User login
For MD-IQ use only
West Nile virus cases rising nationwide amid mosquito season
In the past 2 weeks, new cases have been reported in Iowa and Nebraska, adding to previous 2023 reports from Arizona, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming. A mosquito at a monitoring site near Houston tested positive last week for the potentially fatal virus, prompting local health officials to begin evening spray operations in the area where the mosquito was found, according to an announcement from Harris County Public Health.
According to the CDC, which compiles local reports, there have been 13 human cases of West Nile virus in 2023. In 2022, there were 1,126 cases, including 90 deaths.
Among this year’s 13 cases reported to the CDC so far, eight people add severe neuroinvasive disease, which means the disease spread to the nervous system. Such severe symptoms typically occur in 1 in every 150 cases of West Nile virus and can include encephalitis, which is inflammation of the brain, or meningitis, which is inflammation of the membranes that surround the brain and spinal cord. Three of the neuroinvasive cases occurred earlier this year amid an outbreak in Maricopa County, Arizona, where the disease is considered endemic, according to an April 28 report from the CDC.
The CDC says West Nile virus is the most common disease spread by mosquitoes in the continental United States. Local health officials sample mosquitoes to guide mosquito control strategies. So far this year, the CDC has received 28 reports of mosquitoes testing positive. Those mosquito testing reports came from Arizona, California, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, and Texas.
West Nile virus is transmitted to people by the bite of an infected mosquito, but it can also be spread to humans if they handle a dead bird that is infected. The CDC says there are no medications to treat the virus in people. Most people who are infected do not feel sick, and 1 in 5 people infected develop a fever and other symptoms like headache, body ache, or a rash.
Prevention strategies are to wear insect repellent and to wear long-sleeved shirts and long pants to avoid mosquito bites.
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
In the past 2 weeks, new cases have been reported in Iowa and Nebraska, adding to previous 2023 reports from Arizona, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming. A mosquito at a monitoring site near Houston tested positive last week for the potentially fatal virus, prompting local health officials to begin evening spray operations in the area where the mosquito was found, according to an announcement from Harris County Public Health.
According to the CDC, which compiles local reports, there have been 13 human cases of West Nile virus in 2023. In 2022, there were 1,126 cases, including 90 deaths.
Among this year’s 13 cases reported to the CDC so far, eight people add severe neuroinvasive disease, which means the disease spread to the nervous system. Such severe symptoms typically occur in 1 in every 150 cases of West Nile virus and can include encephalitis, which is inflammation of the brain, or meningitis, which is inflammation of the membranes that surround the brain and spinal cord. Three of the neuroinvasive cases occurred earlier this year amid an outbreak in Maricopa County, Arizona, where the disease is considered endemic, according to an April 28 report from the CDC.
The CDC says West Nile virus is the most common disease spread by mosquitoes in the continental United States. Local health officials sample mosquitoes to guide mosquito control strategies. So far this year, the CDC has received 28 reports of mosquitoes testing positive. Those mosquito testing reports came from Arizona, California, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, and Texas.
West Nile virus is transmitted to people by the bite of an infected mosquito, but it can also be spread to humans if they handle a dead bird that is infected. The CDC says there are no medications to treat the virus in people. Most people who are infected do not feel sick, and 1 in 5 people infected develop a fever and other symptoms like headache, body ache, or a rash.
Prevention strategies are to wear insect repellent and to wear long-sleeved shirts and long pants to avoid mosquito bites.
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
In the past 2 weeks, new cases have been reported in Iowa and Nebraska, adding to previous 2023 reports from Arizona, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming. A mosquito at a monitoring site near Houston tested positive last week for the potentially fatal virus, prompting local health officials to begin evening spray operations in the area where the mosquito was found, according to an announcement from Harris County Public Health.
According to the CDC, which compiles local reports, there have been 13 human cases of West Nile virus in 2023. In 2022, there were 1,126 cases, including 90 deaths.
Among this year’s 13 cases reported to the CDC so far, eight people add severe neuroinvasive disease, which means the disease spread to the nervous system. Such severe symptoms typically occur in 1 in every 150 cases of West Nile virus and can include encephalitis, which is inflammation of the brain, or meningitis, which is inflammation of the membranes that surround the brain and spinal cord. Three of the neuroinvasive cases occurred earlier this year amid an outbreak in Maricopa County, Arizona, where the disease is considered endemic, according to an April 28 report from the CDC.
The CDC says West Nile virus is the most common disease spread by mosquitoes in the continental United States. Local health officials sample mosquitoes to guide mosquito control strategies. So far this year, the CDC has received 28 reports of mosquitoes testing positive. Those mosquito testing reports came from Arizona, California, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, and Texas.
West Nile virus is transmitted to people by the bite of an infected mosquito, but it can also be spread to humans if they handle a dead bird that is infected. The CDC says there are no medications to treat the virus in people. Most people who are infected do not feel sick, and 1 in 5 people infected develop a fever and other symptoms like headache, body ache, or a rash.
Prevention strategies are to wear insect repellent and to wear long-sleeved shirts and long pants to avoid mosquito bites.
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
Prognostic factors of SCCs in organ transplant recipients worse compared with general population
, results from a dual cohort study demonstrated.
The findings build on previous research and underscore the need for early diagnosis and aggressive surveillance in this patient population, corresponding author Adele C. Green, MBBS, PhD, professor and senior scientist at the QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, and colleagues wrote in the study, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology. “Squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) of the skin develop up to 77 times more frequently in immunosuppressed organ transplant recipients (OTRs) than the general population,” they wrote. “Because SCCs cause substantially more morbidity and death in the former, they are postulated to be innately more aggressive than in immunocompetent patients, but OTRs’ higher SCC mortality may simply reflect greater SCC tumor burdens per patient.”
In what is believed to be the first study of its kind, Dr. Green and colleagues drew data from two cohort studies to evaluate five key clinicopathologic indicators of poor SCC outcomes in organ transplant recipients, and in those from the general population in Queensland, Australia: cephalic location, perineural invasion, invasion to/beyond subcutaneous fat, poor differentiation, and tumor size greater than 20 mm. The study population included organ transplant recipients at high risk of skin cancer, who were enrolled in the Skin Tumours in Allograft Recipients (STAR) study, and those from a population-based cohort, the QSkin Sun and Health Study. STAR consisted of lung transplant recipients and kidney and liver transplant recipients at high risk of skin cancer who were recruited from tertiary centers and diagnosed with histopathologically confirmed SCC from 2012 to 2015. QSkin consisted of individuals from Queensland’s general adult population diagnosed with SCCs from 2012 to 2015.
SCC cases in QSkin were ascertained through Australia’s universal health insurance agency and linked with histopathology records. Next, the researchers performed data analysis from both cohort studies to determine the prevalence ratio (PR) of head/neck location, perineural invasion, tumor invasion to/beyond subcutaneous fat, poor cellular differentiation, and tumor diameter greater than 20 mm among SCCs among organ transplant recipients compared with the general population.
After combining the two studies, the researchers compared 741 SCCs excised from 191 organ transplant recipients and 2,558 SCCs excised from 1,507 individuals in the general population. Their median ages were similar (62.7 and 63.7 years, respectively) and most were male (78% and 63.4%, respectively).
As for site of involvement, SCCs developed most often on the head and neck in the transplant recipients (38.6%) and on the arms and hands in the general population (35.2%). After adjustment for age and sex, perineural invasion of SCCs was more than twice as common in transplant recipients than among cases in the general population, as was invasion to/beyond subcutaneous fat (PR of 2.37 for both associations).
In other findings, compared with SCCs in the general population, poorly vs. well-differentiated SCCs were more than threefold more common in transplant recipients (PR, 3.45), while the prevalence of tumors greater than 20 mm vs. 20 mm or smaller was moderately higher in transplant recipients (PR, 1.52).
“These findings are considered generalizable, confirming that OTRs’ poorer SCC outcomes are associated with not only their sheer numbers of SCC tumors, but also with a strong shift toward more invasive, less differentiated, and larger SCC tumors, in agreement with previous findings,” the researchers wrote. “This shift is likely associated with decreased immunosurveillance resulting from immunosuppressive therapy (since carcinogenesis decelerates with therapy cessation) interacting with effects of high UV radiation exposure.”
They acknowledged certain limitations of their analysis, chiefly the lack of central review of SCCs to ensure standard assessment of histopathologic features “including caliber of nerves with perineural invasion and cell differentiation; such a review would not have been feasible logistically.”
The study was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. The researchers reported having no disclosures related to the submitted work.
, results from a dual cohort study demonstrated.
The findings build on previous research and underscore the need for early diagnosis and aggressive surveillance in this patient population, corresponding author Adele C. Green, MBBS, PhD, professor and senior scientist at the QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, and colleagues wrote in the study, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology. “Squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) of the skin develop up to 77 times more frequently in immunosuppressed organ transplant recipients (OTRs) than the general population,” they wrote. “Because SCCs cause substantially more morbidity and death in the former, they are postulated to be innately more aggressive than in immunocompetent patients, but OTRs’ higher SCC mortality may simply reflect greater SCC tumor burdens per patient.”
In what is believed to be the first study of its kind, Dr. Green and colleagues drew data from two cohort studies to evaluate five key clinicopathologic indicators of poor SCC outcomes in organ transplant recipients, and in those from the general population in Queensland, Australia: cephalic location, perineural invasion, invasion to/beyond subcutaneous fat, poor differentiation, and tumor size greater than 20 mm. The study population included organ transplant recipients at high risk of skin cancer, who were enrolled in the Skin Tumours in Allograft Recipients (STAR) study, and those from a population-based cohort, the QSkin Sun and Health Study. STAR consisted of lung transplant recipients and kidney and liver transplant recipients at high risk of skin cancer who were recruited from tertiary centers and diagnosed with histopathologically confirmed SCC from 2012 to 2015. QSkin consisted of individuals from Queensland’s general adult population diagnosed with SCCs from 2012 to 2015.
SCC cases in QSkin were ascertained through Australia’s universal health insurance agency and linked with histopathology records. Next, the researchers performed data analysis from both cohort studies to determine the prevalence ratio (PR) of head/neck location, perineural invasion, tumor invasion to/beyond subcutaneous fat, poor cellular differentiation, and tumor diameter greater than 20 mm among SCCs among organ transplant recipients compared with the general population.
