so, they postulated, perhaps it could be used to not only assess nerve sensitivity of candidates for dermatologic surgery, but as a tool to help diagnose small fiber neuropathies such as diabetic neuropathy, and neuropathies in patients with HIV and sarcoidosis.

The current gold standard for making these diagnoses involves a skin biopsy, immunohistochemical analysis, and nerve fiber quantification, which is not widely available. It also requires strict histologic processing and nerve counting rules. Confocal microscopy of nerve fibers in the cornea is another approach, but is very difficult to perform, “so it would be nice if there was a simple way” to determine nerve fiber density in the skin using a focused laser beam, Dr. Manstein said.

With help from Payal Patel, MD, a dermatology research fellow at MGH, Dr. Manstein and colleagues have developed an intraepidermal nerve fiber density diagnostic device prototype that uses an erbium laser to conduct in vivo exposures, records each subject’s perception of a stimulus, and maps the areas of stimulus response. Current diameters being studied range from 0.076-1.15 mm and depths less than 0.71 mm. “We can focus the laser beam, preset the beam diameter, and very slowly, in a controlled manner, make a rectangular pattern, and after each time, inquire if the subject felt the pulse or not,” Dr. Manstein explained.

“This laser could become a new method for diagnosing nerve fiber neuropathies. If this works well, I think we can miniaturize the device,” he added.

Dr. Manstein disclosed that he is a consultant for Blossom Innovations, R2 Dermatology, and AVAVA. He is also a member of the advisory board for Blossom Innovations.

SAN DIEGO – In a 2006 report of complications from laser dermatologic surgery, one of the authors, Dieter Manstein, MD, PhD, who had subjected his forearm to treatment with a fractional laser skin resurfacing prototype device, was included as 1 of the 19 featured cases.

Dr. Manstein, of the Cutaneous Biology Research Center in the department of dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, was exposed to three test spots in the evaluation of the effects of different microscopic thermal zone densities for the prototype device, emitting at 1,450 nm and an energy per MTZ of 3 mJ.

Two years later, hypopigmentation persisted at the test site treated with the highest MTZ density, while two other sites treated with the lower MTZ densities did not show any dyspigmentation. But he noticed something else during the experiment: He felt minimal to no pain as each test site was being treated.

“It took 7 minutes without any cooling or anesthesia,” Dr. Manstein recalled at the annual meeting of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “It was not completely painless, but each time the laser was applied, sometimes I felt a little prick, sometimes I felt nothing.” Essentially, he added, “we created cell injury with a focused laser beam without anesthesia,” but this could also indicate that if skin is treated with a fractional laser very slowly, anesthesia is not needed. “Current devices are meant to treat very quickly, but if we [treat] slowly, maybe you could remove lesions painlessly without anesthesia.”

The observation from that experiment also led Dr. Manstein and colleagues to wonder: Could a focused laser beam pattern be used to assess cutaneous innervation? If so, they postulated, perhaps it could be used to not only assess nerve sensitivity of candidates for dermatologic surgery, but as a tool to help diagnose small fiber neuropathies such as diabetic neuropathy, and neuropathies in patients with HIV and sarcoidosis.

The current gold standard for making these diagnoses involves a skin biopsy, immunohistochemical analysis, and nerve fiber quantification, which is not widely available. It also requires strict histologic processing and nerve counting rules. Confocal microscopy of nerve fibers in the cornea is another approach, but is very difficult to perform, “so it would be nice if there was a simple way” to determine nerve fiber density in the skin using a focused laser beam, Dr. Manstein said.

With help from Payal Patel, MD, a dermatology research fellow at MGH, Dr. Manstein and colleagues have developed an intraepidermal nerve fiber density diagnostic device prototype that uses an erbium laser to conduct in vivo exposures, records each subject’s perception of a stimulus, and maps the areas of stimulus response. Current diameters being studied range from 0.076-1.15 mm and depths less than 0.71 mm. “We can focus the laser beam, preset the beam diameter, and very slowly, in a controlled manner, make a rectangular pattern, and after each time, inquire if the subject felt the pulse or not,” Dr. Manstein explained.

“This laser could become a new method for diagnosing nerve fiber neuropathies. If this works well, I think we can miniaturize the device,” he added.

Dr. Manstein disclosed that he is a consultant for Blossom Innovations, R2 Dermatology, and AVAVA. He is also a member of the advisory board for Blossom Innovations.

Two doses of either the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine or the Oxford AstraZeneca alternative provide equal and significant protection against severe disease in patients on hemodialysis who have contracted SARS-CoV-2 infection, results of a multicenter observational study indicate.

Following two doses of either vaccine, the risk of hospital admission was 75% lower among vaccinated patients while the risk of death was 88% lower, compared with those who remained unvaccinated.

No difference was seen between the two vaccine types in terms of outcome severity, and there was no loss of protection in patients over the age of 65 or with increasing time since vaccination, the authors add. The need for oxygen and ventilation was also halved among those who had received two shots, compared with those who had not.

“The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a devastating effect on the CKD (chronic kidney disease) community, particularly for individuals receiving maintenance dialysis,” Matthew Oliver, MD, University of Toronto, and Peter Blake, MD, Western University, London, Ont., write in an editorial published with the study.

“Overall, [this and other studies] show that COVID-19 vaccination in the maintenance dialysis population provides moderate protection against acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection but is highly protective against severe outcomes,” they conclude.

The study was published in the June issue of the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.
 

Severe outcomes observed less in patients who tested positive

The cohort included 1,323 patients on hemodialysis who tested positive on PCR testing to SARS-CoV-2 during a surveillance interval between December 2020 and September 2021, report, Damien Ashby, MD, Hammersmith Hospital, London, and colleagues report.

Among those who tested positive, 79% had not been vaccinated, 7% tested positive after their first dose of either vaccine, and 14% tested positive at least 10 days beyond their second dose.

The course of illness was mild in 61% of patients in that they did not require hospital admission, investigators note. Oxygen support was required by 29% of those who tested positive, and 13% died before 28 days, they added. Among those who died within 28 days of testing positive, 90% of the deaths were deemed to be caused by the virus itself.

“Compared with unvaccinated patients, severe COVID-19 outcomes were observed less than half as often in patients testing positive for SARS-Co-V-2 at least 10 days after the second dose,” Dr. Ashby and colleagues emphasize.

“And the protection from severe illness associated with vaccination was most obvious in patients over 65 years, in whom severe COVID-19 outcomes were reduced at least as much after vaccination as in their younger peers,” they add. Following vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, antibody levels in patients on dialysis were comparable with those of healthy controls.

In contrast, this was not the case for the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine where neutralizing titers in patients who received the vaccine were less effective against most variants. Despite its ability to produce comparable immunogenicity, the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine was clearly associated with clinical protection against severe illness, the authors stress.  

They also note that their results are relevant to vaccine uptake in the dialysis population where vaccine hesitancy remains a problem. “This study may, therefore, be useful in reducing vaccine hesitancy, which has resulted in low uptake in some countries (for example, Australia, where almost a quarter of patients on dialysis declined),” Dr. Ashby and colleagues point out.

Although significant vulnerability in the dialysis population remains, “this population has much to gain from vaccination, regardless of age or vaccine type,” the authors underscore.
 

CKD community quick to prioritize vaccine

As the editorialists point out, leaders in the CKD community were quick – and successful – in prioritizing vaccination in the dialysis population right from the beginning of the pandemic. For example, in Ontario, 90% of the maintenance dialysis population had received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine by September 2021 and 78% had received three doses by January 2022.

Moreover, in Ontario, “our group found that two doses of mRNA vaccine reduced the risk of infection by 69%,” Dr. Oliver and Dr. Blake point out. U.S. researchers also found that the Pfizer mRNA vaccine reduced infection risk from COVID-19 by 79% while the Moderna mRNA vaccine reduced that risk by 73%. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) in the real-world setting indicates that COVID-19 vaccines provide moderate protection against being infected with the SARS-Co-V-2 virus, as the editorialists note.

However, “the VE for preventing severe outcomes is clinically more important for patients on dialysis because their risk of [morbid] events is high,” Dr. Oliver and Dr. Blake write. Indeed, their own study estimated that two doses of an mRNA vaccine reduced severe outcomes by 83%, “a greater benefit than for infection prevention,” they stress.

The editorialists caution that the SARS-CoV-2 virus continues to mutate and serology studies do show that vaccine-induced immunity does wane over time. Thus, while the COVID-19 pandemic is ever-changing, “we should conduct [VE] studies rigorously and expeditiously to bolster the case for prioritizing vaccination in the dialysis population,” Dr. Oliver and Dr. Blake recommend.
 

Need to increase vaccine acceptance

Commenting on the study, Uwe K.H. Korst from Bensheim, Germany, notes that COVID-19 is a daily reminder of how fragile life is for people with CKD. “Daily, the virus continues its horrific and unprecedented course through immunocompromised and immunosuppressed patients with kidney disease,” he writes.

Thus, Mr. Korst continues to call for additional education for health care professionals, patients, and the public to increase vaccine acceptance as well as more research to better understand the virus and its long-term consequences.

“Finally, patients need to express their needs, and physicians need to listen to patients’ voices,” Mr. Korst advises.

Dr. Oliver is a contracted medical lead of Ontario Renal Network and owner of Oliver Medical Management for which he holds patents and has received royalties. He has also reported receiving honoraria for speaking from Baxter Healthcare and participating in advisory boards for Amgen and Janssen. Dr. Blake has reported receiving honoraria from Baxter Global for speaking engagements and serves on the editorial board for the American Journal of Nephrology. Dr. Ashby and Dr. Korst have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two doses of either the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine or the Oxford AstraZeneca alternative provide equal and significant protection against severe disease in patients on hemodialysis who have contracted SARS-CoV-2 infection, results of a multicenter observational study indicate.

Following two doses of either vaccine, the risk of hospital admission was 75% lower among vaccinated patients while the risk of death was 88% lower, compared with those who remained unvaccinated.

No difference was seen between the two vaccine types in terms of outcome severity, and there was no loss of protection in patients over the age of 65 or with increasing time since vaccination, the authors add. The need for oxygen and ventilation was also halved among those who had received two shots, compared with those who had not.

“The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a devastating effect on the CKD (chronic kidney disease) community, particularly for individuals receiving maintenance dialysis,” Matthew Oliver, MD, University of Toronto, and Peter Blake, MD, Western University, London, Ont., write in an editorial published with the study.

“Overall, [this and other studies] show that COVID-19 vaccination in the maintenance dialysis population provides moderate protection against acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection but is highly protective against severe outcomes,” they conclude.

The study was published in the June issue of the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.
 

Severe outcomes observed less in patients who tested positive

The cohort included 1,323 patients on hemodialysis who tested positive on PCR testing to SARS-CoV-2 during a surveillance interval between December 2020 and September 2021, report, Damien Ashby, MD, Hammersmith Hospital, London, and colleagues report.

Among those who tested positive, 79% had not been vaccinated, 7% tested positive after their first dose of either vaccine, and 14% tested positive at least 10 days beyond their second dose.

The course of illness was mild in 61% of patients in that they did not require hospital admission, investigators note. Oxygen support was required by 29% of those who tested positive, and 13% died before 28 days, they added. Among those who died within 28 days of testing positive, 90% of the deaths were deemed to be caused by the virus itself.

“Compared with unvaccinated patients, severe COVID-19 outcomes were observed less than half as often in patients testing positive for SARS-Co-V-2 at least 10 days after the second dose,” Dr. Ashby and colleagues emphasize.

“And the protection from severe illness associated with vaccination was most obvious in patients over 65 years, in whom severe COVID-19 outcomes were reduced at least as much after vaccination as in their younger peers,” they add. Following vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, antibody levels in patients on dialysis were comparable with those of healthy controls.

In contrast, this was not the case for the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine where neutralizing titers in patients who received the vaccine were less effective against most variants. Despite its ability to produce comparable immunogenicity, the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine was clearly associated with clinical protection against severe illness, the authors stress.  

They also note that their results are relevant to vaccine uptake in the dialysis population where vaccine hesitancy remains a problem. “This study may, therefore, be useful in reducing vaccine hesitancy, which has resulted in low uptake in some countries (for example, Australia, where almost a quarter of patients on dialysis declined),” Dr. Ashby and colleagues point out.

Although significant vulnerability in the dialysis population remains, “this population has much to gain from vaccination, regardless of age or vaccine type,” the authors underscore.
 

CKD community quick to prioritize vaccine

As the editorialists point out, leaders in the CKD community were quick – and successful – in prioritizing vaccination in the dialysis population right from the beginning of the pandemic. For example, in Ontario, 90% of the maintenance dialysis population had received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine by September 2021 and 78% had received three doses by January 2022.

Moreover, in Ontario, “our group found that two doses of mRNA vaccine reduced the risk of infection by 69%,” Dr. Oliver and Dr. Blake point out. U.S. researchers also found that the Pfizer mRNA vaccine reduced infection risk from COVID-19 by 79% while the Moderna mRNA vaccine reduced that risk by 73%. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) in the real-world setting indicates that COVID-19 vaccines provide moderate protection against being infected with the SARS-Co-V-2 virus, as the editorialists note.

However, “the VE for preventing severe outcomes is clinically more important for patients on dialysis because their risk of [morbid] events is high,” Dr. Oliver and Dr. Blake write. Indeed, their own study estimated that two doses of an mRNA vaccine reduced severe outcomes by 83%, “a greater benefit than for infection prevention,” they stress.

The editorialists caution that the SARS-CoV-2 virus continues to mutate and serology studies do show that vaccine-induced immunity does wane over time. Thus, while the COVID-19 pandemic is ever-changing, “we should conduct [VE] studies rigorously and expeditiously to bolster the case for prioritizing vaccination in the dialysis population,” Dr. Oliver and Dr. Blake recommend.
 

Need to increase vaccine acceptance

Commenting on the study, Uwe K.H. Korst from Bensheim, Germany, notes that COVID-19 is a daily reminder of how fragile life is for people with CKD. “Daily, the virus continues its horrific and unprecedented course through immunocompromised and immunosuppressed patients with kidney disease,” he writes.

Thus, Mr. Korst continues to call for additional education for health care professionals, patients, and the public to increase vaccine acceptance as well as more research to better understand the virus and its long-term consequences.

“Finally, patients need to express their needs, and physicians need to listen to patients’ voices,” Mr. Korst advises.

Dr. Oliver is a contracted medical lead of Ontario Renal Network and owner of Oliver Medical Management for which he holds patents and has received royalties. He has also reported receiving honoraria for speaking from Baxter Healthcare and participating in advisory boards for Amgen and Janssen. Dr. Blake has reported receiving honoraria from Baxter Global for speaking engagements and serves on the editorial board for the American Journal of Nephrology. Dr. Ashby and Dr. Korst have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two doses of either the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine or the Oxford AstraZeneca alternative provide equal and significant protection against severe disease in patients on hemodialysis who have contracted SARS-CoV-2 infection, results of a multicenter observational study indicate.

Following two doses of either vaccine, the risk of hospital admission was 75% lower among vaccinated patients while the risk of death was 88% lower, compared with those who remained unvaccinated.

No difference was seen between the two vaccine types in terms of outcome severity, and there was no loss of protection in patients over the age of 65 or with increasing time since vaccination, the authors add. The need for oxygen and ventilation was also halved among those who had received two shots, compared with those who had not.

“The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a devastating effect on the CKD (chronic kidney disease) community, particularly for individuals receiving maintenance dialysis,” Matthew Oliver, MD, University of Toronto, and Peter Blake, MD, Western University, London, Ont., write in an editorial published with the study.

“Overall, [this and other studies] show that COVID-19 vaccination in the maintenance dialysis population provides moderate protection against acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection but is highly protective against severe outcomes,” they conclude.

The study was published in the June issue of the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.
 

Severe outcomes observed less in patients who tested positive

The cohort included 1,323 patients on hemodialysis who tested positive on PCR testing to SARS-CoV-2 during a surveillance interval between December 2020 and September 2021, report, Damien Ashby, MD, Hammersmith Hospital, London, and colleagues report.

Among those who tested positive, 79% had not been vaccinated, 7% tested positive after their first dose of either vaccine, and 14% tested positive at least 10 days beyond their second dose.

The course of illness was mild in 61% of patients in that they did not require hospital admission, investigators note. Oxygen support was required by 29% of those who tested positive, and 13% died before 28 days, they added. Among those who died within 28 days of testing positive, 90% of the deaths were deemed to be caused by the virus itself.

“Compared with unvaccinated patients, severe COVID-19 outcomes were observed less than half as often in patients testing positive for SARS-Co-V-2 at least 10 days after the second dose,” Dr. Ashby and colleagues emphasize.

“And the protection from severe illness associated with vaccination was most obvious in patients over 65 years, in whom severe COVID-19 outcomes were reduced at least as much after vaccination as in their younger peers,” they add. Following vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, antibody levels in patients on dialysis were comparable with those of healthy controls.

In contrast, this was not the case for the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine where neutralizing titers in patients who received the vaccine were less effective against most variants. Despite its ability to produce comparable immunogenicity, the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine was clearly associated with clinical protection against severe illness, the authors stress.  

They also note that their results are relevant to vaccine uptake in the dialysis population where vaccine hesitancy remains a problem. “This study may, therefore, be useful in reducing vaccine hesitancy, which has resulted in low uptake in some countries (for example, Australia, where almost a quarter of patients on dialysis declined),” Dr. Ashby and colleagues point out.

Although significant vulnerability in the dialysis population remains, “this population has much to gain from vaccination, regardless of age or vaccine type,” the authors underscore.
 

CKD community quick to prioritize vaccine

As the editorialists point out, leaders in the CKD community were quick – and successful – in prioritizing vaccination in the dialysis population right from the beginning of the pandemic. For example, in Ontario, 90% of the maintenance dialysis population had received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine by September 2021 and 78% had received three doses by January 2022.

Moreover, in Ontario, “our group found that two doses of mRNA vaccine reduced the risk of infection by 69%,” Dr. Oliver and Dr. Blake point out. U.S. researchers also found that the Pfizer mRNA vaccine reduced infection risk from COVID-19 by 79% while the Moderna mRNA vaccine reduced that risk by 73%. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) in the real-world setting indicates that COVID-19 vaccines provide moderate protection against being infected with the SARS-Co-V-2 virus, as the editorialists note.

However, “the VE for preventing severe outcomes is clinically more important for patients on dialysis because their risk of [morbid] events is high,” Dr. Oliver and Dr. Blake write. Indeed, their own study estimated that two doses of an mRNA vaccine reduced severe outcomes by 83%, “a greater benefit than for infection prevention,” they stress.

The editorialists caution that the SARS-CoV-2 virus continues to mutate and serology studies do show that vaccine-induced immunity does wane over time. Thus, while the COVID-19 pandemic is ever-changing, “we should conduct [VE] studies rigorously and expeditiously to bolster the case for prioritizing vaccination in the dialysis population,” Dr. Oliver and Dr. Blake recommend.
 

Need to increase vaccine acceptance

Commenting on the study, Uwe K.H. Korst from Bensheim, Germany, notes that COVID-19 is a daily reminder of how fragile life is for people with CKD. “Daily, the virus continues its horrific and unprecedented course through immunocompromised and immunosuppressed patients with kidney disease,” he writes.

Thus, Mr. Korst continues to call for additional education for health care professionals, patients, and the public to increase vaccine acceptance as well as more research to better understand the virus and its long-term consequences.

“Finally, patients need to express their needs, and physicians need to listen to patients’ voices,” Mr. Korst advises.

Dr. Oliver is a contracted medical lead of Ontario Renal Network and owner of Oliver Medical Management for which he holds patents and has received royalties. He has also reported receiving honoraria for speaking from Baxter Healthcare and participating in advisory boards for Amgen and Janssen. Dr. Blake has reported receiving honoraria from Baxter Global for speaking engagements and serves on the editorial board for the American Journal of Nephrology. Dr. Ashby and Dr. Korst have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

At-home, noninvasive auricular vagus nerve stimulation (aVNS) therapy is well-tolerated and associated with a significant reduction in postpartum depressive and anxiety symptoms, new research suggests.

In a small proof-of-concept pilot study of 25 women with postpartum depression receiving 6 weeks of daily aVNS treatment, results showed that 74% achieved response and 61% achieved remission, as shown in reduced scores on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D17).

Although invasive electrical stimulation of the vagus nerve was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treatment-resistant depression in 2005, it involves risk for implantation, infection, and significant side effects, coinvestigator Kristina M. Deligiannidis, MD, director, Women’s Behavioral Health, Zucker Hillside Hospital, Northwell Health, Glen Oaks, New York, told this news organization.

Courtesy The Feinstein Institutes

Potential alternative to meds

“Given that aVNS is a non-invasive treatment which can be administered at home, we wanted to test if this approach was safe, feasible, and could reduce depressive symptoms in women with postpartum depression, as many of these women have barriers to accessing current treatments,” Dr. Deligiannidis said.

Auricular VNS uses surface skin electrodes to stimulate nerve endings of a branch of the vagus nerve, located on the surface of the outer ear. Those nerve endings travel to the brain where they have been shown to modulate brain communication in areas important for mood and anxiety regulation, she said.

Dr. Deligiannidis noted that evidence-based treatments for postpartum depression include psychotherapies and antidepressants. However, some women have difficulty accessing weekly psychotherapy, and, when antidepressants are indicated, many are reluctant to take them if they are breastfeeding because of concerns about the medications getting into their breast milk, she said.

Although most antidepressants are safe in lactation, many women postpone antidepressant treatment until they have finished breastfeeding, which can postpone their postpartum depression treatment, Dr. Deligiannidis added.

“At home treatments reduce many barriers women have to current treatments, and this intervention [of aVNS] does not impact breastfeeding, as it is not a medication approach,” she said.

The researchers enrolled 25 women (mean age, 33.7 years) diagnosed with postpartum depression. Ten of the women (40%) were on a stable dose of antidepressant medication.

The participants self-administered 6 weeks of open-label aVNS for 15 minutes daily at home. They were then observed without intervention for an additional 2 weeks. The women also completed medical, psychiatric, and safety interviews throughout the study period.
 

Promising findings

At baseline, the mean HAM-D17 was 18.4 and was similar for those on (17.8) and off (18.9) antidepressants.

By week 6, the mean HAM-D17 total score decreased by 9.7 points overall, compared with baseline score. For participants on antidepressants, the HAM-D17 decreased by 8.7 points; for women off antidepressants, it decreased by 10.3 points.

In addition, 74% of the women achieved a response to the therapy, and 61% achieved remission of their depressive symptoms.

The most common adverse effects were discomfort (n = 5 patients), headache (n = 3), and dizziness (n = 2). All resolved without intervention.

Commenting on the findings, Anita Clayton, MD, professor and chair, department of psychiatry and neurobehavioral sciences, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, said the study was “quite interesting.”

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

At-home, noninvasive auricular vagus nerve stimulation (aVNS) therapy is well-tolerated and associated with a significant reduction in postpartum depressive and anxiety symptoms, new research suggests.

In a small proof-of-concept pilot study of 25 women with postpartum depression receiving 6 weeks of daily aVNS treatment, results showed that 74% achieved response and 61% achieved remission, as shown in reduced scores on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D17).

Although invasive electrical stimulation of the vagus nerve was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treatment-resistant depression in 2005, it involves risk for implantation, infection, and significant side effects, coinvestigator Kristina M. Deligiannidis, MD, director, Women’s Behavioral Health, Zucker Hillside Hospital, Northwell Health, Glen Oaks, New York, told this news organization.

Courtesy The Feinstein Institutes

Potential alternative to meds

“Given that aVNS is a non-invasive treatment which can be administered at home, we wanted to test if this approach was safe, feasible, and could reduce depressive symptoms in women with postpartum depression, as many of these women have barriers to accessing current treatments,” Dr. Deligiannidis said.

Auricular VNS uses surface skin electrodes to stimulate nerve endings of a branch of the vagus nerve, located on the surface of the outer ear. Those nerve endings travel to the brain where they have been shown to modulate brain communication in areas important for mood and anxiety regulation, she said.

Dr. Deligiannidis noted that evidence-based treatments for postpartum depression include psychotherapies and antidepressants. However, some women have difficulty accessing weekly psychotherapy, and, when antidepressants are indicated, many are reluctant to take them if they are breastfeeding because of concerns about the medications getting into their breast milk, she said.

Although most antidepressants are safe in lactation, many women postpone antidepressant treatment until they have finished breastfeeding, which can postpone their postpartum depression treatment, Dr. Deligiannidis added.