After combining the two studies, the researchers compared 741 SCCs excised from 191 organ transplant recipients and 2,558 SCCs excised from 1,507 individuals in the general population. Their median ages were similar (62.7 and 63.7 years, respectively) and most were male (78% and 63.4%, respectively).
As for site of involvement, SCCs developed most often on the head and neck in the transplant recipients (38.6%) and on the arms and hands in the general population (35.2%). After adjustment for age and sex, perineural invasion of SCCs was more than twice as common in transplant recipients than among cases in the general population, as was invasion to/beyond subcutaneous fat (PR of 2.37 for both associations).
In other findings, compared with SCCs in the general population, poorly vs. well-differentiated SCCs were more than threefold more common in transplant recipients (PR, 3.45), while the prevalence of tumors greater than 20 mm vs. 20 mm or smaller was moderately higher in transplant recipients (PR, 1.52).
“These findings are considered generalizable, confirming that OTRs’ poorer SCC outcomes are associated with not only their sheer numbers of SCC tumors, but also with a strong shift toward more invasive, less differentiated, and larger SCC tumors, in agreement with previous findings,” the researchers wrote. “This shift is likely associated with decreased immunosurveillance resulting from immunosuppressive therapy (since carcinogenesis decelerates with therapy cessation) interacting with effects of high UV radiation exposure.”
They acknowledged certain limitations of their analysis, chiefly the lack of central review of SCCs to ensure standard assessment of histopathologic features “including caliber of nerves with perineural invasion and cell differentiation; such a review would not have been feasible logistically.”
The study was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. The researchers reported having no disclosures related to the submitted work.
, results from a dual cohort study demonstrated.
The findings build on previous research and underscore the need for early diagnosis and aggressive surveillance in this patient population, corresponding author Adele C. Green, MBBS, PhD, professor and senior scientist at the QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, and colleagues wrote in the study, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology. “Squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) of the skin develop up to 77 times more frequently in immunosuppressed organ transplant recipients (OTRs) than the general population,” they wrote. “Because SCCs cause substantially more morbidity and death in the former, they are postulated to be innately more aggressive than in immunocompetent patients, but OTRs’ higher SCC mortality may simply reflect greater SCC tumor burdens per patient.”
In what is believed to be the first study of its kind, Dr. Green and colleagues drew data from two cohort studies to evaluate five key clinicopathologic indicators of poor SCC outcomes in organ transplant recipients, and in those from the general population in Queensland, Australia: cephalic location, perineural invasion, invasion to/beyond subcutaneous fat, poor differentiation, and tumor size greater than 20 mm. The study population included organ transplant recipients at high risk of skin cancer, who were enrolled in the Skin Tumours in Allograft Recipients (STAR) study, and those from a population-based cohort, the QSkin Sun and Health Study. STAR consisted of lung transplant recipients and kidney and liver transplant recipients at high risk of skin cancer who were recruited from tertiary centers and diagnosed with histopathologically confirmed SCC from 2012 to 2015. QSkin consisted of individuals from Queensland’s general adult population diagnosed with SCCs from 2012 to 2015.
SCC cases in QSkin were ascertained through Australia’s universal health insurance agency and linked with histopathology records. Next, the researchers performed data analysis from both cohort studies to determine the prevalence ratio (PR) of head/neck location, perineural invasion, tumor invasion to/beyond subcutaneous fat, poor cellular differentiation, and tumor diameter greater than 20 mm among SCCs among organ transplant recipients compared with the general population.
After combining the two studies, the researchers compared 741 SCCs excised from 191 organ transplant recipients and 2,558 SCCs excised from 1,507 individuals in the general population. Their median ages were similar (62.7 and 63.7 years, respectively) and most were male (78% and 63.4%, respectively).
As for site of involvement, SCCs developed most often on the head and neck in the transplant recipients (38.6%) and on the arms and hands in the general population (35.2%). After adjustment for age and sex, perineural invasion of SCCs was more than twice as common in transplant recipients than among cases in the general population, as was invasion to/beyond subcutaneous fat (PR of 2.37 for both associations).
In other findings, compared with SCCs in the general population, poorly vs. well-differentiated SCCs were more than threefold more common in transplant recipients (PR, 3.45), while the prevalence of tumors greater than 20 mm vs. 20 mm or smaller was moderately higher in transplant recipients (PR, 1.52).
“These findings are considered generalizable, confirming that OTRs’ poorer SCC outcomes are associated with not only their sheer numbers of SCC tumors, but also with a strong shift toward more invasive, less differentiated, and larger SCC tumors, in agreement with previous findings,” the researchers wrote. “This shift is likely associated with decreased immunosurveillance resulting from immunosuppressive therapy (since carcinogenesis decelerates with therapy cessation) interacting with effects of high UV radiation exposure.”
They acknowledged certain limitations of their analysis, chiefly the lack of central review of SCCs to ensure standard assessment of histopathologic features “including caliber of nerves with perineural invasion and cell differentiation; such a review would not have been feasible logistically.”
The study was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. The researchers reported having no disclosures related to the submitted work.
FROM JAMA DERMATOLOGY
CMML: GM-CSF inhibitor lenzilumab shows early promise
There is currently no international standard of care for patients with CMML, but given its overlap with other myelodysplastic and myeloproliferative syndromes, CMML is usually treated with the hypomethylating agent azacitidine (Vidaza, Onureg), which is associated with objective response rates of 40%-50% and a complete response rate of less than 20%. Alternatively, some patients are treated with the antimetabolite hydroxurea in the palliative setting.
CMML is “insidious, it’s rare, but we think the incidence is increasing because more patients are now getting sequencing done by their doctors, and therapy [related] cases, patients that have survived chemo in the last 10 years, can also develop this disease,” said Daniel Thomas, MD, PhD, from the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, in an interview.
Dr. Thomas is a co-investigator of the ongoing phase 2/3 PREACH-M trial, which is testing a novel strategy of treating CMML with mutations in the RAS pathway with a combination of azacitidine and the investigational antibody lenzilumab, which is a targeted inhibitor of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF).
Preliminary results from the trial, reported at the European Hematology Association (EHA) annual meeting, showed that among 10 patients with CMML bearing mutations in the RAS pathway, the combination was associated with durable decreases in monocyte counts, increases in platelet counts and hemoglobin levels, and reductions in both spleen size and C-reactive protein level.
Targeting GM-CSF
More than 90% of cases of CMML carry somatic mutations that are thought to be leukemogenic, with an estimated 46%-60% of cases having mutations in TET2, a tumor suppressor, and an estimated 40% having mutations in KRAS, NRAS, or CBL, all of which are involved in cellular proliferation, and which, research suggests, are sensitive to GM-CSF inhibition.
“I was very surprised that the RAS-mutant arm – so, patients that have KRAS, NRAS, or CBL mutations – are just responding beautifully to [lenzilumab], ” Dr. Thomas said.
“It’s [in the] early days, but if what we’re seeing is durable across the next 10 patients, then I think we’re looking at a game changer,” he added.
Cameron Durrant, MD, DRCOG, MRCGP, chairman and CEO of lenzilumab’s maker Humanigen, said in an interview that the development of the antibody for CMML was spurred in part by research from investigators at the Mayo Clinic, showing that patients with mutations that increased sensitivity to GM-CSF seemed to have better clinical outcomes when the growth factor was blocked.
In addition, Dr. Durrant said, preclinical research from investigators at the Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, found that myeloid and monocytic progenitors “fed” on GM-CSF and were sensitive to GM-CSF signal inhibition.
“The biological idea that’s being explored here in the clinic in this study is that by blocking, or starving, if you will, those cells of that food, then you can prevent this overgrowth of certain blood cells that lead to chronic myelomonocytic leukemia,” he said.
PREACH-M details
Lenzilumab is an engineered human immunoglobulin G1-kappa monoclonal antibody with high affinity for human GM-CSF.
In the open label, nonrandomized PREACH-M trial, 72 patients with CMML were enrolled and were assigned to receive 24 monthly cycles of therapy depending on mutational status.
Patients with RAS pathway mutations were assigned to receive azacitidine delivered subcutaneously 75 mg/m2 for 7 days, plus intravenous lenzilumab 552 mg on days 1 and 15 of cycle 1 and on day 1 only of all subsequent cycles.
Patients with TET2 mutations only were assigned to receive azacitidine on the same schedule, plus IV sodium ascorbate 30 g for 7 days, with the first dose 15 g, and subsequent doses 30 g if there is no evidence of tumor lysis syndrome. Following IV administration, patients continue on oral sodium ascorbate 1.1 g on all other days.
The primary endpoint of complete and partial responses any time during the first 12 cycles is planned for reporting at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology in December, Dr. Thomas said.
At EHA 2023, the investigators reported available data on 10 patients enrolled in the lenzilumab arm and one enrolled in the azacitidine-sodium ascorbate arm.
Among patients in the lenzilumab arm there was a 5.1-fold decrease in monocyte counts (P = .03) and 2.4-fold decrease in blast counts (P = .04) at 12 months of follow-up.
In addition there was a trend toward increased platelet counts over baseline at 12 months, a significant increase in blood hemoglobin concentration (P = .024), a significant reduction in spleen size (P = .03) and a trend toward lower levels of the inflammatory marker C-reactive protein.
There were 21 grade 3 or 4 adverse events reported, of which 5 were deemed to be possibly related to lenzilumab.
Dr. Thomas told this news organization that the investigators have been “pleasantly surprised” at how well patients tolerated the monoclonal antibody.
“We haven’t had any infusion reactions, we haven’t had any pulmonary alveolar proteinosis, [and] we haven’t had any fevers from the infusion, from the antibody,” he said.
There were some instances of neutropenia and thrombocytopenia that the investigators think may have been related to azacitidine, he noted.
The study is sponsored by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Dr. Thomas reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Durrant is an employee and director of Humanigen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
There is currently no international standard of care for patients with CMML, but given its overlap with other myelodysplastic and myeloproliferative syndromes, CMML is usually treated with the hypomethylating agent azacitidine (Vidaza, Onureg), which is associated with objective response rates of 40%-50% and a complete response rate of less than 20%. Alternatively, some patients are treated with the antimetabolite hydroxurea in the palliative setting.
CMML is “insidious, it’s rare, but we think the incidence is increasing because more patients are now getting sequencing done by their doctors, and therapy [related] cases, patients that have survived chemo in the last 10 years, can also develop this disease,” said Daniel Thomas, MD, PhD, from the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, in an interview.