“At home treatments reduce many barriers women have to current treatments, and this intervention [of aVNS] does not impact breastfeeding, as it is not a medication approach,” she said.

The researchers enrolled 25 women (mean age, 33.7 years) diagnosed with postpartum depression. Ten of the women (40%) were on a stable dose of antidepressant medication.

The participants self-administered 6 weeks of open-label aVNS for 15 minutes daily at home. They were then observed without intervention for an additional 2 weeks. The women also completed medical, psychiatric, and safety interviews throughout the study period.
 

Promising findings

At baseline, the mean HAM-D17 was 18.4 and was similar for those on (17.8) and off (18.9) antidepressants.

By week 6, the mean HAM-D17 total score decreased by 9.7 points overall, compared with baseline score. For participants on antidepressants, the HAM-D17 decreased by 8.7 points; for women off antidepressants, it decreased by 10.3 points.

In addition, 74% of the women achieved a response to the therapy, and 61% achieved remission of their depressive symptoms.

The most common adverse effects were discomfort (n = 5 patients), headache (n = 3), and dizziness (n = 2). All resolved without intervention.

Commenting on the findings, Anita Clayton, MD, professor and chair, department of psychiatry and neurobehavioral sciences, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, said the study was “quite interesting.”

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

At-home, noninvasive auricular vagus nerve stimulation (aVNS) therapy is well-tolerated and associated with a significant reduction in postpartum depressive and anxiety symptoms, new research suggests.

In a small proof-of-concept pilot study of 25 women with postpartum depression receiving 6 weeks of daily aVNS treatment, results showed that 74% achieved response and 61% achieved remission, as shown in reduced scores on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D17).

Although invasive electrical stimulation of the vagus nerve was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treatment-resistant depression in 2005, it involves risk for implantation, infection, and significant side effects, coinvestigator Kristina M. Deligiannidis, MD, director, Women’s Behavioral Health, Zucker Hillside Hospital, Northwell Health, Glen Oaks, New York, told this news organization.

Courtesy The Feinstein Institutes

Potential alternative to meds

“Given that aVNS is a non-invasive treatment which can be administered at home, we wanted to test if this approach was safe, feasible, and could reduce depressive symptoms in women with postpartum depression, as many of these women have barriers to accessing current treatments,” Dr. Deligiannidis said.

Auricular VNS uses surface skin electrodes to stimulate nerve endings of a branch of the vagus nerve, located on the surface of the outer ear. Those nerve endings travel to the brain where they have been shown to modulate brain communication in areas important for mood and anxiety regulation, she said.

Dr. Deligiannidis noted that evidence-based treatments for postpartum depression include psychotherapies and antidepressants. However, some women have difficulty accessing weekly psychotherapy, and, when antidepressants are indicated, many are reluctant to take them if they are breastfeeding because of concerns about the medications getting into their breast milk, she said.

Although most antidepressants are safe in lactation, many women postpone antidepressant treatment until they have finished breastfeeding, which can postpone their postpartum depression treatment, Dr. Deligiannidis added.

“At home treatments reduce many barriers women have to current treatments, and this intervention [of aVNS] does not impact breastfeeding, as it is not a medication approach,” she said.

The researchers enrolled 25 women (mean age, 33.7 years) diagnosed with postpartum depression. Ten of the women (40%) were on a stable dose of antidepressant medication.

The participants self-administered 6 weeks of open-label aVNS for 15 minutes daily at home. They were then observed without intervention for an additional 2 weeks. The women also completed medical, psychiatric, and safety interviews throughout the study period.
 

Promising findings

At baseline, the mean HAM-D17 was 18.4 and was similar for those on (17.8) and off (18.9) antidepressants.

By week 6, the mean HAM-D17 total score decreased by 9.7 points overall, compared with baseline score. For participants on antidepressants, the HAM-D17 decreased by 8.7 points; for women off antidepressants, it decreased by 10.3 points.

In addition, 74% of the women achieved a response to the therapy, and 61% achieved remission of their depressive symptoms.

The most common adverse effects were discomfort (n = 5 patients), headache (n = 3), and dizziness (n = 2). All resolved without intervention.

Commenting on the findings, Anita Clayton, MD, professor and chair, department of psychiatry and neurobehavioral sciences, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, said the study was “quite interesting.”

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

A poor-quality human liver, rejected by all transplant centers, was treated outside the body for 3 days using a perfusion machine that simulated some functions of the human body and has been successfully transplanted into a patient with advanced cirrhosis.

The 62-year-old patient rapidly returned to normal quality of life and at the 1-year follow-up had no signs of liver damage, such as rejection or bile duct injury, according to the report published in Nature Biotechnology.

The study team was led by Pierre-Alain Clavien, MD, PhD, with the department of surgery and transplantation, Swiss Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary and Transplant Center, University Hospital Zürich, and the Wyss Zürich Translational Center, ETH Zürich and University of Zürich.
 

Expanding the viability window

Livers for transplant are routinely preserved in a static cold solution and implanted within a few hours. Most centers limit the time in the cold solution to 12 hours as the organ’s viability drops quickly after that time.

“This inaugural clinical success opens new horizons in clinical research and promises an extended time window of up to 10 days for assessment of viability of donor organs as well as converting an urgent and highly demanding surgery into an elective procedure,” the authors wrote.

The Liver4Life team, made up of physicians, engineers, and biochemists, developed the complex perfusion machine. Features of the machine, which mimics human body functions, include automated remote control of all key parameters. A pump mimics the heart, an oxygenator replaces the lungs, and a dialysis unit performs as kidneys would. Hormone and nutrient infusions take over the work of the intestines and pancreas. The machine also moves the liver to the rhythm of simulated breathing.

The team had to solve factors that limit viability for any solid organ outside the body over a few hours including hemolysis, hemodynamic stability, glucose control, pathologic glycogen deposition and perfusate quality and dilution.

Additionally, because the organ would be under machine perfusion for several days, the scientists also had to address pressure necrosis.
 

History behind the procedure

The process started in 2015 with the support of the Wyss Zürich Translational Center, with the goal of long-term ex situ machine perfusion of injured liver grafts.

As part of the agreement from the Swiss regulatory authority (the Federal Office of Public Health) the process would be used only if the organ was rejected by all transplant centers, the recipient had no other options for a donor liver, and if the organ met a rigorous bar for viability.

On May 19, 2021, the team was offered a liver graft from a 29-year-old female donor who had an invasive abdominal desmoid fibromatosis associated with chronic intra-abdominal abscesses and recurrent sepsis episodes from multiresistant bacteria. The donor needed long-term multiple medications and parenteral nutrition. Additionally, there was a 4-cm tumor in segment 1 of the liver.

The liver was refused by all other centers, “primarily because it required diagnostic workup of the liver lesion, which was not immediately possible, and because of the ongoing sepsis in the donor with multiresistant microorganisms,” the authors wrote.

The team removed the liver, and the graft was connected to the Wyss perfusion device for normothermic (37 °C) ex situ perfusion after 4 hours of cold preservation.

A 62-year-old male potential recipient on the official national transplant list, had earlier agreed to be considered for receiving a graft preserved ex situ in the Wyss machine.

The patient was fully informed about the process and the presence of a benign lesion in the graft and accepted the transplantation procedure. The patient had advanced cirrhosis, severe portal hypertension, and multiple and recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).
 

Recipient had ‘near-zero’ chance to get a liver in time

The authors wrote that the patient had “a near-zero chance to receive a graft in time.”

For patients with HCC in Switzerland, the wait for liver transplant is longer than a year and no living-donor options were available.

The transplant operation took 5 hours and 26 minutes and blood loss was limited (600 mL). No transfusion was required. The patient was extubated in the operating room, transferred to the ICU, and discharged 12 days later.

Because a biopsy showed no detectable liver injury or rejection, and based on previous evidence of lower immunogenicity in perfused livers and kidneys, the researchers chose a reduced immunosuppressive regimen with quickly tapering steroids. The steroids were completely discontinued 6 weeks after surgery.

The authors wrote: “In our experience, the absence or very low degree of reperfusion injury seen in our transplant is observed only in living donation, where ‘close-to-perfect’ livers from healthy young donors are transplanted immediately as both donors and recipient are operated in parallel.”

In a press release, the team said the next step is to assess the procedure in other patients in a multicenter study.

Dr. Clavien and several coauthors affiliated with ETH (the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zürich) and the University of Zürich have applied for patents on this new perfusion technology. No other authors have any competing interest.

A poor-quality human liver, rejected by all transplant centers, was treated outside the body for 3 days using a perfusion machine that simulated some functions of the human body and has been successfully transplanted into a patient with advanced cirrhosis.

The 62-year-old patient rapidly returned to normal quality of life and at the 1-year follow-up had no signs of liver damage, such as rejection or bile duct injury, according to the report published in Nature Biotechnology.

The study team was led by Pierre-Alain Clavien, MD, PhD, with the department of surgery and transplantation, Swiss Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary and Transplant Center, University Hospital Zürich, and the Wyss Zürich Translational Center, ETH Zürich and University of Zürich.
 

Expanding the viability window

Livers for transplant are routinely preserved in a static cold solution and implanted within a few hours. Most centers limit the time in the cold solution to 12 hours as the organ’s viability drops quickly after that time.

“This inaugural clinical success opens new horizons in clinical research and promises an extended time window of up to 10 days for assessment of viability of donor organs as well as converting an urgent and highly demanding surgery into an elective procedure,” the authors wrote.

The Liver4Life team, made up of physicians, engineers, and biochemists, developed the complex perfusion machine. Features of the machine, which mimics human body functions, include automated remote control of all key parameters. A pump mimics the heart, an oxygenator replaces the lungs, and a dialysis unit performs as kidneys would. Hormone and nutrient infusions take over the work of the intestines and pancreas. The machine also moves the liver to the rhythm of simulated breathing.

The team had to solve factors that limit viability for any solid organ outside the body over a few hours including hemolysis, hemodynamic stability, glucose control, pathologic glycogen deposition and perfusate quality and dilution.

Additionally, because the organ would be under machine perfusion for several days, the scientists also had to address pressure necrosis.
 

History behind the procedure

The process started in 2015 with the support of the Wyss Zürich Translational Center, with the goal of long-term ex situ machine perfusion of injured liver grafts.

As part of the agreement from the Swiss regulatory authority (the Federal Office of Public Health) the process would be used only if the organ was rejected by all transplant centers, the recipient had no other options for a donor liver, and if the organ met a rigorous bar for viability.

On May 19, 2021, the team was offered a liver graft from a 29-year-old female donor who had an invasive abdominal desmoid fibromatosis associated with chronic intra-abdominal abscesses and recurrent sepsis episodes from multiresistant bacteria. The donor needed long-term multiple medications and parenteral nutrition. Additionally, there was a 4-cm tumor in segment 1 of the liver.

The liver was refused by all other centers, “primarily because it required diagnostic workup of the liver lesion, which was not immediately possible, and because of the ongoing sepsis in the donor with multiresistant microorganisms,” the authors wrote.

The team removed the liver, and the graft was connected to the Wyss perfusion device for normothermic (37 °C) ex situ perfusion after 4 hours of cold preservation.

A 62-year-old male potential recipient on the official national transplant list, had earlier agreed to be considered for receiving a graft preserved ex situ in the Wyss machine.

The patient was fully informed about the process and the presence of a benign lesion in the graft and accepted the transplantation procedure. The patient had advanced cirrhosis, severe portal hypertension, and multiple and recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).
 

Recipient had ‘near-zero’ chance to get a liver in time

The authors wrote that the patient had “a near-zero chance to receive a graft in time.”

For patients with HCC in Switzerland, the wait for liver transplant is longer than a year and no living-donor options were available.

The transplant operation took 5 hours and 26 minutes and blood loss was limited (600 mL). No transfusion was required. The patient was extubated in the operating room, transferred to the ICU, and discharged 12 days later.

Because a biopsy showed no detectable liver injury or rejection, and based on previous evidence of lower immunogenicity in perfused livers and kidneys, the researchers chose a reduced immunosuppressive regimen with quickly tapering steroids. The steroids were completely discontinued 6 weeks after surgery.

The authors wrote: “In our experience, the absence or very low degree of reperfusion injury seen in our transplant is observed only in living donation, where ‘close-to-perfect’ livers from healthy young donors are transplanted immediately as both donors and recipient are operated in parallel.”