Dr. Thomas is a co-investigator of the ongoing phase 2/3 PREACH-M trial, which is testing a novel strategy of treating CMML with mutations in the RAS pathway with a combination of azacitidine and the investigational antibody lenzilumab, which is a targeted inhibitor of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF).
Preliminary results from the trial, reported at the European Hematology Association (EHA) annual meeting, showed that among 10 patients with CMML bearing mutations in the RAS pathway, the combination was associated with durable decreases in monocyte counts, increases in platelet counts and hemoglobin levels, and reductions in both spleen size and C-reactive protein level.
Targeting GM-CSF
More than 90% of cases of CMML carry somatic mutations that are thought to be leukemogenic, with an estimated 46%-60% of cases having mutations in TET2, a tumor suppressor, and an estimated 40% having mutations in KRAS, NRAS, or CBL, all of which are involved in cellular proliferation, and which, research suggests, are sensitive to GM-CSF inhibition.
“I was very surprised that the RAS-mutant arm – so, patients that have KRAS, NRAS, or CBL mutations – are just responding beautifully to [lenzilumab], ” Dr. Thomas said.
“It’s [in the] early days, but if what we’re seeing is durable across the next 10 patients, then I think we’re looking at a game changer,” he added.
Cameron Durrant, MD, DRCOG, MRCGP, chairman and CEO of lenzilumab’s maker Humanigen, said in an interview that the development of the antibody for CMML was spurred in part by research from investigators at the Mayo Clinic, showing that patients with mutations that increased sensitivity to GM-CSF seemed to have better clinical outcomes when the growth factor was blocked.
In addition, Dr. Durrant said, preclinical research from investigators at the Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, found that myeloid and monocytic progenitors “fed” on GM-CSF and were sensitive to GM-CSF signal inhibition.
“The biological idea that’s being explored here in the clinic in this study is that by blocking, or starving, if you will, those cells of that food, then you can prevent this overgrowth of certain blood cells that lead to chronic myelomonocytic leukemia,” he said.
PREACH-M details
Lenzilumab is an engineered human immunoglobulin G1-kappa monoclonal antibody with high affinity for human GM-CSF.
In the open label, nonrandomized PREACH-M trial, 72 patients with CMML were enrolled and were assigned to receive 24 monthly cycles of therapy depending on mutational status.
Patients with RAS pathway mutations were assigned to receive azacitidine delivered subcutaneously 75 mg/m2 for 7 days, plus intravenous lenzilumab 552 mg on days 1 and 15 of cycle 1 and on day 1 only of all subsequent cycles.
Patients with TET2 mutations only were assigned to receive azacitidine on the same schedule, plus IV sodium ascorbate 30 g for 7 days, with the first dose 15 g, and subsequent doses 30 g if there is no evidence of tumor lysis syndrome. Following IV administration, patients continue on oral sodium ascorbate 1.1 g on all other days.
The primary endpoint of complete and partial responses any time during the first 12 cycles is planned for reporting at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology in December, Dr. Thomas said.
At EHA 2023, the investigators reported available data on 10 patients enrolled in the lenzilumab arm and one enrolled in the azacitidine-sodium ascorbate arm.
Among patients in the lenzilumab arm there was a 5.1-fold decrease in monocyte counts (P = .03) and 2.4-fold decrease in blast counts (P = .04) at 12 months of follow-up.
In addition there was a trend toward increased platelet counts over baseline at 12 months, a significant increase in blood hemoglobin concentration (P = .024), a significant reduction in spleen size (P = .03) and a trend toward lower levels of the inflammatory marker C-reactive protein.
There were 21 grade 3 or 4 adverse events reported, of which 5 were deemed to be possibly related to lenzilumab.
Dr. Thomas told this news organization that the investigators have been “pleasantly surprised” at how well patients tolerated the monoclonal antibody.
“We haven’t had any infusion reactions, we haven’t had any pulmonary alveolar proteinosis, [and] we haven’t had any fevers from the infusion, from the antibody,” he said.
There were some instances of neutropenia and thrombocytopenia that the investigators think may have been related to azacitidine, he noted.
The study is sponsored by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Dr. Thomas reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Durrant is an employee and director of Humanigen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
There is currently no international standard of care for patients with CMML, but given its overlap with other myelodysplastic and myeloproliferative syndromes, CMML is usually treated with the hypomethylating agent azacitidine (Vidaza, Onureg), which is associated with objective response rates of 40%-50% and a complete response rate of less than 20%. Alternatively, some patients are treated with the antimetabolite hydroxurea in the palliative setting.
CMML is “insidious, it’s rare, but we think the incidence is increasing because more patients are now getting sequencing done by their doctors, and therapy [related] cases, patients that have survived chemo in the last 10 years, can also develop this disease,” said Daniel Thomas, MD, PhD, from the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, in an interview.
Dr. Thomas is a co-investigator of the ongoing phase 2/3 PREACH-M trial, which is testing a novel strategy of treating CMML with mutations in the RAS pathway with a combination of azacitidine and the investigational antibody lenzilumab, which is a targeted inhibitor of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF).
Preliminary results from the trial, reported at the European Hematology Association (EHA) annual meeting, showed that among 10 patients with CMML bearing mutations in the RAS pathway, the combination was associated with durable decreases in monocyte counts, increases in platelet counts and hemoglobin levels, and reductions in both spleen size and C-reactive protein level.
Targeting GM-CSF
More than 90% of cases of CMML carry somatic mutations that are thought to be leukemogenic, with an estimated 46%-60% of cases having mutations in TET2, a tumor suppressor, and an estimated 40% having mutations in KRAS, NRAS, or CBL, all of which are involved in cellular proliferation, and which, research suggests, are sensitive to GM-CSF inhibition.
“I was very surprised that the RAS-mutant arm – so, patients that have KRAS, NRAS, or CBL mutations – are just responding beautifully to [lenzilumab], ” Dr. Thomas said.
“It’s [in the] early days, but if what we’re seeing is durable across the next 10 patients, then I think we’re looking at a game changer,” he added.
Cameron Durrant, MD, DRCOG, MRCGP, chairman and CEO of lenzilumab’s maker Humanigen, said in an interview that the development of the antibody for CMML was spurred in part by research from investigators at the Mayo Clinic, showing that patients with mutations that increased sensitivity to GM-CSF seemed to have better clinical outcomes when the growth factor was blocked.
In addition, Dr. Durrant said, preclinical research from investigators at the Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, found that myeloid and monocytic progenitors “fed” on GM-CSF and were sensitive to GM-CSF signal inhibition.
“The biological idea that’s being explored here in the clinic in this study is that by blocking, or starving, if you will, those cells of that food, then you can prevent this overgrowth of certain blood cells that lead to chronic myelomonocytic leukemia,” he said.
PREACH-M details
Lenzilumab is an engineered human immunoglobulin G1-kappa monoclonal antibody with high affinity for human GM-CSF.
In the open label, nonrandomized PREACH-M trial, 72 patients with CMML were enrolled and were assigned to receive 24 monthly cycles of therapy depending on mutational status.
Patients with RAS pathway mutations were assigned to receive azacitidine delivered subcutaneously 75 mg/m2 for 7 days, plus intravenous lenzilumab 552 mg on days 1 and 15 of cycle 1 and on day 1 only of all subsequent cycles.
Patients with TET2 mutations only were assigned to receive azacitidine on the same schedule, plus IV sodium ascorbate 30 g for 7 days, with the first dose 15 g, and subsequent doses 30 g if there is no evidence of tumor lysis syndrome. Following IV administration, patients continue on oral sodium ascorbate 1.1 g on all other days.
The primary endpoint of complete and partial responses any time during the first 12 cycles is planned for reporting at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology in December, Dr. Thomas said.
At EHA 2023, the investigators reported available data on 10 patients enrolled in the lenzilumab arm and one enrolled in the azacitidine-sodium ascorbate arm.
Among patients in the lenzilumab arm there was a 5.1-fold decrease in monocyte counts (P = .03) and 2.4-fold decrease in blast counts (P = .04) at 12 months of follow-up.
In addition there was a trend toward increased platelet counts over baseline at 12 months, a significant increase in blood hemoglobin concentration (P = .024), a significant reduction in spleen size (P = .03) and a trend toward lower levels of the inflammatory marker C-reactive protein.
There were 21 grade 3 or 4 adverse events reported, of which 5 were deemed to be possibly related to lenzilumab.
Dr. Thomas told this news organization that the investigators have been “pleasantly surprised” at how well patients tolerated the monoclonal antibody.
“We haven’t had any infusion reactions, we haven’t had any pulmonary alveolar proteinosis, [and] we haven’t had any fevers from the infusion, from the antibody,” he said.
There were some instances of neutropenia and thrombocytopenia that the investigators think may have been related to azacitidine, he noted.
The study is sponsored by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Dr. Thomas reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Durrant is an employee and director of Humanigen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM EHA 2023
Book review: “Sexual Citizens”
The Sexual Health Initiative to Foster Transformation (SHIFT)1 is a landmark study about sexual assault at college, which has generated 20 scientific articles and several chapters in books, but unfortunately, has not made its way into the psychiatric literature.
“Sexual Citizens: Sex, Power and Assault on Campus,” by Jennifer Hirsch and Shamus Khan, (available in audio book and paperback) was written as a follow up to the SHIFT study, so the rest of us can absorb the findings.2 This mixed-methods study included a survey of over 1,600 students aged 18-29 from Columbia University and Barnard College regarding their relationships and sexual histories, including assault. Data were collected using daily diaries, focus groups, and hundreds of hours of field work observation by young researchers. One- to 3-hour in-depth interviews exploring sexual experiences on campus were conducted with 151 students. These interviews are the focus of the book. It is a well-written, provocative story brimming with insights for those of us who lack the time to scour social science literature.
“Sexual Citizens” and the SHIFT study confirmed much of what we know. Sexual assault is common and has enduring effects. The study found that 36% of women and 15% of men had experienced unwanted, nonconsensual sexual contact by senior year. Twenty percent of women and 6% of men were rape survivors. Freshman, LGBTQ, and minority students were found at highest risk of assault. SHIFT reaffirmed that abstinence-only education is not a protective factor against college sexual assault, but neither was knowledge of affirmative consent (the practice of “ongoing and explicit” checking-in with partners) which few students ever employed. Encouragingly, students taught refusal skills were less likely to experience sexual assault.