In a press release, the team said the next step is to assess the procedure in other patients in a multicenter study.

Dr. Clavien and several coauthors affiliated with ETH (the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zürich) and the University of Zürich have applied for patents on this new perfusion technology. No other authors have any competing interest.

A poor-quality human liver, rejected by all transplant centers, was treated outside the body for 3 days using a perfusion machine that simulated some functions of the human body and has been successfully transplanted into a patient with advanced cirrhosis.

The 62-year-old patient rapidly returned to normal quality of life and at the 1-year follow-up had no signs of liver damage, such as rejection or bile duct injury, according to the report published in Nature Biotechnology.

The study team was led by Pierre-Alain Clavien, MD, PhD, with the department of surgery and transplantation, Swiss Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary and Transplant Center, University Hospital Zürich, and the Wyss Zürich Translational Center, ETH Zürich and University of Zürich.
 

Expanding the viability window

Livers for transplant are routinely preserved in a static cold solution and implanted within a few hours. Most centers limit the time in the cold solution to 12 hours as the organ’s viability drops quickly after that time.

“This inaugural clinical success opens new horizons in clinical research and promises an extended time window of up to 10 days for assessment of viability of donor organs as well as converting an urgent and highly demanding surgery into an elective procedure,” the authors wrote.

The Liver4Life team, made up of physicians, engineers, and biochemists, developed the complex perfusion machine. Features of the machine, which mimics human body functions, include automated remote control of all key parameters. A pump mimics the heart, an oxygenator replaces the lungs, and a dialysis unit performs as kidneys would. Hormone and nutrient infusions take over the work of the intestines and pancreas. The machine also moves the liver to the rhythm of simulated breathing.

The team had to solve factors that limit viability for any solid organ outside the body over a few hours including hemolysis, hemodynamic stability, glucose control, pathologic glycogen deposition and perfusate quality and dilution.

Additionally, because the organ would be under machine perfusion for several days, the scientists also had to address pressure necrosis.
 

History behind the procedure

The process started in 2015 with the support of the Wyss Zürich Translational Center, with the goal of long-term ex situ machine perfusion of injured liver grafts.

As part of the agreement from the Swiss regulatory authority (the Federal Office of Public Health) the process would be used only if the organ was rejected by all transplant centers, the recipient had no other options for a donor liver, and if the organ met a rigorous bar for viability.

On May 19, 2021, the team was offered a liver graft from a 29-year-old female donor who had an invasive abdominal desmoid fibromatosis associated with chronic intra-abdominal abscesses and recurrent sepsis episodes from multiresistant bacteria. The donor needed long-term multiple medications and parenteral nutrition. Additionally, there was a 4-cm tumor in segment 1 of the liver.

The liver was refused by all other centers, “primarily because it required diagnostic workup of the liver lesion, which was not immediately possible, and because of the ongoing sepsis in the donor with multiresistant microorganisms,” the authors wrote.

The team removed the liver, and the graft was connected to the Wyss perfusion device for normothermic (37 °C) ex situ perfusion after 4 hours of cold preservation.

A 62-year-old male potential recipient on the official national transplant list, had earlier agreed to be considered for receiving a graft preserved ex situ in the Wyss machine.

The patient was fully informed about the process and the presence of a benign lesion in the graft and accepted the transplantation procedure. The patient had advanced cirrhosis, severe portal hypertension, and multiple and recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).
 

Recipient had ‘near-zero’ chance to get a liver in time

The authors wrote that the patient had “a near-zero chance to receive a graft in time.”

For patients with HCC in Switzerland, the wait for liver transplant is longer than a year and no living-donor options were available.

The transplant operation took 5 hours and 26 minutes and blood loss was limited (600 mL). No transfusion was required. The patient was extubated in the operating room, transferred to the ICU, and discharged 12 days later.

Because a biopsy showed no detectable liver injury or rejection, and based on previous evidence of lower immunogenicity in perfused livers and kidneys, the researchers chose a reduced immunosuppressive regimen with quickly tapering steroids. The steroids were completely discontinued 6 weeks after surgery.

The authors wrote: “In our experience, the absence or very low degree of reperfusion injury seen in our transplant is observed only in living donation, where ‘close-to-perfect’ livers from healthy young donors are transplanted immediately as both donors and recipient are operated in parallel.”

In a press release, the team said the next step is to assess the procedure in other patients in a multicenter study.

Dr. Clavien and several coauthors affiliated with ETH (the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zürich) and the University of Zürich have applied for patents on this new perfusion technology. No other authors have any competing interest.

NEW ORLEANS – Adult patients who completed an intensive outpatient program (IOP) for post-traumatic stress disorder were significantly less likely over the following year to require inpatient or emergency psychiatric treatment, according to a new study released at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.

In an analysis of 256 individuals, over the 12 months before they joined the IOP, 28.7% and 24.8% had inpatient and emergency department encounters, respectively, according to the researchers. Afterward, those numbers fell to 15.9% (P < .01) and 18.2% (P = .04), respectively.

“Engagement in IOP for patients with PTSD may help avoid the need for higher levels of care such as residential or inpatient treatment,” Nathan Lingafelter, MD, a psychiatrist and researcher at Kaiser Permanente in Oakland, Calif., said in an interview.

Dr. Lingafelter described IOP programs as typically “offering patients a combination of individual therapy, group therapy, and medication management all at an increased frequency of about 3 half-days per week. IOPs are thought to be helpful in helping patients with severe symptoms while they are still in the community – i.e., living in their homes, with their families, occasionally still working at reduced time.”

While other studies have examined the effects of IOP, “the existing literature focuses on how IOP reduces symptoms, rather than looking at how IOP involvement might be associated with patients utilizing different acute care resources,” he said. “Prior studies have also been conducted mostly in veteran populations and in populations with less diversity than our population in Oakland.”

For the new study, researchers tracked 256 IOP participants (83% female; mean age = 39; 44% White, 27% Black, 14% Hispanic, and 7% Asian). The wide majority – 85% – had comorbid depressive disorders.

“Patients are assigned a case manager when they enter the program who they can meet with individually, and they spend time attending group therapy sessions. Patients are also able to meet with a psychiatrist to discuss medications,” Dr. Lingafelter said. “A major component in both the group and individual therapy is helping patients identify which kind of interventions work for them and what we can do now that will help. IOP can really help clarify for patients what their trauma responses are and how to start treatments that actually fit their symptoms.”

The subjects had a mean 0.3 psychiatric encounters in the year before joining the program and 0.2 in the year after (P < .01). Their mean emergency department visits related to mental health fell from 0.5 to 0.3 (P = .03).

The study has limitations. Participants took part in IOP therapy from 2017 to 2018, before the pandemic disrupted mental health treatment. It does not examine whether medication use changed after IOP treatment. It is retrospective and doesn’t confirm that IOP had any positive effect.
 

Multiple benefits of IOP

In an interview, Deborah C. Beidel, PhD, director of UCF RESTORES at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, said IOP has several advantages as a treatment for PTSD. Her clinic, which focuses on PTSD treatment for military veterans, has used the approach to treat hundreds of people.

“First, IOPs can address the stigma that surrounds mental health treatment. If you have a physical injury, you take time off from work to go to physical therapy, which is time-limited. If you have a stress injury, why not do the same? Take a few weeks, get it treated, and get back to work,” she said. “The second reason is that the most effective treatment for PTSD is exposure therapy, which is more effective when treatment sessions occur in a daily as opposed to a weekly or monthly time frame. Third, from a cost and feasibility perspective, an intensive program could reduce overall medical costs and get people back to work sooner.”

The new study is “definitely useful” since it examines the impact of IOP over a longer term, Dr. Beidel said. This kind of data “can influence policy, particularly with insurance companies. If we can build the evidence that short, intensive treatment produces better long-term outcomes, insurance companies will be more likely to pay for the IOP.”

The University of Central Florida program is funded by federal research grants and state funding, she said. “When we calculate the cost, it comes to about $10,000 in therapy time plus an average of about $3,000 in travel related costs – transportation, lodging, meals – for those who travel from out of state for our program.”

What’s next? “Further study is needed to characterize whether these findings are applicable to other practice settings, including virtual treatment programs; the long-term durability of these findings; and whether similar patterns of reduced resource use extend to non–mental health–specific care utilization,” said Dr. Lingafelter, the study’s lead author.

No study funding and no author disclosures were reported. Dr. Beidel disclosed IOP-related research support from the U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command–Military Operational Medicine Research Program.

NEW ORLEANS – Adult patients who completed an intensive outpatient program (IOP) for post-traumatic stress disorder were significantly less likely over the following year to require inpatient or emergency psychiatric treatment, according to a new study released at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.

In an analysis of 256 individuals, over the 12 months before they joined the IOP, 28.7% and 24.8% had inpatient and emergency department encounters, respectively, according to the researchers. Afterward, those numbers fell to 15.9% (P < .01) and 18.2% (P = .04), respectively.

“Engagement in IOP for patients with PTSD may help avoid the need for higher levels of care such as residential or inpatient treatment,” Nathan Lingafelter, MD, a psychiatrist and researcher at Kaiser Permanente in Oakland, Calif., said in an interview.

Dr. Lingafelter described IOP programs as typically “offering patients a combination of individual therapy, group therapy, and medication management all at an increased frequency of about 3 half-days per week. IOPs are thought to be helpful in helping patients with severe symptoms while they are still in the community – i.e., living in their homes, with their families, occasionally still working at reduced time.”

While other studies have examined the effects of IOP, “the existing literature focuses on how IOP reduces symptoms, rather than looking at how IOP involvement might be associated with patients utilizing different acute care resources,” he said. “Prior studies have also been conducted mostly in veteran populations and in populations with less diversity than our population in Oakland.”

For the new study, researchers tracked 256 IOP participants (83% female; mean age = 39; 44% White, 27% Black, 14% Hispanic, and 7% Asian). The wide majority – 85% – had comorbid depressive disorders.

“Patients are assigned a case manager when they enter the program who they can meet with individually, and they spend time attending group therapy sessions. Patients are also able to meet with a psychiatrist to discuss medications,” Dr. Lingafelter said. “A major component in both the group and individual therapy is helping patients identify which kind of interventions work for them and what we can do now that will help. IOP can really help clarify for patients what their trauma responses are and how to start treatments that actually fit their symptoms.”

The subjects had a mean 0.3 psychiatric encounters in the year before joining the program and 0.2 in the year after (P < .01). Their mean emergency department visits related to mental health fell from 0.5 to 0.3 (P = .03).

The study has limitations. Participants took part in IOP therapy from 2017 to 2018, before the pandemic disrupted mental health treatment. It does not examine whether medication use changed after IOP treatment. It is retrospective and doesn’t confirm that IOP had any positive effect.
 

Multiple benefits of IOP

In an interview, Deborah C. Beidel, PhD, director of UCF RESTORES at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, said IOP has several advantages as a treatment for PTSD. Her clinic, which focuses on PTSD treatment for military veterans, has used the approach to treat hundreds of people.

“First, IOPs can address the stigma that surrounds mental health treatment. If you have a physical injury, you take time off from work to go to physical therapy, which is time-limited. If you have a stress injury, why not do the same? Take a few weeks, get it treated, and get back to work,” she said. “The second reason is that the most effective treatment for PTSD is exposure therapy, which is more effective when treatment sessions occur in a daily as opposed to a weekly or monthly time frame. Third, from a cost and feasibility perspective, an intensive program could reduce overall medical costs and get people back to work sooner.”

The new study is “definitely useful” since it examines the impact of IOP over a longer term, Dr. Beidel said. This kind of data “can influence policy, particularly with insurance companies. If we can build the evidence that short, intensive treatment produces better long-term outcomes, insurance companies will be more likely to pay for the IOP.”

The University of Central Florida program is funded by federal research grants and state funding, she said. “When we calculate the cost, it comes to about $10,000 in therapy time plus an average of about $3,000 in travel related costs – transportation, lodging, meals – for those who travel from out of state for our program.”

What’s next? “Further study is needed to characterize whether these findings are applicable to other practice settings, including virtual treatment programs; the long-term durability of these findings; and whether similar patterns of reduced resource use extend to non–mental health–specific care utilization,” said Dr. Lingafelter, the study’s lead author.

No study funding and no author disclosures were reported. Dr. Beidel disclosed IOP-related research support from the U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command–Military Operational Medicine Research Program.