Many of the book’s valuable lessons fall under the umbrella of failures of language and communication. For example, after drinking, they went to his room. She was expecting a social interaction, but with no other place to sit, they sat on his bed where she was coaxed or pressured into a sexual encounter. Afterward, she leaves, and it is never discussed again. One partner desires emotional intimacy, and the other, bragging rights in the fraternity or at the girls’ weekly brunch. Numerous personal stories like these, though at times heart wrenching, provide perspective on the barriers to addressing assault.
Subjects relayed experiences of assault by strangers or friends, and some provided details of their own actions as perpetrators. Stumbling around words and emotions, an avoidance of explicit language stemmed from shame, a fear of personal responsibility, the desire to maintain social cohesion, and concern for potential consequences for the perpetrator. Many subjects were resistant to calling nonconsensual sexual activity rape or even assault. Some who had perpetrated were unaware their behavior may have been experienced as assault, with recognition of this fact dawning during interviews.
This apparent limitation in self-reflective capacity may be in part due to the conceptualization of what assault is. Focus groups identified a discernible difference in how men and women understood assaults, with men believing rapes looked like a woman fighting back and screaming for help ... which is rarely what happens.
Notably absent among the interviewed are any flagrant perpetrators. The methodology section theorizes that individuals who intentionally harmed their peers were unlikely to choose to participate in this study. In addition, the characterization of assailants as “sociopathic predators” is based in a history of racialized imagery that leads us astray from the truth about campus sexual assault. Most assaults do not involve force, and SHIFT data showed 75% of victims knew their assailants. Ultimately, a major aim of the research was to study assault alongside healthy sex to “understand those pivotal moments when encounters change from being sex, to being assault.” Doing this requires understanding the where, how, and why students have sex, a more complicated undertaking than we may think.
In discussing their sexual lives, subjects frequently noted they did not have space to talk about their assaults. Though 81% of students discussed their experiences with someone, friend groups were often overburdened with stories, which minimized the victim’s experience. Furthermore, most had not sought help from the student counseling centers. Students navigating this complex field were frequently doing so in isolation. SHIFT found subjects to be eager to participate; they would often express thankfulness, and a sense of freedom in sharing with researchers. Commonly, students expressly did not want retribution for perpetrators, but simply a place to be heard without challenge. The current legal system precludes that possibility, leaving individuals without the option to confront perpetrators, and perpetrators often not knowing the extent of the damage they caused.
Where can psychiatrists have an impact right now? “Sexual Citizens” identifies four key areas for intervention to work toward a world with less sexual assault. These are:
- Improving diversity, inequality, and power distortions.
- Education about sex and sexual assault.
- Substance use.
- Mental health.
Substance use and mental health are especially relevant for psychiatrists (That substance use contributes to sexual assault is known by approximately ... everybody!). Unwanted sexual contact prior to college (20% of students) increased the odds of experiencing assault during college. Harm reduction strategies should be introduced before college, according to the SHIFT research, particularly in skills-based training on how to say “No” to unwanted sex. Psychiatrists are likely used to asking brief history questions related to sexual assault and rape. “Sexual Citizens” highlights the inadequacy of this blunt language and guides the reader toward a refined knowledge of the language needed to address sexual assault.
Dr. Whisler is a child and adolescent psychiatry fellow at the Stanford (Calif.) University. Dr. Higgins is affiliate associate professor of psychiatry and family medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.
References
1. Hirsch JS et al. Social dimensions of sexual consent among cisgender heterosexual college students: Insights from ethnographic research. J Adolesc Health. 2019 Jan;64(1):26-35. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.06.011.
2. Hirsch JS and Khan S. Sexual citizens: Sex, power, and assault on campus. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2020.
The Sexual Health Initiative to Foster Transformation (SHIFT)1 is a landmark study about sexual assault at college, which has generated 20 scientific articles and several chapters in books, but unfortunately, has not made its way into the psychiatric literature.
“Sexual Citizens: Sex, Power and Assault on Campus,” by Jennifer Hirsch and Shamus Khan, (available in audio book and paperback) was written as a follow up to the SHIFT study, so the rest of us can absorb the findings.2 This mixed-methods study included a survey of over 1,600 students aged 18-29 from Columbia University and Barnard College regarding their relationships and sexual histories, including assault. Data were collected using daily diaries, focus groups, and hundreds of hours of field work observation by young researchers. One- to 3-hour in-depth interviews exploring sexual experiences on campus were conducted with 151 students. These interviews are the focus of the book. It is a well-written, provocative story brimming with insights for those of us who lack the time to scour social science literature.
“Sexual Citizens” and the SHIFT study confirmed much of what we know. Sexual assault is common and has enduring effects. The study found that 36% of women and 15% of men had experienced unwanted, nonconsensual sexual contact by senior year. Twenty percent of women and 6% of men were rape survivors. Freshman, LGBTQ, and minority students were found at highest risk of assault. SHIFT reaffirmed that abstinence-only education is not a protective factor against college sexual assault, but neither was knowledge of affirmative consent (the practice of “ongoing and explicit” checking-in with partners) which few students ever employed. Encouragingly, students taught refusal skills were less likely to experience sexual assault.
Many of the book’s valuable lessons fall under the umbrella of failures of language and communication. For example, after drinking, they went to his room. She was expecting a social interaction, but with no other place to sit, they sat on his bed where she was coaxed or pressured into a sexual encounter. Afterward, she leaves, and it is never discussed again. One partner desires emotional intimacy, and the other, bragging rights in the fraternity or at the girls’ weekly brunch. Numerous personal stories like these, though at times heart wrenching, provide perspective on the barriers to addressing assault.
Subjects relayed experiences of assault by strangers or friends, and some provided details of their own actions as perpetrators. Stumbling around words and emotions, an avoidance of explicit language stemmed from shame, a fear of personal responsibility, the desire to maintain social cohesion, and concern for potential consequences for the perpetrator. Many subjects were resistant to calling nonconsensual sexual activity rape or even assault. Some who had perpetrated were unaware their behavior may have been experienced as assault, with recognition of this fact dawning during interviews.
This apparent limitation in self-reflective capacity may be in part due to the conceptualization of what assault is. Focus groups identified a discernible difference in how men and women understood assaults, with men believing rapes looked like a woman fighting back and screaming for help ... which is rarely what happens.
Notably absent among the interviewed are any flagrant perpetrators. The methodology section theorizes that individuals who intentionally harmed their peers were unlikely to choose to participate in this study. In addition, the characterization of assailants as “sociopathic predators” is based in a history of racialized imagery that leads us astray from the truth about campus sexual assault. Most assaults do not involve force, and SHIFT data showed 75% of victims knew their assailants. Ultimately, a major aim of the research was to study assault alongside healthy sex to “understand those pivotal moments when encounters change from being sex, to being assault.” Doing this requires understanding the where, how, and why students have sex, a more complicated undertaking than we may think.
In discussing their sexual lives, subjects frequently noted they did not have space to talk about their assaults. Though 81% of students discussed their experiences with someone, friend groups were often overburdened with stories, which minimized the victim’s experience. Furthermore, most had not sought help from the student counseling centers. Students navigating this complex field were frequently doing so in isolation. SHIFT found subjects to be eager to participate; they would often express thankfulness, and a sense of freedom in sharing with researchers. Commonly, students expressly did not want retribution for perpetrators, but simply a place to be heard without challenge. The current legal system precludes that possibility, leaving individuals without the option to confront perpetrators, and perpetrators often not knowing the extent of the damage they caused.
Where can psychiatrists have an impact right now? “Sexual Citizens” identifies four key areas for intervention to work toward a world with less sexual assault. These are:
- Improving diversity, inequality, and power distortions.
- Education about sex and sexual assault.
- Substance use.
- Mental health.
Substance use and mental health are especially relevant for psychiatrists (That substance use contributes to sexual assault is known by approximately ... everybody!). Unwanted sexual contact prior to college (20% of students) increased the odds of experiencing assault during college. Harm reduction strategies should be introduced before college, according to the SHIFT research, particularly in skills-based training on how to say “No” to unwanted sex. Psychiatrists are likely used to asking brief history questions related to sexual assault and rape. “Sexual Citizens” highlights the inadequacy of this blunt language and guides the reader toward a refined knowledge of the language needed to address sexual assault.
Dr. Whisler is a child and adolescent psychiatry fellow at the Stanford (Calif.) University. Dr. Higgins is affiliate associate professor of psychiatry and family medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.
References
1. Hirsch JS et al. Social dimensions of sexual consent among cisgender heterosexual college students: Insights from ethnographic research. J Adolesc Health. 2019 Jan;64(1):26-35. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.06.011.
2. Hirsch JS and Khan S. Sexual citizens: Sex, power, and assault on campus. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2020.
The Sexual Health Initiative to Foster Transformation (SHIFT)1 is a landmark study about sexual assault at college, which has generated 20 scientific articles and several chapters in books, but unfortunately, has not made its way into the psychiatric literature.
“Sexual Citizens: Sex, Power and Assault on Campus,” by Jennifer Hirsch and Shamus Khan, (available in audio book and paperback) was written as a follow up to the SHIFT study, so the rest of us can absorb the findings.2 This mixed-methods study included a survey of over 1,600 students aged 18-29 from Columbia University and Barnard College regarding their relationships and sexual histories, including assault. Data were collected using daily diaries, focus groups, and hundreds of hours of field work observation by young researchers. One- to 3-hour in-depth interviews exploring sexual experiences on campus were conducted with 151 students. These interviews are the focus of the book. It is a well-written, provocative story brimming with insights for those of us who lack the time to scour social science literature.
“Sexual Citizens” and the SHIFT study confirmed much of what we know. Sexual assault is common and has enduring effects. The study found that 36% of women and 15% of men had experienced unwanted, nonconsensual sexual contact by senior year. Twenty percent of women and 6% of men were rape survivors. Freshman, LGBTQ, and minority students were found at highest risk of assault. SHIFT reaffirmed that abstinence-only education is not a protective factor against college sexual assault, but neither was knowledge of affirmative consent (the practice of “ongoing and explicit” checking-in with partners) which few students ever employed. Encouragingly, students taught refusal skills were less likely to experience sexual assault.
Many of the book’s valuable lessons fall under the umbrella of failures of language and communication. For example, after drinking, they went to his room. She was expecting a social interaction, but with no other place to sit, they sat on his bed where she was coaxed or pressured into a sexual encounter. Afterward, she leaves, and it is never discussed again. One partner desires emotional intimacy, and the other, bragging rights in the fraternity or at the girls’ weekly brunch. Numerous personal stories like these, though at times heart wrenching, provide perspective on the barriers to addressing assault.