NEW ORLEANS – Adult patients who completed an intensive outpatient program (IOP) for post-traumatic stress disorder were significantly less likely over the following year to require inpatient or emergency psychiatric treatment, according to a new study released at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.

In an analysis of 256 individuals, over the 12 months before they joined the IOP, 28.7% and 24.8% had inpatient and emergency department encounters, respectively, according to the researchers. Afterward, those numbers fell to 15.9% (P < .01) and 18.2% (P = .04), respectively.

“Engagement in IOP for patients with PTSD may help avoid the need for higher levels of care such as residential or inpatient treatment,” Nathan Lingafelter, MD, a psychiatrist and researcher at Kaiser Permanente in Oakland, Calif., said in an interview.

Dr. Lingafelter described IOP programs as typically “offering patients a combination of individual therapy, group therapy, and medication management all at an increased frequency of about 3 half-days per week. IOPs are thought to be helpful in helping patients with severe symptoms while they are still in the community – i.e., living in their homes, with their families, occasionally still working at reduced time.”

While other studies have examined the effects of IOP, “the existing literature focuses on how IOP reduces symptoms, rather than looking at how IOP involvement might be associated with patients utilizing different acute care resources,” he said. “Prior studies have also been conducted mostly in veteran populations and in populations with less diversity than our population in Oakland.”

For the new study, researchers tracked 256 IOP participants (83% female; mean age = 39; 44% White, 27% Black, 14% Hispanic, and 7% Asian). The wide majority – 85% – had comorbid depressive disorders.

“Patients are assigned a case manager when they enter the program who they can meet with individually, and they spend time attending group therapy sessions. Patients are also able to meet with a psychiatrist to discuss medications,” Dr. Lingafelter said. “A major component in both the group and individual therapy is helping patients identify which kind of interventions work for them and what we can do now that will help. IOP can really help clarify for patients what their trauma responses are and how to start treatments that actually fit their symptoms.”

The subjects had a mean 0.3 psychiatric encounters in the year before joining the program and 0.2 in the year after (P < .01). Their mean emergency department visits related to mental health fell from 0.5 to 0.3 (P = .03).

The study has limitations. Participants took part in IOP therapy from 2017 to 2018, before the pandemic disrupted mental health treatment. It does not examine whether medication use changed after IOP treatment. It is retrospective and doesn’t confirm that IOP had any positive effect.
 

Multiple benefits of IOP

In an interview, Deborah C. Beidel, PhD, director of UCF RESTORES at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, said IOP has several advantages as a treatment for PTSD. Her clinic, which focuses on PTSD treatment for military veterans, has used the approach to treat hundreds of people.

“First, IOPs can address the stigma that surrounds mental health treatment. If you have a physical injury, you take time off from work to go to physical therapy, which is time-limited. If you have a stress injury, why not do the same? Take a few weeks, get it treated, and get back to work,” she said. “The second reason is that the most effective treatment for PTSD is exposure therapy, which is more effective when treatment sessions occur in a daily as opposed to a weekly or monthly time frame. Third, from a cost and feasibility perspective, an intensive program could reduce overall medical costs and get people back to work sooner.”

The new study is “definitely useful” since it examines the impact of IOP over a longer term, Dr. Beidel said. This kind of data “can influence policy, particularly with insurance companies. If we can build the evidence that short, intensive treatment produces better long-term outcomes, insurance companies will be more likely to pay for the IOP.”

The University of Central Florida program is funded by federal research grants and state funding, she said. “When we calculate the cost, it comes to about $10,000 in therapy time plus an average of about $3,000 in travel related costs – transportation, lodging, meals – for those who travel from out of state for our program.”

What’s next? “Further study is needed to characterize whether these findings are applicable to other practice settings, including virtual treatment programs; the long-term durability of these findings; and whether similar patterns of reduced resource use extend to non–mental health–specific care utilization,” said Dr. Lingafelter, the study’s lead author.

No study funding and no author disclosures were reported. Dr. Beidel disclosed IOP-related research support from the U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command–Military Operational Medicine Research Program.

As the number of people reporting persistent, and sometimes debilitating, symptoms from COVID-19 increases, researchers have struggled to pinpoint exactly how common so-called “long COVID” is, as well as how to clearly define exactly who has it or who is likely to get it.

Now, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention researchers have concluded that one in five adults aged 18 and older have at least one health condition that might be related to their previous COVID-19 illness; that number goes up to one in four among those 65 and older. Their data was published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The conditions associated with what’s been officially termed postacute sequelae of COVID-19, or PASC, include kidney failure, blood clots, other vascular issues, respiratory issues, heart problems, mental health or neurologic problems, and musculoskeletal conditions. But none of those conditions is unique to long COVID.

Another new study, published in The Lancet Digital Health, is trying to help better characterize what long COVID is, and what it isn’t.

The research team, supported by the National Institutes of Health, used machine learning techniques to analyze electronic health record data to identify new information about long COVID and detect patterns that could help identify those likely to develop it.
 

CDC data

The CDC team came to its conclusions by evaluating the EHRs of more than 353,000 adults who were diagnosed with COVID-19 or got a positive test result, then comparing those records with 1.6 million patients who had a medical visit in the same month without a positive test result or a COVID-19 diagnosis.

They looked at data from March 2020 to November 2021, tagging 26 conditions often linked to post-COVID issues.

Overall, more than 38% of the COVID patients and 16% of those without COVID had at least one of these 26 conditions. They assessed the absolute risk difference between the patients and the non-COVID patients who developed one of the conditions, finding a 20.8–percentage point difference for those 18-64, yielding the one in five figure, and a 26.9–percentage point difference for those 65 and above, translating to about one in four.

“These findings suggest the need for increased awareness for post-COVID conditions so that improved post-COVID care and management of patients who survived COVID-19 can be developed and implemented,” said study author Lara Bull-Otterson, PhD, MPH, colead of data analytics at the Healthcare Data Advisory Unit of the CDC.
 

Pinpointing long COVID characteristics

Long COVID is difficult to identify, because many of its symptoms are similar to those of other conditions, so researchers are looking for better ways to characterize it to help improve both diagnosis and treatment.

Researchers on the Lancet study evaluated data from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative, N3C, a national NIH database that includes information from more than 8 million people. The team looked at the health records of 98,000 adult COVID patients and used that information, along with data from about nearly 600 long-COVID patients treated at three long-COVID clinics, to create three machine learning models for identifying long-COVID patients.

The models aimed to identify long-COVID patients in three groups: all patients, those hospitalized with COVID, and those with COVID but not hospitalized. The models were judged by the researchers to be accurate because those identified at risk for long COVID from the database were similar to those actually treated for long COVID at the clinics.

“Our algorithm is not intended to diagnose long COVID,” said lead author Emily Pfaff, PhD, research assistant professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Rather, it is intended to identify patients in EHR data who ‘look like’ patients seen by physicians for long COVID.’’

Next, the researchers say, they will incorporate the new patterns they found with a diagnosis code for COVID and include it in the models to further test their accuracy. The models could also be used to help recruit patients for clinical trials, the researchers say.
 

Perspective and caveats

The figures of one in five and one in four found by the CDC researchers don’t surprise David Putrino, PT, PhD, director of rehabilitation innovation for Mount Sinai Health System in New York and director of its Abilities Research Center, which cares for long-COVID patients.

“Those numbers are high and it’s alarming,” he said. “But we’ve been sounding the alarm for quite some time, and we’ve been assuming that about one in five end up with long COVID.”

He does see a limitation to the CDC research – that some symptoms could have emerged later, and some in the control group could have had an undiagnosed COVID infection and gone on to develop long COVID.

As for machine learning, “this is something we need to approach with caution,” Dr. Putrino said. “There are a lot of variables we don’t understand about long COVID,’’ and that could result in spurious conclusions.

“Although I am supportive of this work going on, I am saying, ‘Scrutinize the tools with a grain of salt.’ Electronic records, Dr. Putrino points out, include information that the doctors enter, not what the patient says.

Dr. Pfaff responds: “It is entirely appropriate to approach both machine learning and EHR data with relevant caveats in mind. There are many clinical factors that are not recorded in the EHR, and the EHR is not representative of all persons with long COVID.” Those data can only reflect those who seek care for a condition, a natural limitation.

When it comes to algorithms, they are limited by data they have access to, such as the electronic health records in this research. However, the immense size and diversity in the data used “does allow us to make some assertations with much more confidence than if we were using data from a single or small number of health care systems,” she said.

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

As the number of people reporting persistent, and sometimes debilitating, symptoms from COVID-19 increases, researchers have struggled to pinpoint exactly how common so-called “long COVID” is, as well as how to clearly define exactly who has it or who is likely to get it.

Now, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention researchers have concluded that one in five adults aged 18 and older have at least one health condition that might be related to their previous COVID-19 illness; that number goes up to one in four among those 65 and older. Their data was published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The conditions associated with what’s been officially termed postacute sequelae of COVID-19, or PASC, include kidney failure, blood clots, other vascular issues, respiratory issues, heart problems, mental health or neurologic problems, and musculoskeletal conditions. But none of those conditions is unique to long COVID.

Another new study, published in The Lancet Digital Health, is trying to help better characterize what long COVID is, and what it isn’t.

The research team, supported by the National Institutes of Health, used machine learning techniques to analyze electronic health record data to identify new information about long COVID and detect patterns that could help identify those likely to develop it.
 

CDC data

The CDC team came to its conclusions by evaluating the EHRs of more than 353,000 adults who were diagnosed with COVID-19 or got a positive test result, then comparing those records with 1.6 million patients who had a medical visit in the same month without a positive test result or a COVID-19 diagnosis.

They looked at data from March 2020 to November 2021, tagging 26 conditions often linked to post-COVID issues.

Overall, more than 38% of the COVID patients and 16% of those without COVID had at least one of these 26 conditions. They assessed the absolute risk difference between the patients and the non-COVID patients who developed one of the conditions, finding a 20.8–percentage point difference for those 18-64, yielding the one in five figure, and a 26.9–percentage point difference for those 65 and above, translating to about one in four.

“These findings suggest the need for increased awareness for post-COVID conditions so that improved post-COVID care and management of patients who survived COVID-19 can be developed and implemented,” said study author Lara Bull-Otterson, PhD, MPH, colead of data analytics at the Healthcare Data Advisory Unit of the CDC.
 

Pinpointing long COVID characteristics

Long COVID is difficult to identify, because many of its symptoms are similar to those of other conditions, so researchers are looking for better ways to characterize it to help improve both diagnosis and treatment.

Researchers on the Lancet study evaluated data from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative, N3C, a national NIH database that includes information from more than 8 million people. The team looked at the health records of 98,000 adult COVID patients and used that information, along with data from about nearly 600 long-COVID patients treated at three long-COVID clinics, to create three machine learning models for identifying long-COVID patients.

The models aimed to identify long-COVID patients in three groups: all patients, those hospitalized with COVID, and those with COVID but not hospitalized. The models were judged by the researchers to be accurate because those identified at risk for long COVID from the database were similar to those actually treated for long COVID at the clinics.

“Our algorithm is not intended to diagnose long COVID,” said lead author Emily Pfaff, PhD, research assistant professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Rather, it is intended to identify patients in EHR data who ‘look like’ patients seen by physicians for long COVID.’’

Next, the researchers say, they will incorporate the new patterns they found with a diagnosis code for COVID and include it in the models to further test their accuracy. The models could also be used to help recruit patients for clinical trials, the researchers say.
 

Perspective and caveats

The figures of one in five and one in four found by the CDC researchers don’t surprise David Putrino, PT, PhD, director of rehabilitation innovation for Mount Sinai Health System in New York and director of its Abilities Research Center, which cares for long-COVID patients.

“Those numbers are high and it’s alarming,” he said. “But we’ve been sounding the alarm for quite some time, and we’ve been assuming that about one in five end up with long COVID.”

He does see a limitation to the CDC research – that some symptoms could have emerged later, and some in the control group could have had an undiagnosed COVID infection and gone on to develop long COVID.

As for machine learning, “this is something we need to approach with caution,” Dr. Putrino said. “There are a lot of variables we don’t understand about long COVID,’’ and that could result in spurious conclusions.

“Although I am supportive of this work going on, I am saying, ‘Scrutinize the tools with a grain of salt.’ Electronic records, Dr. Putrino points out, include information that the doctors enter, not what the patient says.