Subjects relayed experiences of assault by strangers or friends, and some provided details of their own actions as perpetrators. Stumbling around words and emotions, an avoidance of explicit language stemmed from shame, a fear of personal responsibility, the desire to maintain social cohesion, and concern for potential consequences for the perpetrator. Many subjects were resistant to calling nonconsensual sexual activity rape or even assault. Some who had perpetrated were unaware their behavior may have been experienced as assault, with recognition of this fact dawning during interviews.
This apparent limitation in self-reflective capacity may be in part due to the conceptualization of what assault is. Focus groups identified a discernible difference in how men and women understood assaults, with men believing rapes looked like a woman fighting back and screaming for help ... which is rarely what happens.
Notably absent among the interviewed are any flagrant perpetrators. The methodology section theorizes that individuals who intentionally harmed their peers were unlikely to choose to participate in this study. In addition, the characterization of assailants as “sociopathic predators” is based in a history of racialized imagery that leads us astray from the truth about campus sexual assault. Most assaults do not involve force, and SHIFT data showed 75% of victims knew their assailants. Ultimately, a major aim of the research was to study assault alongside healthy sex to “understand those pivotal moments when encounters change from being sex, to being assault.” Doing this requires understanding the where, how, and why students have sex, a more complicated undertaking than we may think.
In discussing their sexual lives, subjects frequently noted they did not have space to talk about their assaults. Though 81% of students discussed their experiences with someone, friend groups were often overburdened with stories, which minimized the victim’s experience. Furthermore, most had not sought help from the student counseling centers. Students navigating this complex field were frequently doing so in isolation. SHIFT found subjects to be eager to participate; they would often express thankfulness, and a sense of freedom in sharing with researchers. Commonly, students expressly did not want retribution for perpetrators, but simply a place to be heard without challenge. The current legal system precludes that possibility, leaving individuals without the option to confront perpetrators, and perpetrators often not knowing the extent of the damage they caused.
Where can psychiatrists have an impact right now? “Sexual Citizens” identifies four key areas for intervention to work toward a world with less sexual assault. These are:
- Improving diversity, inequality, and power distortions.
- Education about sex and sexual assault.
- Substance use.
- Mental health.
Substance use and mental health are especially relevant for psychiatrists (That substance use contributes to sexual assault is known by approximately ... everybody!). Unwanted sexual contact prior to college (20% of students) increased the odds of experiencing assault during college. Harm reduction strategies should be introduced before college, according to the SHIFT research, particularly in skills-based training on how to say “No” to unwanted sex. Psychiatrists are likely used to asking brief history questions related to sexual assault and rape. “Sexual Citizens” highlights the inadequacy of this blunt language and guides the reader toward a refined knowledge of the language needed to address sexual assault.
Dr. Whisler is a child and adolescent psychiatry fellow at the Stanford (Calif.) University. Dr. Higgins is affiliate associate professor of psychiatry and family medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.
References
1. Hirsch JS et al. Social dimensions of sexual consent among cisgender heterosexual college students: Insights from ethnographic research. J Adolesc Health. 2019 Jan;64(1):26-35. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.06.011.
2. Hirsch JS and Khan S. Sexual citizens: Sex, power, and assault on campus. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2020.
Aspirin warning: Anemia may increase with daily use
, according to results from a new randomized controlled trial.
In the study, which was published in Annals of Internal Medicine, investigators analyzed data from the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) trial and examined hemoglobin concentrations among 19,114 healthy, community-dwelling older patients.
“We knew from large clinical trials, including our ASPREE trial, that daily low-dose aspirin increased the risk of clinically significant bleeding,” said Zoe McQuilten, MBBS, PhD, a hematologist at Monash University in Australia and the study’s lead author. “From our study, we found that low-dose aspirin also increased the risk of anemia during the trial, and this was most likely due to bleeding that was not clinically apparent.”
Anemia is common among elderly patients. It can cause fatigue, fast or irregular heartbeat, headache, chest pain, and pounding or whooshing sounds in the ear, according to the Cleveland Clinic. It can also worsen conditions such as heart failure, cognitive impairment, and depression in people aged 65 and older.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force changed its recommendation on aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in 2022, recommending against initiating low-dose aspirin for adults aged 60 years or older. For adults aged 40-59 who have a 10% or greater 10-year risk for cardiovascular disease, the agency recommends that patients and clinicians make the decision to initiate low-dose aspirin use on a case-by-case basis, as the net benefit is small.
Dr. McQuilten said she spent the last 5 years designing substages of anemia and conditions such as blood cancer. In many cases of anemia, doctors are unable to determine the underlying cause, she said. One study published in the Journal of American Geriatrics Society in 2021 found that in about one-third of anemia cases, the etiology was not clear.
About 50% of people older than 60 who were involved in the latest study took aspirin for prevention from 2011 to 2018. That number likely dropped after changes were made to the guidelines in 2022, according to Dr. McQuilten, but long-term use may have continued among older patients. The researchers also examined ferritin levels, which serve as a proxy for iron levels, at baseline and after 3 years.
The incidence of anemia was 51 events per 1,000 person-years in the aspirin group compared with 43 events per 1,000 person-years in the placebo group, according to the researchers. The estimated probability of experiencing anemia within 5 years was 23.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 22.4%-24.6%) in the aspirin group and 20.3% (95% CI: 19.3% to 21.4%) in the placebo group. Aspirin therapy resulted in a 20% increase in the risk for anemia (95% CI, 1.12-1.29).
People who took aspirin were more likely to have lower serum levels of ferritin at the 3-year mark than were those who received placebo. The average decrease in ferritin among participants who took aspirin was 11.5% greater (95% CI, 9.3%-13.7%) than among those who took placebo.
Basil Eldadah, MD, PhD, supervisory medical officer at the National Institute on Aging, part of the National Institutes of Health, said the findings should encourage clinicians to pay closer attention to hemoglobin levels and have conversations with patients to discuss their need for taking aspirin.
“If somebody is already taking aspirin for any reason, keep an eye on hemoglobin,” said Dr. Eldadah, who was not involved in the study. “For somebody who’s taking aspirin and who’s older, and it’s not for an indication like cardiovascular disease, consider seriously whether that’s the best treatment option.”
The study did not examine the functional consequences of anemia on participants, which Dr. Eldadah said could be fodder for future research. The researchers said one limitation was that it was not clear whether anemia was sufficient to cause symptoms that affected participants’ quality of life or whether occult bleeding caused the anemia. The researchers also did not document whether patients saw their regular physicians and received treatment for anemia over the course of the trial.
The study was funded through grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The authors reported receiving consulting fees, honoraria, and stock options, and have participated on data monitoring boards not related to the study for Vifor Pharma, ITL Biomedical, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer Healthcare, AbbVie, and Abbott Diagnostics.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to results from a new randomized controlled trial.
In the study, which was published in Annals of Internal Medicine, investigators analyzed data from the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) trial and examined hemoglobin concentrations among 19,114 healthy, community-dwelling older patients.
“We knew from large clinical trials, including our ASPREE trial, that daily low-dose aspirin increased the risk of clinically significant bleeding,” said Zoe McQuilten, MBBS, PhD, a hematologist at Monash University in Australia and the study’s lead author. “From our study, we found that low-dose aspirin also increased the risk of anemia during the trial, and this was most likely due to bleeding that was not clinically apparent.”
Anemia is common among elderly patients. It can cause fatigue, fast or irregular heartbeat, headache, chest pain, and pounding or whooshing sounds in the ear, according to the Cleveland Clinic. It can also worsen conditions such as heart failure, cognitive impairment, and depression in people aged 65 and older.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force changed its recommendation on aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in 2022, recommending against initiating low-dose aspirin for adults aged 60 years or older. For adults aged 40-59 who have a 10% or greater 10-year risk for cardiovascular disease, the agency recommends that patients and clinicians make the decision to initiate low-dose aspirin use on a case-by-case basis, as the net benefit is small.
Dr. McQuilten said she spent the last 5 years designing substages of anemia and conditions such as blood cancer. In many cases of anemia, doctors are unable to determine the underlying cause, she said. One study published in the Journal of American Geriatrics Society in 2021 found that in about one-third of anemia cases, the etiology was not clear.
About 50% of people older than 60 who were involved in the latest study took aspirin for prevention from 2011 to 2018. That number likely dropped after changes were made to the guidelines in 2022, according to Dr. McQuilten, but long-term use may have continued among older patients. The researchers also examined ferritin levels, which serve as a proxy for iron levels, at baseline and after 3 years.
The incidence of anemia was 51 events per 1,000 person-years in the aspirin group compared with 43 events per 1,000 person-years in the placebo group, according to the researchers. The estimated probability of experiencing anemia within 5 years was 23.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 22.4%-24.6%) in the aspirin group and 20.3% (95% CI: 19.3% to 21.4%) in the placebo group. Aspirin therapy resulted in a 20% increase in the risk for anemia (95% CI, 1.12-1.29).
People who took aspirin were more likely to have lower serum levels of ferritin at the 3-year mark than were those who received placebo. The average decrease in ferritin among participants who took aspirin was 11.5% greater (95% CI, 9.3%-13.7%) than among those who took placebo.
Basil Eldadah, MD, PhD, supervisory medical officer at the National Institute on Aging, part of the National Institutes of Health, said the findings should encourage clinicians to pay closer attention to hemoglobin levels and have conversations with patients to discuss their need for taking aspirin.
“If somebody is already taking aspirin for any reason, keep an eye on hemoglobin,” said Dr. Eldadah, who was not involved in the study. “For somebody who’s taking aspirin and who’s older, and it’s not for an indication like cardiovascular disease, consider seriously whether that’s the best treatment option.”
The study did not examine the functional consequences of anemia on participants, which Dr. Eldadah said could be fodder for future research. The researchers said one limitation was that it was not clear whether anemia was sufficient to cause symptoms that affected participants’ quality of life or whether occult bleeding caused the anemia. The researchers also did not document whether patients saw their regular physicians and received treatment for anemia over the course of the trial.
The study was funded through grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The authors reported receiving consulting fees, honoraria, and stock options, and have participated on data monitoring boards not related to the study for Vifor Pharma, ITL Biomedical, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer Healthcare, AbbVie, and Abbott Diagnostics.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to results from a new randomized controlled trial.
In the study, which was published in Annals of Internal Medicine, investigators analyzed data from the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) trial and examined hemoglobin concentrations among 19,114 healthy, community-dwelling older patients.
“We knew from large clinical trials, including our ASPREE trial, that daily low-dose aspirin increased the risk of clinically significant bleeding,” said Zoe McQuilten, MBBS, PhD, a hematologist at Monash University in Australia and the study’s lead author. “From our study, we found that low-dose aspirin also increased the risk of anemia during the trial, and this was most likely due to bleeding that was not clinically apparent.”
Anemia is common among elderly patients. It can cause fatigue, fast or irregular heartbeat, headache, chest pain, and pounding or whooshing sounds in the ear, according to the Cleveland Clinic. It can also worsen conditions such as heart failure, cognitive impairment, and depression in people aged 65 and older.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force changed its recommendation on aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in 2022, recommending against initiating low-dose aspirin for adults aged 60 years or older. For adults aged 40-59 who have a 10% or greater 10-year risk for cardiovascular disease, the agency recommends that patients and clinicians make the decision to initiate low-dose aspirin use on a case-by-case basis, as the net benefit is small.
Dr. McQuilten said she spent the last 5 years designing substages of anemia and conditions such as blood cancer. In many cases of anemia, doctors are unable to determine the underlying cause, she said. One study published in the Journal of American Geriatrics Society in 2021 found that in about one-third of anemia cases, the etiology was not clear.
About 50% of people older than 60 who were involved in the latest study took aspirin for prevention from 2011 to 2018. That number likely dropped after changes were made to the guidelines in 2022, according to Dr. McQuilten, but long-term use may have continued among older patients. The researchers also examined ferritin levels, which serve as a proxy for iron levels, at baseline and after 3 years.
The incidence of anemia was 51 events per 1,000 person-years in the aspirin group compared with 43 events per 1,000 person-years in the placebo group, according to the researchers. The estimated probability of experiencing anemia within 5 years was 23.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 22.4%-24.6%) in the aspirin group and 20.3% (95% CI: 19.3% to 21.4%) in the placebo group. Aspirin therapy resulted in a 20% increase in the risk for anemia (95% CI, 1.12-1.29).
People who took aspirin were more likely to have lower serum levels of ferritin at the 3-year mark than were those who received placebo. The average decrease in ferritin among participants who took aspirin was 11.5% greater (95% CI, 9.3%-13.7%) than among those who took placebo.
Basil Eldadah, MD, PhD, supervisory medical officer at the National Institute on Aging, part of the National Institutes of Health, said the findings should encourage clinicians to pay closer attention to hemoglobin levels and have conversations with patients to discuss their need for taking aspirin.
“If somebody is already taking aspirin for any reason, keep an eye on hemoglobin,” said Dr. Eldadah, who was not involved in the study. “For somebody who’s taking aspirin and who’s older, and it’s not for an indication like cardiovascular disease, consider seriously whether that’s the best treatment option.”
The study did not examine the functional consequences of anemia on participants, which Dr. Eldadah said could be fodder for future research. The researchers said one limitation was that it was not clear whether anemia was sufficient to cause symptoms that affected participants’ quality of life or whether occult bleeding caused the anemia. The researchers also did not document whether patients saw their regular physicians and received treatment for anemia over the course of the trial.
The study was funded through grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The authors reported receiving consulting fees, honoraria, and stock options, and have participated on data monitoring boards not related to the study for Vifor Pharma, ITL Biomedical, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer Healthcare, AbbVie, and Abbott Diagnostics.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
Docs misdiagnose aneurysm and patient dies; must pay $29M; more
and untreated, according to a story posted on Boston.com, among other news sites.
On the morning of Jan. 13, 2018, Joseph Brown awoke with shortness of breath and upper abdominal pain, which eventually spread to his chest and back. Taken to Salem Hospital’s emergency department, Mr. Brown was seen by Steven D. Browell, MD, an emergency medicine specialist.
Dr. Browell ordered tests that ruled out both a heart attack and a pulmonary embolism. He called for a blood test, which indicated that the patient’s white blood count was elevated. Suspecting an infection, Dr. Browell ordered that Mr. Brown be admitted to the hospital.
Accepting Mr. Brown’s admission was William D. Kenyon, MD, a hospitalist, who also examined the patient and concurred with Dr. Browell’s probable diagnosis. The patient was then sent to the medical floor.
There he underwent additional testing, including a chest x-ray, which proved negative except for one finding: a “mild hazy interstitial opacity that could represent a small airway inflammation or developing/early pneumonia.” Because Mr. Brown had reported that he had punctured his foot several days earlier, he also underwent a foot x-ray, which showed a possible foreign body. It was thought that might be the source of his infection.
Neither Dr. Browell nor Dr. Kenyon had completely ruled out a possible aortic aneurysm and dissection. Mr. Brown’s symptoms, after all, were in some ways suggestive of those conditions. Then again, he was very young – only 43 at the time – and his pain, while severe, didn’t correspond to the “searing” pain that, at trial, Dr. Kenyon described as typical of an aneurysm and dissection. As the hospitalist testified at trial, Mr. Brown had “a constellation of nonspecific symptoms” and an “unusual presentation of a rare condition,” typically seen in patients aged 65 and older.
Given these factors – and the results of Mr. Brown’s tests, lab studies, and physical exam – Dr. Kenyon didn’t think that the case warranted a CT scan to rule out an aortic aneurysm or aortic dissection.
By early the next morning, though, Mr. Brown’s shortness of breath and pain had intensified significantly. The on-duty doctor ordered a CT scan, which showed “a massive aneurysm at the beginning of [the patient’s] aorta and a dissection extending through most of his aorta.”
Mr. Brown was flown to Boston to undergo emergency surgery. En route to the helicopter, his aorta ruptured, stopping his heart and causing his death.
During the 8-day trial, each side introduced expert witnesses. Speaking for the plaintiffs, experts in cardiothoracic surgery and emergency medicine testified that the treating physicians were negligent in failing to order a CT scan on Jan. 13. Had they done so, the patient would have almost certainly undergone surgery earlier, which would have prevented his death.
Experts for the defense saw things differently. They testified that, given the evidence, it was reasonable and appropriate for Dr. Browell and Dr. Kenyon to have treated their patient for an infection rather than an aneurysm or dissection.
The jury found the defense’s arguments unconvincing, however. After deliberating 3 hours, it awarded the plaintiffs $20,000,000, to be paid out over time largely to Mr. Brown’s two daughters, who were aged 12 and 18 when he died. Including interest, the total award is close to $29 million.
In a statement following the verdict, lead plaintiff’s attorney Robert M. Higgins, of Lubin & Meyer, Boston, said the takeaway from the case was: “If you just treat people based on what the likelihood is, statistically, you’re going to miss a lot of life-threatening conditions. And that’s what happened in this case.”
Urologists typically prevail in BPH suits
Malpractice claims following surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) tend to be limited in scope and are typically resolved in favor of the surgeon-defendant, as a study in The Cureus Journal of Medical Science makes clear.
The study – conducted by a team of researchers that included Joao G. Porto, MD, of the Desai Sethi Urology Institute, University of Miami – investigated whether such surgeries pose a significant malpractice risk for urologists.
With information gleaned from two well-known legal databases, the team used a variety of key terms to identify BPH-related claims from January 2000 to December 2021.
Within this universe of claims, researchers identified several significant trends:
- Among BPH-related procedures, transurethral resection of the prostate was the most frequently identified (37%);
- Among the most-often cited reasons cited for a claim, allegations of inadequate postoperative care were the most common (33%);
- Of possible postsurgical complications, those that led to the greatest number of suits were urinary incontinence (23%), erectile dysfunction (13%), and urinary retention (13%); and,
- Not unexpectedly, the specialist most frequently named in a suit was a urologist (57%).
Interestingly, in all but two of the claims, the verdict favored the doctor-defendant. In the two cases in which the plaintiff prevailed, each involved unexpected and serious postsurgical complications.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
and untreated, according to a story posted on Boston.com, among other news sites.
On the morning of Jan. 13, 2018, Joseph Brown awoke with shortness of breath and upper abdominal pain, which eventually spread to his chest and back. Taken to Salem Hospital’s emergency department, Mr. Brown was seen by Steven D. Browell, MD, an emergency medicine specialist.
Dr. Browell ordered tests that ruled out both a heart attack and a pulmonary embolism. He called for a blood test, which indicated that the patient’s white blood count was elevated. Suspecting an infection, Dr. Browell ordered that Mr. Brown be admitted to the hospital.
Accepting Mr. Brown’s admission was William D. Kenyon, MD, a hospitalist, who also examined the patient and concurred with Dr. Browell’s probable diagnosis. The patient was then sent to the medical floor.
There he underwent additional testing, including a chest x-ray, which proved negative except for one finding: a “mild hazy interstitial opacity that could represent a small airway inflammation or developing/early pneumonia.” Because Mr. Brown had reported that he had punctured his foot several days earlier, he also underwent a foot x-ray, which showed a possible foreign body. It was thought that might be the source of his infection.
Neither Dr. Browell nor Dr. Kenyon had completely ruled out a possible aortic aneurysm and dissection. Mr. Brown’s symptoms, after all, were in some ways suggestive of those conditions. Then again, he was very young – only 43 at the time – and his pain, while severe, didn’t correspond to the “searing” pain that, at trial, Dr. Kenyon described as typical of an aneurysm and dissection. As the hospitalist testified at trial, Mr. Brown had “a constellation of nonspecific symptoms” and an “unusual presentation of a rare condition,” typically seen in patients aged 65 and older.
Given these factors – and the results of Mr. Brown’s tests, lab studies, and physical exam – Dr. Kenyon didn’t think that the case warranted a CT scan to rule out an aortic aneurysm or aortic dissection.
By early the next morning, though, Mr. Brown’s shortness of breath and pain had intensified significantly. The on-duty doctor ordered a CT scan, which showed “a massive aneurysm at the beginning of [the patient’s] aorta and a dissection extending through most of his aorta.”
Mr. Brown was flown to Boston to undergo emergency surgery. En route to the helicopter, his aorta ruptured, stopping his heart and causing his death.
During the 8-day trial, each side introduced expert witnesses. Speaking for the plaintiffs, experts in cardiothoracic surgery and emergency medicine testified that the treating physicians were negligent in failing to order a CT scan on Jan. 13. Had they done so, the patient would have almost certainly undergone surgery earlier, which would have prevented his death.