Dr. Pfaff responds: “It is entirely appropriate to approach both machine learning and EHR data with relevant caveats in mind. There are many clinical factors that are not recorded in the EHR, and the EHR is not representative of all persons with long COVID.” Those data can only reflect those who seek care for a condition, a natural limitation.

When it comes to algorithms, they are limited by data they have access to, such as the electronic health records in this research. However, the immense size and diversity in the data used “does allow us to make some assertations with much more confidence than if we were using data from a single or small number of health care systems,” she said.

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

As the number of people reporting persistent, and sometimes debilitating, symptoms from COVID-19 increases, researchers have struggled to pinpoint exactly how common so-called “long COVID” is, as well as how to clearly define exactly who has it or who is likely to get it.

Now, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention researchers have concluded that one in five adults aged 18 and older have at least one health condition that might be related to their previous COVID-19 illness; that number goes up to one in four among those 65 and older. Their data was published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The conditions associated with what’s been officially termed postacute sequelae of COVID-19, or PASC, include kidney failure, blood clots, other vascular issues, respiratory issues, heart problems, mental health or neurologic problems, and musculoskeletal conditions. But none of those conditions is unique to long COVID.

Another new study, published in The Lancet Digital Health, is trying to help better characterize what long COVID is, and what it isn’t.

The research team, supported by the National Institutes of Health, used machine learning techniques to analyze electronic health record data to identify new information about long COVID and detect patterns that could help identify those likely to develop it.
 

CDC data

The CDC team came to its conclusions by evaluating the EHRs of more than 353,000 adults who were diagnosed with COVID-19 or got a positive test result, then comparing those records with 1.6 million patients who had a medical visit in the same month without a positive test result or a COVID-19 diagnosis.

They looked at data from March 2020 to November 2021, tagging 26 conditions often linked to post-COVID issues.

Overall, more than 38% of the COVID patients and 16% of those without COVID had at least one of these 26 conditions. They assessed the absolute risk difference between the patients and the non-COVID patients who developed one of the conditions, finding a 20.8–percentage point difference for those 18-64, yielding the one in five figure, and a 26.9–percentage point difference for those 65 and above, translating to about one in four.

“These findings suggest the need for increased awareness for post-COVID conditions so that improved post-COVID care and management of patients who survived COVID-19 can be developed and implemented,” said study author Lara Bull-Otterson, PhD, MPH, colead of data analytics at the Healthcare Data Advisory Unit of the CDC.
 

Pinpointing long COVID characteristics

Long COVID is difficult to identify, because many of its symptoms are similar to those of other conditions, so researchers are looking for better ways to characterize it to help improve both diagnosis and treatment.

Researchers on the Lancet study evaluated data from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative, N3C, a national NIH database that includes information from more than 8 million people. The team looked at the health records of 98,000 adult COVID patients and used that information, along with data from about nearly 600 long-COVID patients treated at three long-COVID clinics, to create three machine learning models for identifying long-COVID patients.

The models aimed to identify long-COVID patients in three groups: all patients, those hospitalized with COVID, and those with COVID but not hospitalized. The models were judged by the researchers to be accurate because those identified at risk for long COVID from the database were similar to those actually treated for long COVID at the clinics.

“Our algorithm is not intended to diagnose long COVID,” said lead author Emily Pfaff, PhD, research assistant professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Rather, it is intended to identify patients in EHR data who ‘look like’ patients seen by physicians for long COVID.’’

Next, the researchers say, they will incorporate the new patterns they found with a diagnosis code for COVID and include it in the models to further test their accuracy. The models could also be used to help recruit patients for clinical trials, the researchers say.
 

Perspective and caveats

The figures of one in five and one in four found by the CDC researchers don’t surprise David Putrino, PT, PhD, director of rehabilitation innovation for Mount Sinai Health System in New York and director of its Abilities Research Center, which cares for long-COVID patients.

“Those numbers are high and it’s alarming,” he said. “But we’ve been sounding the alarm for quite some time, and we’ve been assuming that about one in five end up with long COVID.”

He does see a limitation to the CDC research – that some symptoms could have emerged later, and some in the control group could have had an undiagnosed COVID infection and gone on to develop long COVID.

As for machine learning, “this is something we need to approach with caution,” Dr. Putrino said. “There are a lot of variables we don’t understand about long COVID,’’ and that could result in spurious conclusions.

“Although I am supportive of this work going on, I am saying, ‘Scrutinize the tools with a grain of salt.’ Electronic records, Dr. Putrino points out, include information that the doctors enter, not what the patient says.

Dr. Pfaff responds: “It is entirely appropriate to approach both machine learning and EHR data with relevant caveats in mind. There are many clinical factors that are not recorded in the EHR, and the EHR is not representative of all persons with long COVID.” Those data can only reflect those who seek care for a condition, a natural limitation.

When it comes to algorithms, they are limited by data they have access to, such as the electronic health records in this research. However, the immense size and diversity in the data used “does allow us to make some assertations with much more confidence than if we were using data from a single or small number of health care systems,” she said.

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

To the Editor:

Albendazole is a commonly prescribed anthelmintic that typically is well tolerated. Its broadest application is in developing countries that have a high rate of endemic nematode infection.^1,2 Albendazole belongs to the benzimidazole class of anthelmintic chemotherapeutic agents that function by inhibiting microtubule dynamics, resulting in cytotoxic antimitotic effects.³ Benzimidazoles (eg, albendazole, mebendazole) have a binding affinity for helminthic β-tubulin that is 25- to 400-times greater than their binding affinity for the mammalian counterpart.⁴ Consequently, benzimidazoles generally are afforded a very broad therapeutic index for helminthic infection.

A 53-year-old man presented to the emergency department (ED) after an episode of syncope and sudden hair loss. At presentation he had a fever (temperature, 103 °F [39.4 °C]), a heart rate of 120 bpm, and pancytopenia (white blood cell count, 0.4×10³/μL [reference range, 4.0–10.0×10³/μL]; hemoglobin, 7.0 g/dL [reference range, 11.2–15.7 g/dL]; platelet count, 100×10³/μL [reference range, 150–400×10³/μL]). A toxicology screen was positive for cocaine, opiates, and benzodiazepines. The blood alcohol concentration was 126 mg/dL.

The patient reported severe gastrointestinal (GI) distress and diarrhea for the last year as well as a 25-lb weight loss. He discussed his belief that his GI symptoms were due to a parasite he had acquired the year prior; however, he reported that an exhaustive outpatient GI workup had been negative. Two weeks before presentation to our ED, the patient presented to another ED with stomach upset and was given a dose of albendazole. Perceiving alleviation of his symptoms, he purchased 2 bottles of veterinary albendazole online and consumed 113,000 mg—approximately 300 times the standard dose of 400 mg.

A dermatologic examination in our ED demonstrated reticulated violaceous patches on the face and severe alopecia with preferential sparing of the occipital scalp (Figure 1). Photographs taken by the patient on his phone from a week prior to presentation showed no facial dyschromia or signs of hair loss. A punch biopsy of the chin demonstrated perivascular and perifollicular dermatitis with eosinophils, most consistent with a drug reaction.

To the Editor:

Albendazole is a commonly prescribed anthelmintic that typically is well tolerated. Its broadest application is in developing countries that have a high rate of endemic nematode infection.^1,2 Albendazole belongs to the benzimidazole class of anthelmintic chemotherapeutic agents that function by inhibiting microtubule dynamics, resulting in cytotoxic antimitotic effects.³ Benzimidazoles (eg, albendazole, mebendazole) have a binding affinity for helminthic β-tubulin that is 25- to 400-times greater than their binding affinity for the mammalian counterpart.⁴ Consequently, benzimidazoles generally are afforded a very broad therapeutic index for helminthic infection.

A 53-year-old man presented to the emergency department (ED) after an episode of syncope and sudden hair loss. At presentation he had a fever (temperature, 103 °F [39.4 °C]), a heart rate of 120 bpm, and pancytopenia (white blood cell count, 0.4×10³/μL [reference range, 4.0–10.0×10³/μL]; hemoglobin, 7.0 g/dL [reference range, 11.2–15.7 g/dL]; platelet count, 100×10³/μL [reference range, 150–400×10³/μL]). A toxicology screen was positive for cocaine, opiates, and benzodiazepines. The blood alcohol concentration was 126 mg/dL.

The patient reported severe gastrointestinal (GI) distress and diarrhea for the last year as well as a 25-lb weight loss. He discussed his belief that his GI symptoms were due to a parasite he had acquired the year prior; however, he reported that an exhaustive outpatient GI workup had been negative. Two weeks before presentation to our ED, the patient presented to another ED with stomach upset and was given a dose of albendazole. Perceiving alleviation of his symptoms, he purchased 2 bottles of veterinary albendazole online and consumed 113,000 mg—approximately 300 times the standard dose of 400 mg.

A dermatologic examination in our ED demonstrated reticulated violaceous patches on the face and severe alopecia with preferential sparing of the occipital scalp (Figure 1). Photographs taken by the patient on his phone from a week prior to presentation showed no facial dyschromia or signs of hair loss. A punch biopsy of the chin demonstrated perivascular and perifollicular dermatitis with eosinophils, most consistent with a drug reaction.

To the Editor:

Albendazole is a commonly prescribed anthelmintic that typically is well tolerated. Its broadest application is in developing countries that have a high rate of endemic nematode infection.^1,2 Albendazole belongs to the benzimidazole class of anthelmintic chemotherapeutic agents that function by inhibiting microtubule dynamics, resulting in cytotoxic antimitotic effects.³ Benzimidazoles (eg, albendazole, mebendazole) have a binding affinity for helminthic β-tubulin that is 25- to 400-times greater than their binding affinity for the mammalian counterpart.⁴ Consequently, benzimidazoles generally are afforded a very broad therapeutic index for helminthic infection.

A 53-year-old man presented to the emergency department (ED) after an episode of syncope and sudden hair loss. At presentation he had a fever (temperature, 103 °F [39.4 °C]), a heart rate of 120 bpm, and pancytopenia (white blood cell count, 0.4×10³/μL [reference range, 4.0–10.0×10³/μL]; hemoglobin, 7.0 g/dL [reference range, 11.2–15.7 g/dL]; platelet count, 100×10³/μL [reference range, 150–400×10³/μL]). A toxicology screen was positive for cocaine, opiates, and benzodiazepines. The blood alcohol concentration was 126 mg/dL.

The patient reported severe gastrointestinal (GI) distress and diarrhea for the last year as well as a 25-lb weight loss. He discussed his belief that his GI symptoms were due to a parasite he had acquired the year prior; however, he reported that an exhaustive outpatient GI workup had been negative. Two weeks before presentation to our ED, the patient presented to another ED with stomach upset and was given a dose of albendazole. Perceiving alleviation of his symptoms, he purchased 2 bottles of veterinary albendazole online and consumed 113,000 mg—approximately 300 times the standard dose of 400 mg.

A dermatologic examination in our ED demonstrated reticulated violaceous patches on the face and severe alopecia with preferential sparing of the occipital scalp (Figure 1). Photographs taken by the patient on his phone from a week prior to presentation showed no facial dyschromia or signs of hair loss. A punch biopsy of the chin demonstrated perivascular and perifollicular dermatitis with eosinophils, most consistent with a drug reaction.

A 5-year cervical screening interval is as safe and effective for women who test negative for human papillomavirus (HPV) as are 3-year intervals, according to a new ‘real life’ study led by King’s College London (KCL) with researchers from the University of Manchester, and the NHS, on behalf of the HPV pilot steering group.

The study, published in The BMJ, used data from the HPV screening pilot to assess rates of detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN3+) and of cervical cancer following a negative HPV test. It confirmed that 5-yearly screening prevents as many cancers as screening at 3-year intervals, even in women who are not vaccinated against HPV.
 

Change to primary HPV testing since 2019 

Before 2019, the NHS cervical screening program conducted cytology testing first, testing for HPV only if abnormalities were found. In 2019, following reporting of early results of the HPV pilot by the same researchers, the program in England switched to testing for HPV first, on the grounds that since having HPV infection comes before having abnormal cells, HPV testing would detect more women at risk of cervical cancer.

Following the switch to primary HPV testing, the same screening intervals were retained, meaning 3-yearly screening for those aged 24-49 years and testing every 5 years for women aged 50-64 years, or 3 years if they tested positive. However, the National Screening Committee had recommended that invites should be changed from 3 to 5 years for those in the under-50 age group found not to have high-risk HPV at their routine screening test.