Experts for the defense saw things differently. They testified that, given the evidence, it was reasonable and appropriate for Dr. Browell and Dr. Kenyon to have treated their patient for an infection rather than an aneurysm or dissection.
The jury found the defense’s arguments unconvincing, however. After deliberating 3 hours, it awarded the plaintiffs $20,000,000, to be paid out over time largely to Mr. Brown’s two daughters, who were aged 12 and 18 when he died. Including interest, the total award is close to $29 million.
In a statement following the verdict, lead plaintiff’s attorney Robert M. Higgins, of Lubin & Meyer, Boston, said the takeaway from the case was: “If you just treat people based on what the likelihood is, statistically, you’re going to miss a lot of life-threatening conditions. And that’s what happened in this case.”
Urologists typically prevail in BPH suits
Malpractice claims following surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) tend to be limited in scope and are typically resolved in favor of the surgeon-defendant, as a study in The Cureus Journal of Medical Science makes clear.
The study – conducted by a team of researchers that included Joao G. Porto, MD, of the Desai Sethi Urology Institute, University of Miami – investigated whether such surgeries pose a significant malpractice risk for urologists.
With information gleaned from two well-known legal databases, the team used a variety of key terms to identify BPH-related claims from January 2000 to December 2021.
Within this universe of claims, researchers identified several significant trends:
- Among BPH-related procedures, transurethral resection of the prostate was the most frequently identified (37%);
- Among the most-often cited reasons cited for a claim, allegations of inadequate postoperative care were the most common (33%);
- Of possible postsurgical complications, those that led to the greatest number of suits were urinary incontinence (23%), erectile dysfunction (13%), and urinary retention (13%); and,
- Not unexpectedly, the specialist most frequently named in a suit was a urologist (57%).
Interestingly, in all but two of the claims, the verdict favored the doctor-defendant. In the two cases in which the plaintiff prevailed, each involved unexpected and serious postsurgical complications.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
and untreated, according to a story posted on Boston.com, among other news sites.
On the morning of Jan. 13, 2018, Joseph Brown awoke with shortness of breath and upper abdominal pain, which eventually spread to his chest and back. Taken to Salem Hospital’s emergency department, Mr. Brown was seen by Steven D. Browell, MD, an emergency medicine specialist.
Dr. Browell ordered tests that ruled out both a heart attack and a pulmonary embolism. He called for a blood test, which indicated that the patient’s white blood count was elevated. Suspecting an infection, Dr. Browell ordered that Mr. Brown be admitted to the hospital.
Accepting Mr. Brown’s admission was William D. Kenyon, MD, a hospitalist, who also examined the patient and concurred with Dr. Browell’s probable diagnosis. The patient was then sent to the medical floor.
There he underwent additional testing, including a chest x-ray, which proved negative except for one finding: a “mild hazy interstitial opacity that could represent a small airway inflammation or developing/early pneumonia.” Because Mr. Brown had reported that he had punctured his foot several days earlier, he also underwent a foot x-ray, which showed a possible foreign body. It was thought that might be the source of his infection.
Neither Dr. Browell nor Dr. Kenyon had completely ruled out a possible aortic aneurysm and dissection. Mr. Brown’s symptoms, after all, were in some ways suggestive of those conditions. Then again, he was very young – only 43 at the time – and his pain, while severe, didn’t correspond to the “searing” pain that, at trial, Dr. Kenyon described as typical of an aneurysm and dissection. As the hospitalist testified at trial, Mr. Brown had “a constellation of nonspecific symptoms” and an “unusual presentation of a rare condition,” typically seen in patients aged 65 and older.
Given these factors – and the results of Mr. Brown’s tests, lab studies, and physical exam – Dr. Kenyon didn’t think that the case warranted a CT scan to rule out an aortic aneurysm or aortic dissection.
By early the next morning, though, Mr. Brown’s shortness of breath and pain had intensified significantly. The on-duty doctor ordered a CT scan, which showed “a massive aneurysm at the beginning of [the patient’s] aorta and a dissection extending through most of his aorta.”
Mr. Brown was flown to Boston to undergo emergency surgery. En route to the helicopter, his aorta ruptured, stopping his heart and causing his death.
During the 8-day trial, each side introduced expert witnesses. Speaking for the plaintiffs, experts in cardiothoracic surgery and emergency medicine testified that the treating physicians were negligent in failing to order a CT scan on Jan. 13. Had they done so, the patient would have almost certainly undergone surgery earlier, which would have prevented his death.
Experts for the defense saw things differently. They testified that, given the evidence, it was reasonable and appropriate for Dr. Browell and Dr. Kenyon to have treated their patient for an infection rather than an aneurysm or dissection.
The jury found the defense’s arguments unconvincing, however. After deliberating 3 hours, it awarded the plaintiffs $20,000,000, to be paid out over time largely to Mr. Brown’s two daughters, who were aged 12 and 18 when he died. Including interest, the total award is close to $29 million.
In a statement following the verdict, lead plaintiff’s attorney Robert M. Higgins, of Lubin & Meyer, Boston, said the takeaway from the case was: “If you just treat people based on what the likelihood is, statistically, you’re going to miss a lot of life-threatening conditions. And that’s what happened in this case.”
Urologists typically prevail in BPH suits
Malpractice claims following surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) tend to be limited in scope and are typically resolved in favor of the surgeon-defendant, as a study in The Cureus Journal of Medical Science makes clear.
The study – conducted by a team of researchers that included Joao G. Porto, MD, of the Desai Sethi Urology Institute, University of Miami – investigated whether such surgeries pose a significant malpractice risk for urologists.
With information gleaned from two well-known legal databases, the team used a variety of key terms to identify BPH-related claims from January 2000 to December 2021.
Within this universe of claims, researchers identified several significant trends:
- Among BPH-related procedures, transurethral resection of the prostate was the most frequently identified (37%);
- Among the most-often cited reasons cited for a claim, allegations of inadequate postoperative care were the most common (33%);
- Of possible postsurgical complications, those that led to the greatest number of suits were urinary incontinence (23%), erectile dysfunction (13%), and urinary retention (13%); and,
- Not unexpectedly, the specialist most frequently named in a suit was a urologist (57%).
Interestingly, in all but two of the claims, the verdict favored the doctor-defendant. In the two cases in which the plaintiff prevailed, each involved unexpected and serious postsurgical complications.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
ChatGPT in medicine: The good, the bad, and the unknown
CHICAGO – , so like them or not, physicians might as well figure out how to optimize their role in medicine and health care. That’s the takeaway from a three-expert panel session about the technology held at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).
The chatbot can help doctors to a certain extent by suggesting differential diagnoses, assisting with clinical note-taking, and producing rapid and easy-to-understand patient communication and educational materials, they noted. However, it can also make mistakes. And, unlike a medical trainee who might give a clinical answer and express some doubt, ChatGPT (Open AI/Microsoft) clearly states its findings as fact, even when it’s wrong.
Known as “hallucinating,” this problem of AI inaccuracy was displayed at the packed DDW session.
When asked when Leonardo da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa, for example, ChatGPT replied 1815. That’s off by about 300 years; the masterpiece was created sometime between 1503 and 1519. Asked for a fact about George Washington, ChatGPT said he invented the cotton gin. Also not true. (Eli Whitney patented the cotton gin.)
In an example more suited for gastroenterologists at DDW, ChatGPT correctly stated that Barrett esophagus can lead to adenocarcinoma of the esophagus in some cases. However, the technology also said that the condition could lead to prostate cancer.
So, if someone asked ChatGPT for a list of possible risks for Barrett’s esophagus, it would include prostate cancer. A person without medical knowledge “could take it at face value that it causes prostate cancer,” said panelist Sravanthi Parasa, MD, a gastroenterologist at Swedish Medical Center, Seattle.
“That is a lot of misinformation that is going to come our way,” she added at the session, which was sponsored by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.
The potential for inaccuracy is a downside to ChatGPT, agreed panelist Prateek Sharma, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City, Kansas.
“There is no quality control. You have to double check its answers,” said Dr. Sharma, who is president-elect of ASGE.
ChatGPT is not going to replace physicians in general or gastroenterologists doing endoscopies, said Ian Gralnek, MD, chief of the Institute of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Emek Medical Center in Afula, Israel.
Even though the tool could play a role in medicine, “we need to be very careful as a society going forward ... and see where things are going,” Dr. Gralnek said.
How you ask makes a difference
Future iterations of ChatGPT are likely to produce fewer hallucinations, the experts said. In the meantime, users can lower the risk by paying attention to how they’re wording their queries, a practice known as “prompt engineering.”
It’s best to ask a question that has a firm answer to it. If you ask a vague question, you’ll likely get a vague answer, Dr. Sharma said.
ChatGPT is a large language model (LLM). GPT stands for “generative pretrained transformer” – specialized algorithms that find long-range patterns in sequences of data. LLMs can predict the next word in a sentence.
“That’s why this is also called generative AI,” Dr. Sharma said. “For example, if you put in ‘Where are we?’, it will predict for you that perhaps the next word is ‘going?’ ”
The current public version is ChatGPT 3.5, which was trained on open-source online information up until early 2022. It can gather information from open-access scientific journals and medical society guidelines, as well as from Twitter, Reddit, and other social media. It does not have access to private information, like electronic health records.
The use of ChatGPT has exploded in the past 6 months, Dr. Sharma said.
“ChatGPT has been the most-searched website or platform ever in history since it was launched in December of 2022,” he said.
What’s in it for doctors?
Although not specifically trained for health care–related tasks, the panelists noted that ChatGPT does have potential as a virtual medical assistant, chatbot, clinical decision-support tool, source of medical education, natural language processor for documentation, or medical note-taker.
ChatGPT can help physicians write a letter of support to a patient who, for example, was just diagnosed with stage IV colon cancer. It can do that in only 15 seconds, whereas it would take us much longer, Dr. Sharma said.
ChatGPT is the “next frontier” for generating patient education materials, Dr. Parasa said. It can help time-constrained health care providers, as long as the information is accurate.
ChatGPT 4.0, now available by subscription, can do “almost real-time note-taking during patient encounters,” she added.
Another reason to be familiar with the technology: “Many of your patients are using it, even if you don’t know about it,” Dr. Sharma said.
Questions abound
A conference attendee asked the panel what to do when a patient comes in with ChatGPT medical advice that does not align with official guidelines.