For the latest study, funded by Cancer Research UK, the steering group researchers analyzed details for more than 1.3 million women who had attended screening for two rounds of the HPV screening pilot, the first from 2013 to 2016, with a follow-up to the end of 2019. By this time, the data set had doubled in size from the pilot study, and results had been linked with the national cancer registry.

They confirmed that HPV testing was more accurate than a cytology test, irrespective of whether the HPV test assay was DNA- or mRNA-based. With HPV testing, the risk of subsequent cytological changes more than halved overall. Eligible women under 50 who had a negative HPV screen in the first round had a much lower risk of detection of CIN3+ in the second round, with a rate of 1.21 in 1,000, compared with 4.52 in 1,000 after a negative cytology test.
 

Data support extension of the testing interval

“The study confirms that women in this age group are much less likely to develop clinically relevant cervical lesions and cervical cancer, 3 years after a negative HPV screen, compared with a negative smear test,” the researchers said.

They suggested that most women do not need to be screened as frequently as the current program allows, and that the data support an extension of the screening intervals, regardless of the test assay used, to 5 years after a negative HPV test in women aged 25-49 years, and even longer for women aged 50 years and older.

However, the screening interval for HPV-positive women who have negative HPV tests at early recall should be kept at 3 years, they said.

“These results are very reassuring,” said lead author Matejka Rebolj, PhD, senior epidemiologist at KCL. “They build on previous research that shows that following the introduction of HPV testing for cervical screening, a 5-year interval is at least as safe as the previous 3-year interval. Changing to 5-yearly screening will mean we can prevent just as many cancers as before, while allowing for fewer screens.”

Michelle Mitchell, Cancer Research UK’s chief executive, said: “This large study shows that offering cervical screening using HPV testing effectively prevents cervical cancer, without having to be screened as often. This builds on findings from years of research showing HPV testing is more accurate at predicting who is at risk of developing cervical cancer compared to the previous way of testing. As changes to the screening [programs] are made, they will be monitored to help ensure that cervical screening is as effective as possible for all who take part.”
 

If HPV is present, testing interval should remain every 3 years

Responding to the study, Theresa Freeman-Wang, MBChB, consultant gynecologist, president of the British Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and spokesperson for the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, told this news organization: “England, Scotland, and Wales and many other countries now use HPV primary screening, which is much better at assessing risk than previous methods. HPV testing is more sensitive and accurate, so changes are picked up earlier.

“Studies have confirmed that if someone is HPV negative (i.e., HPV is not present in the screen test), intervals between tests can very safely be increased from 3 to 5 years. 

“If HPV is present, then the program will automatically look for any abnormal cells. If there are no abnormalities, the woman will be advised to have a repeat screen test in a year. If the HPV remains present over 3 successive years or if abnormal cells are detected at any stage, she will be referred for a more detailed screening examination called a colposcopy.

“It’s important that with any change like this, there is clear information available to explain what these changes mean.

“We have an effective cervical screening program in the UK that has significantly reduced the number of cases and deaths from this preventable cancer. 

“HPV screening every 5 years is safe and to be fully effective it is vital that women take up the invitation for cervical screening when called.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

A 5-year cervical screening interval is as safe and effective for women who test negative for human papillomavirus (HPV) as are 3-year intervals, according to a new ‘real life’ study led by King’s College London (KCL) with researchers from the University of Manchester, and the NHS, on behalf of the HPV pilot steering group.

The study, published in The BMJ, used data from the HPV screening pilot to assess rates of detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN3+) and of cervical cancer following a negative HPV test. It confirmed that 5-yearly screening prevents as many cancers as screening at 3-year intervals, even in women who are not vaccinated against HPV.
 

Change to primary HPV testing since 2019 

Before 2019, the NHS cervical screening program conducted cytology testing first, testing for HPV only if abnormalities were found. In 2019, following reporting of early results of the HPV pilot by the same researchers, the program in England switched to testing for HPV first, on the grounds that since having HPV infection comes before having abnormal cells, HPV testing would detect more women at risk of cervical cancer.

Following the switch to primary HPV testing, the same screening intervals were retained, meaning 3-yearly screening for those aged 24-49 years and testing every 5 years for women aged 50-64 years, or 3 years if they tested positive. However, the National Screening Committee had recommended that invites should be changed from 3 to 5 years for those in the under-50 age group found not to have high-risk HPV at their routine screening test.

For the latest study, funded by Cancer Research UK, the steering group researchers analyzed details for more than 1.3 million women who had attended screening for two rounds of the HPV screening pilot, the first from 2013 to 2016, with a follow-up to the end of 2019. By this time, the data set had doubled in size from the pilot study, and results had been linked with the national cancer registry.

They confirmed that HPV testing was more accurate than a cytology test, irrespective of whether the HPV test assay was DNA- or mRNA-based. With HPV testing, the risk of subsequent cytological changes more than halved overall. Eligible women under 50 who had a negative HPV screen in the first round had a much lower risk of detection of CIN3+ in the second round, with a rate of 1.21 in 1,000, compared with 4.52 in 1,000 after a negative cytology test.
 

Data support extension of the testing interval

“The study confirms that women in this age group are much less likely to develop clinically relevant cervical lesions and cervical cancer, 3 years after a negative HPV screen, compared with a negative smear test,” the researchers said.

They suggested that most women do not need to be screened as frequently as the current program allows, and that the data support an extension of the screening intervals, regardless of the test assay used, to 5 years after a negative HPV test in women aged 25-49 years, and even longer for women aged 50 years and older.

However, the screening interval for HPV-positive women who have negative HPV tests at early recall should be kept at 3 years, they said.

“These results are very reassuring,” said lead author Matejka Rebolj, PhD, senior epidemiologist at KCL. “They build on previous research that shows that following the introduction of HPV testing for cervical screening, a 5-year interval is at least as safe as the previous 3-year interval. Changing to 5-yearly screening will mean we can prevent just as many cancers as before, while allowing for fewer screens.”

Michelle Mitchell, Cancer Research UK’s chief executive, said: “This large study shows that offering cervical screening using HPV testing effectively prevents cervical cancer, without having to be screened as often. This builds on findings from years of research showing HPV testing is more accurate at predicting who is at risk of developing cervical cancer compared to the previous way of testing. As changes to the screening [programs] are made, they will be monitored to help ensure that cervical screening is as effective as possible for all who take part.”
 

If HPV is present, testing interval should remain every 3 years

Responding to the study, Theresa Freeman-Wang, MBChB, consultant gynecologist, president of the British Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and spokesperson for the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, told this news organization: “England, Scotland, and Wales and many other countries now use HPV primary screening, which is much better at assessing risk than previous methods. HPV testing is more sensitive and accurate, so changes are picked up earlier.

“Studies have confirmed that if someone is HPV negative (i.e., HPV is not present in the screen test), intervals between tests can very safely be increased from 3 to 5 years. 

“If HPV is present, then the program will automatically look for any abnormal cells. If there are no abnormalities, the woman will be advised to have a repeat screen test in a year. If the HPV remains present over 3 successive years or if abnormal cells are detected at any stage, she will be referred for a more detailed screening examination called a colposcopy.

“It’s important that with any change like this, there is clear information available to explain what these changes mean.

“We have an effective cervical screening program in the UK that has significantly reduced the number of cases and deaths from this preventable cancer. 

“HPV screening every 5 years is safe and to be fully effective it is vital that women take up the invitation for cervical screening when called.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

A 5-year cervical screening interval is as safe and effective for women who test negative for human papillomavirus (HPV) as are 3-year intervals, according to a new ‘real life’ study led by King’s College London (KCL) with researchers from the University of Manchester, and the NHS, on behalf of the HPV pilot steering group.

The study, published in The BMJ, used data from the HPV screening pilot to assess rates of detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN3+) and of cervical cancer following a negative HPV test. It confirmed that 5-yearly screening prevents as many cancers as screening at 3-year intervals, even in women who are not vaccinated against HPV.
 

Change to primary HPV testing since 2019 

Before 2019, the NHS cervical screening program conducted cytology testing first, testing for HPV only if abnormalities were found. In 2019, following reporting of early results of the HPV pilot by the same researchers, the program in England switched to testing for HPV first, on the grounds that since having HPV infection comes before having abnormal cells, HPV testing would detect more women at risk of cervical cancer.

Following the switch to primary HPV testing, the same screening intervals were retained, meaning 3-yearly screening for those aged 24-49 years and testing every 5 years for women aged 50-64 years, or 3 years if they tested positive. However, the National Screening Committee had recommended that invites should be changed from 3 to 5 years for those in the under-50 age group found not to have high-risk HPV at their routine screening test.

For the latest study, funded by Cancer Research UK, the steering group researchers analyzed details for more than 1.3 million women who had attended screening for two rounds of the HPV screening pilot, the first from 2013 to 2016, with a follow-up to the end of 2019. By this time, the data set had doubled in size from the pilot study, and results had been linked with the national cancer registry.

They confirmed that HPV testing was more accurate than a cytology test, irrespective of whether the HPV test assay was DNA- or mRNA-based. With HPV testing, the risk of subsequent cytological changes more than halved overall. Eligible women under 50 who had a negative HPV screen in the first round had a much lower risk of detection of CIN3+ in the second round, with a rate of 1.21 in 1,000, compared with 4.52 in 1,000 after a negative cytology test.
 

Data support extension of the testing interval

“The study confirms that women in this age group are much less likely to develop clinically relevant cervical lesions and cervical cancer, 3 years after a negative HPV screen, compared with a negative smear test,” the researchers said.

They suggested that most women do not need to be screened as frequently as the current program allows, and that the data support an extension of the screening intervals, regardless of the test assay used, to 5 years after a negative HPV test in women aged 25-49 years, and even longer for women aged 50 years and older.

However, the screening interval for HPV-positive women who have negative HPV tests at early recall should be kept at 3 years, they said.

“These results are very reassuring,” said lead author Matejka Rebolj, PhD, senior epidemiologist at KCL. “They build on previous research that shows that following the introduction of HPV testing for cervical screening, a 5-year interval is at least as safe as the previous 3-year interval. Changing to 5-yearly screening will mean we can prevent just as many cancers as before, while allowing for fewer screens.”

Michelle Mitchell, Cancer Research UK’s chief executive, said: “This large study shows that offering cervical screening using HPV testing effectively prevents cervical cancer, without having to be screened as often. This builds on findings from years of research showing HPV testing is more accurate at predicting who is at risk of developing cervical cancer compared to the previous way of testing. As changes to the screening [programs] are made, they will be monitored to help ensure that cervical screening is as effective as possible for all who take part.”
 

If HPV is present, testing interval should remain every 3 years

Responding to the study, Theresa Freeman-Wang, MBChB, consultant gynecologist, president of the British Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and spokesperson for the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, told this news organization: “England, Scotland, and Wales and many other countries now use HPV primary screening, which is much better at assessing risk than previous methods. HPV testing is more sensitive and accurate, so changes are picked up earlier.

“Studies have confirmed that if someone is HPV negative (i.e., HPV is not present in the screen test), intervals between tests can very safely be increased from 3 to 5 years. 

“If HPV is present, then the program will automatically look for any abnormal cells. If there are no abnormalities, the woman will be advised to have a repeat screen test in a year. If the HPV remains present over 3 successive years or if abnormal cells are detected at any stage, she will be referred for a more detailed screening examination called a colposcopy.

“It’s important that with any change like this, there is clear information available to explain what these changes mean.

“We have an effective cervical screening program in the UK that has significantly reduced the number of cases and deaths from this preventable cancer. 

“HPV screening every 5 years is safe and to be fully effective it is vital that women take up the invitation for cervical screening when called.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

To the Editor:

A 59-year-old man was referred to our clinic for a rash, fever, and night sweats following treatment for metastatic seminoma with cisplatin and etoposide. Physical examination revealed indurated erythematous papules and plaques on the trunk and upper and lower extremities, some with annular or arcuate configuration with trailing scale (Figure, A). A skin biopsy demonstrated mild papillary dermal edema with a mixed infiltrate of mononuclear cells, neutrophils, eosinophils, mast cells, lymphocytes, and karyorrhectic debris without evidence of leukocytoclastic vasculitis. The histopathologic differential diagnosis included a histiocytoid variant of Sweet syndrome (SS), and our patient’s rapid clinical response to corticosteroids supported this diagnosis.

With a relapsing and remitting course over 3 years, the rash eventually evolved into more edematous papules and plaques (Figure, B), and a repeat biopsy 3 years later was consistent with classic SS. Although the patient's condition improved with prednisone, attempts to taper prednisone invariably resulted in relapse. Multiple steroid-sparing agents were trialed over the course of 3 years including dapsone and mycophenolate mofetil, both of which resulted in hypersensitivity drug eruptions. Colchicine and methotrexate were ineffective. Thalidomide strongly was considered but ultimately was avoided due to substantial existing neuropathy associated with his prior chemotherapy for metastatic seminoma.

Four years after the initial diagnosis of SS, our patient presented with dyspnea and weight loss. Computed tomography revealed a nearly confluent miliary pattern of nodularity in the lungs. A wedge biopsy demonstrated pneumonitis with intra-alveolar fibrin and neutrophils with a notable absence of granulomatous inflammation. Fungal and acid-fast bacilli staining as well as tissue cultures were negative. He had a history of Mycobacterium kansasii pulmonary infection treated 18 months prior; however, in this instance, the histopathology, negative microbial cultures, and rapid steroid responsiveness were consistent with pulmonary involvement of SS. Over the ensuing 2 years, the patient developed worsening of his chronic anemia. He was diagnosed with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) by bone marrow biopsy, despite having a normal bone marrow biopsy more than 3 years prior to evaluate his anemia. At this time, thalidomide was initiated at 50 mg daily leading to notable improvement in his SS symptoms; however, he developed worsening neuropathy resulting in the discontinuation of this treatment 2 months later. An investigational combination of vosaroxin and azacytidine was used to treat his MDS, resulting in normalization of blood counts and remission from SS.

Sweet syndrome may occur in the setting of undiagnosed cancer or may signal the return of a previously treated malignancy. The first description of SS associated with solid tumors was in a patient with testicular cancer,¹ which prompted continuous surveillance for recurrent seminoma in our patient, though none was found. Hematologic malignancies, as well as MDS, often are associated with SS.² In our patient, multiple atypical features linked the development of SS to the ultimate presentation of MDS. The initial finding of a histiocytoid variant has been described in a case series of 9 patients with chronic relapsing SS who eventually developed MDS with latency of up to 7 years. The histopathology in these cases evolved over time to that of classic neutrophilic SS.³ Pulmonary involvement of SS is another interesting aspect of our case. In one analysis, 18 of 34 (53%) cases with pulmonary involvement featured hematologic pathology, including myelodysplasia and acute leukemia.⁴

In our patient, SS preceded the clinical manifestation of MDS by 6 years. A similar phenomenon has been described in a patient with SS that preceded myelodysplasia by 30 months and was recalcitrant to numerous steroid-sparing therapies except thalidomide, despite the persistence of myelodysplasia. Tapering thalidomide, however, resulted in recurrence of SS lesions in that patient.⁵ In another case, resolution of myelodysplasia from azacytidine treatment was associated with remission from SS.⁶

Our case represents a confluence of atypical features that seem to define myelodysplasia-associated SS, including the initial presentation with a clinically atypical histiocytoid variant, chronic relapsing and remitting course, and extracutaneous involvement of the lungs. These findings should prompt surveillance for hematologic malignancy or myelodysplasia. Serial bone marrow biopsies were required to evaluate persistent anemia before the histopathologic findings of MDS became apparent in our patient. Thalidomide was an effective treatment for the cutaneous manifestations in our patient and should be considered as a steroid-sparing agent in the treatment of recalcitrant SS. Despite the discontinuation of thalidomide therapy, effective control of our patient’s myelodysplasia with chemotherapy has kept him in remission from SS for more than 7 years of follow-up, suggesting a causal relationship between these disorders.

To the Editor:

A 59-year-old man was referred to our clinic for a rash, fever, and night sweats following treatment for metastatic seminoma with cisplatin and etoposide. Physical examination revealed indurated erythematous papules and plaques on the trunk and upper and lower extremities, some with annular or arcuate configuration with trailing scale (Figure, A). A skin biopsy demonstrated mild papillary dermal edema with a mixed infiltrate of mononuclear cells, neutrophils, eosinophils, mast cells, lymphocytes, and karyorrhectic debris without evidence of leukocytoclastic vasculitis. The histopathologic differential diagnosis included a histiocytoid variant of Sweet syndrome (SS), and our patient’s rapid clinical response to corticosteroids supported this diagnosis.

With a relapsing and remitting course over 3 years, the rash eventually evolved into more edematous papules and plaques (Figure, B), and a repeat biopsy 3 years later was consistent with classic SS. Although the patient's condition improved with prednisone, attempts to taper prednisone invariably resulted in relapse. Multiple steroid-sparing agents were trialed over the course of 3 years including dapsone and mycophenolate mofetil, both of which resulted in hypersensitivity drug eruptions. Colchicine and methotrexate were ineffective. Thalidomide strongly was considered but ultimately was avoided due to substantial existing neuropathy associated with his prior chemotherapy for metastatic seminoma.

Four years after the initial diagnosis of SS, our patient presented with dyspnea and weight loss. Computed tomography revealed a nearly confluent miliary pattern of nodularity in the lungs. A wedge biopsy demonstrated pneumonitis with intra-alveolar fibrin and neutrophils with a notable absence of granulomatous inflammation. Fungal and acid-fast bacilli staining as well as tissue cultures were negative. He had a history of Mycobacterium kansasii pulmonary infection treated 18 months prior; however, in this instance, the histopathology, negative microbial cultures, and rapid steroid responsiveness were consistent with pulmonary involvement of SS. Over the ensuing 2 years, the patient developed worsening of his chronic anemia. He was diagnosed with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) by bone marrow biopsy, despite having a normal bone marrow biopsy more than 3 years prior to evaluate his anemia. At this time, thalidomide was initiated at 50 mg daily leading to notable improvement in his SS symptoms; however, he developed worsening neuropathy resulting in the discontinuation of this treatment 2 months later. An investigational combination of vosaroxin and azacytidine was used to treat his MDS, resulting in normalization of blood counts and remission from SS.

Sweet syndrome may occur in the setting of undiagnosed cancer or may signal the return of a previously treated malignancy. The first description of SS associated with solid tumors was in a patient with testicular cancer,¹ which prompted continuous surveillance for recurrent seminoma in our patient, though none was found. Hematologic malignancies, as well as MDS, often are associated with SS.² In our patient, multiple atypical features linked the development of SS to the ultimate presentation of MDS. The initial finding of a histiocytoid variant has been described in a case series of 9 patients with chronic relapsing SS who eventually developed MDS with latency of up to 7 years. The histopathology in these cases evolved over time to that of classic neutrophilic SS.³ Pulmonary involvement of SS is another interesting aspect of our case. In one analysis, 18 of 34 (53%) cases with pulmonary involvement featured hematologic pathology, including myelodysplasia and acute leukemia.⁴

In our patient, SS preceded the clinical manifestation of MDS by 6 years. A similar phenomenon has been described in a patient with SS that preceded myelodysplasia by 30 months and was recalcitrant to numerous steroid-sparing therapies except thalidomide, despite the persistence of myelodysplasia. Tapering thalidomide, however, resulted in recurrence of SS lesions in that patient.⁵ In another case, resolution of myelodysplasia from azacytidine treatment was associated with remission from SS.⁶

Our case represents a confluence of atypical features that seem to define myelodysplasia-associated SS, including the initial presentation with a clinically atypical histiocytoid variant, chronic relapsing and remitting course, and extracutaneous involvement of the lungs. These findings should prompt surveillance for hematologic malignancy or myelodysplasia. Serial bone marrow biopsies were required to evaluate persistent anemia before the histopathologic findings of MDS became apparent in our patient. Thalidomide was an effective treatment for the cutaneous manifestations in our patient and should be considered as a steroid-sparing agent in the treatment of recalcitrant SS. Despite the discontinuation of thalidomide therapy, effective control of our patient’s myelodysplasia with chemotherapy has kept him in remission from SS for more than 7 years of follow-up, suggesting a causal relationship between these disorders.

To the Editor:

A 59-year-old man was referred to our clinic for a rash, fever, and night sweats following treatment for metastatic seminoma with cisplatin and etoposide. Physical examination revealed indurated erythematous papules and plaques on the trunk and upper and lower extremities, some with annular or arcuate configuration with trailing scale (Figure, A). A skin biopsy demonstrated mild papillary dermal edema with a mixed infiltrate of mononuclear cells, neutrophils, eosinophils, mast cells, lymphocytes, and karyorrhectic debris without evidence of leukocytoclastic vasculitis. The histopathologic differential diagnosis included a histiocytoid variant of Sweet syndrome (SS), and our patient’s rapid clinical response to corticosteroids supported this diagnosis.

With a relapsing and remitting course over 3 years, the rash eventually evolved into more edematous papules and plaques (Figure, B), and a repeat biopsy 3 years later was consistent with classic SS. Although the patient's condition improved with prednisone, attempts to taper prednisone invariably resulted in relapse. Multiple steroid-sparing agents were trialed over the course of 3 years including dapsone and mycophenolate mofetil, both of which resulted in hypersensitivity drug eruptions. Colchicine and methotrexate were ineffective. Thalidomide strongly was considered but ultimately was avoided due to substantial existing neuropathy associated with his prior chemotherapy for metastatic seminoma.

Four years after the initial diagnosis of SS, our patient presented with dyspnea and weight loss. Computed tomography revealed a nearly confluent miliary pattern of nodularity in the lungs. A wedge biopsy demonstrated pneumonitis with intra-alveolar fibrin and neutrophils with a notable absence of granulomatous inflammation. Fungal and acid-fast bacilli staining as well as tissue cultures were negative. He had a history of Mycobacterium kansasii pulmonary infection treated 18 months prior; however, in this instance, the histopathology, negative microbial cultures, and rapid steroid responsiveness were consistent with pulmonary involvement of SS. Over the ensuing 2 years, the patient developed worsening of his chronic anemia. He was diagnosed with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) by bone marrow biopsy, despite having a normal bone marrow biopsy more than 3 years prior to evaluate his anemia. At this time, thalidomide was initiated at 50 mg daily leading to notable improvement in his SS symptoms; however, he developed worsening neuropathy resulting in the discontinuation of this treatment 2 months later. An investigational combination of vosaroxin and azacytidine was used to treat his MDS, resulting in normalization of blood counts and remission from SS.

Sweet syndrome may occur in the setting of undiagnosed cancer or may signal the return of a previously treated malignancy. The first description of SS associated with solid tumors was in a patient with testicular cancer,¹ which prompted continuous surveillance for recurrent seminoma in our patient, though none was found. Hematologic malignancies, as well as MDS, often are associated with SS.² In our patient, multiple atypical features linked the development of SS to the ultimate presentation of MDS. The initial finding of a histiocytoid variant has been described in a case series of 9 patients with chronic relapsing SS who eventually developed MDS with latency of up to 7 years. The histopathology in these cases evolved over time to that of classic neutrophilic SS.³ Pulmonary involvement of SS is another interesting aspect of our case. In one analysis, 18 of 34 (53%) cases with pulmonary involvement featured hematologic pathology, including myelodysplasia and acute leukemia.⁴

In our patient, SS preceded the clinical manifestation of MDS by 6 years. A similar phenomenon has been described in a patient with SS that preceded myelodysplasia by 30 months and was recalcitrant to numerous steroid-sparing therapies except thalidomide, despite the persistence of myelodysplasia. Tapering thalidomide, however, resulted in recurrence of SS lesions in that patient.⁵ In another case, resolution of myelodysplasia from azacytidine treatment was associated with remission from SS.⁶

Our case represents a confluence of atypical features that seem to define myelodysplasia-associated SS, including the initial presentation with a clinically atypical histiocytoid variant, chronic relapsing and remitting course, and extracutaneous involvement of the lungs. These findings should prompt surveillance for hematologic malignancy or myelodysplasia. Serial bone marrow biopsies were required to evaluate persistent anemia before the histopathologic findings of MDS became apparent in our patient. Thalidomide was an effective treatment for the cutaneous manifestations in our patient and should be considered as a steroid-sparing agent in the treatment of recalcitrant SS. Despite the discontinuation of thalidomide therapy, effective control of our patient’s myelodysplasia with chemotherapy has kept him in remission from SS for more than 7 years of follow-up, suggesting a causal relationship between these disorders.