Dr. Gralnek said that he would explain to patients that medical information based on guidelines are not “black and white.” The panel likened it to how patients come to an appointment now armed with information from the Internet, which is not always correct, that must then be countered by doctors. The same would likely happen with ChatGPT.
Another attendee asked whether ChatGPT eventually will work in accordance with electronic health record systems.
“Open AI and Microsoft are already working with Epic,” Dr. Parasa said.
A question arose about the reading level of information provided by ChatGPT. Dr. Parasa noted that it’s not standard. However, a person can prompt ChatGPT to provide an answer either at an eighth-grade reading level or for a well-trained physician.
Dr. Sharma offered a final warning: The technology learns over time.
“It knows what your habits are. It will learn what you’re doing,” Dr. Sharma said. “Everything else on your browsers that are open, it’s learning from that also. So be careful what websites you visit before you go to ChatGPT.”
Dr. Sharma is a stock shareholder in Microsoft. Dr. Parasa and Dr. Gralneck reported no relevant financial relationships.
DDW is sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
CHICAGO – , so like them or not, physicians might as well figure out how to optimize their role in medicine and health care. That’s the takeaway from a three-expert panel session about the technology held at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).
The chatbot can help doctors to a certain extent by suggesting differential diagnoses, assisting with clinical note-taking, and producing rapid and easy-to-understand patient communication and educational materials, they noted. However, it can also make mistakes. And, unlike a medical trainee who might give a clinical answer and express some doubt, ChatGPT (Open AI/Microsoft) clearly states its findings as fact, even when it’s wrong.
Known as “hallucinating,” this problem of AI inaccuracy was displayed at the packed DDW session.
When asked when Leonardo da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa, for example, ChatGPT replied 1815. That’s off by about 300 years; the masterpiece was created sometime between 1503 and 1519. Asked for a fact about George Washington, ChatGPT said he invented the cotton gin. Also not true. (Eli Whitney patented the cotton gin.)
In an example more suited for gastroenterologists at DDW, ChatGPT correctly stated that Barrett esophagus can lead to adenocarcinoma of the esophagus in some cases. However, the technology also said that the condition could lead to prostate cancer.
So, if someone asked ChatGPT for a list of possible risks for Barrett’s esophagus, it would include prostate cancer. A person without medical knowledge “could take it at face value that it causes prostate cancer,” said panelist Sravanthi Parasa, MD, a gastroenterologist at Swedish Medical Center, Seattle.
“That is a lot of misinformation that is going to come our way,” she added at the session, which was sponsored by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.
The potential for inaccuracy is a downside to ChatGPT, agreed panelist Prateek Sharma, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City, Kansas.
“There is no quality control. You have to double check its answers,” said Dr. Sharma, who is president-elect of ASGE.
ChatGPT is not going to replace physicians in general or gastroenterologists doing endoscopies, said Ian Gralnek, MD, chief of the Institute of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Emek Medical Center in Afula, Israel.
Even though the tool could play a role in medicine, “we need to be very careful as a society going forward ... and see where things are going,” Dr. Gralnek said.
How you ask makes a difference
Future iterations of ChatGPT are likely to produce fewer hallucinations, the experts said. In the meantime, users can lower the risk by paying attention to how they’re wording their queries, a practice known as “prompt engineering.”
It’s best to ask a question that has a firm answer to it. If you ask a vague question, you’ll likely get a vague answer, Dr. Sharma said.
ChatGPT is a large language model (LLM). GPT stands for “generative pretrained transformer” – specialized algorithms that find long-range patterns in sequences of data. LLMs can predict the next word in a sentence.
“That’s why this is also called generative AI,” Dr. Sharma said. “For example, if you put in ‘Where are we?’, it will predict for you that perhaps the next word is ‘going?’ ”
The current public version is ChatGPT 3.5, which was trained on open-source online information up until early 2022. It can gather information from open-access scientific journals and medical society guidelines, as well as from Twitter, Reddit, and other social media. It does not have access to private information, like electronic health records.
The use of ChatGPT has exploded in the past 6 months, Dr. Sharma said.
“ChatGPT has been the most-searched website or platform ever in history since it was launched in December of 2022,” he said.
What’s in it for doctors?
Although not specifically trained for health care–related tasks, the panelists noted that ChatGPT does have potential as a virtual medical assistant, chatbot, clinical decision-support tool, source of medical education, natural language processor for documentation, or medical note-taker.
ChatGPT can help physicians write a letter of support to a patient who, for example, was just diagnosed with stage IV colon cancer. It can do that in only 15 seconds, whereas it would take us much longer, Dr. Sharma said.
ChatGPT is the “next frontier” for generating patient education materials, Dr. Parasa said. It can help time-constrained health care providers, as long as the information is accurate.
ChatGPT 4.0, now available by subscription, can do “almost real-time note-taking during patient encounters,” she added.
Another reason to be familiar with the technology: “Many of your patients are using it, even if you don’t know about it,” Dr. Sharma said.
Questions abound
A conference attendee asked the panel what to do when a patient comes in with ChatGPT medical advice that does not align with official guidelines.
Dr. Gralnek said that he would explain to patients that medical information based on guidelines are not “black and white.” The panel likened it to how patients come to an appointment now armed with information from the Internet, which is not always correct, that must then be countered by doctors. The same would likely happen with ChatGPT.
Another attendee asked whether ChatGPT eventually will work in accordance with electronic health record systems.
“Open AI and Microsoft are already working with Epic,” Dr. Parasa said.
A question arose about the reading level of information provided by ChatGPT. Dr. Parasa noted that it’s not standard. However, a person can prompt ChatGPT to provide an answer either at an eighth-grade reading level or for a well-trained physician.
Dr. Sharma offered a final warning: The technology learns over time.
“It knows what your habits are. It will learn what you’re doing,” Dr. Sharma said. “Everything else on your browsers that are open, it’s learning from that also. So be careful what websites you visit before you go to ChatGPT.”
Dr. Sharma is a stock shareholder in Microsoft. Dr. Parasa and Dr. Gralneck reported no relevant financial relationships.
DDW is sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
CHICAGO – , so like them or not, physicians might as well figure out how to optimize their role in medicine and health care. That’s the takeaway from a three-expert panel session about the technology held at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).
The chatbot can help doctors to a certain extent by suggesting differential diagnoses, assisting with clinical note-taking, and producing rapid and easy-to-understand patient communication and educational materials, they noted. However, it can also make mistakes. And, unlike a medical trainee who might give a clinical answer and express some doubt, ChatGPT (Open AI/Microsoft) clearly states its findings as fact, even when it’s wrong.
Known as “hallucinating,” this problem of AI inaccuracy was displayed at the packed DDW session.
When asked when Leonardo da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa, for example, ChatGPT replied 1815. That’s off by about 300 years; the masterpiece was created sometime between 1503 and 1519. Asked for a fact about George Washington, ChatGPT said he invented the cotton gin. Also not true. (Eli Whitney patented the cotton gin.)
In an example more suited for gastroenterologists at DDW, ChatGPT correctly stated that Barrett esophagus can lead to adenocarcinoma of the esophagus in some cases. However, the technology also said that the condition could lead to prostate cancer.
So, if someone asked ChatGPT for a list of possible risks for Barrett’s esophagus, it would include prostate cancer. A person without medical knowledge “could take it at face value that it causes prostate cancer,” said panelist Sravanthi Parasa, MD, a gastroenterologist at Swedish Medical Center, Seattle.
“That is a lot of misinformation that is going to come our way,” she added at the session, which was sponsored by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.
The potential for inaccuracy is a downside to ChatGPT, agreed panelist Prateek Sharma, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City, Kansas.
“There is no quality control. You have to double check its answers,” said Dr. Sharma, who is president-elect of ASGE.
ChatGPT is not going to replace physicians in general or gastroenterologists doing endoscopies, said Ian Gralnek, MD, chief of the Institute of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Emek Medical Center in Afula, Israel.
Even though the tool could play a role in medicine, “we need to be very careful as a society going forward ... and see where things are going,” Dr. Gralnek said.
How you ask makes a difference
Future iterations of ChatGPT are likely to produce fewer hallucinations, the experts said. In the meantime, users can lower the risk by paying attention to how they’re wording their queries, a practice known as “prompt engineering.”
It’s best to ask a question that has a firm answer to it. If you ask a vague question, you’ll likely get a vague answer, Dr. Sharma said.
ChatGPT is a large language model (LLM). GPT stands for “generative pretrained transformer” – specialized algorithms that find long-range patterns in sequences of data. LLMs can predict the next word in a sentence.
“That’s why this is also called generative AI,” Dr. Sharma said. “For example, if you put in ‘Where are we?’, it will predict for you that perhaps the next word is ‘going?’ ”
The current public version is ChatGPT 3.5, which was trained on open-source online information up until early 2022. It can gather information from open-access scientific journals and medical society guidelines, as well as from Twitter, Reddit, and other social media. It does not have access to private information, like electronic health records.
The use of ChatGPT has exploded in the past 6 months, Dr. Sharma said.
“ChatGPT has been the most-searched website or platform ever in history since it was launched in December of 2022,” he said.
What’s in it for doctors?
Although not specifically trained for health care–related tasks, the panelists noted that ChatGPT does have potential as a virtual medical assistant, chatbot, clinical decision-support tool, source of medical education, natural language processor for documentation, or medical note-taker.
ChatGPT can help physicians write a letter of support to a patient who, for example, was just diagnosed with stage IV colon cancer. It can do that in only 15 seconds, whereas it would take us much longer, Dr. Sharma said.
ChatGPT is the “next frontier” for generating patient education materials, Dr. Parasa said. It can help time-constrained health care providers, as long as the information is accurate.
ChatGPT 4.0, now available by subscription, can do “almost real-time note-taking during patient encounters,” she added.
Another reason to be familiar with the technology: “Many of your patients are using it, even if you don’t know about it,” Dr. Sharma said.
Questions abound
A conference attendee asked the panel what to do when a patient comes in with ChatGPT medical advice that does not align with official guidelines.
Dr. Gralnek said that he would explain to patients that medical information based on guidelines are not “black and white.” The panel likened it to how patients come to an appointment now armed with information from the Internet, which is not always correct, that must then be countered by doctors. The same would likely happen with ChatGPT.
Another attendee asked whether ChatGPT eventually will work in accordance with electronic health record systems.
“Open AI and Microsoft are already working with Epic,” Dr. Parasa said.
A question arose about the reading level of information provided by ChatGPT. Dr. Parasa noted that it’s not standard. However, a person can prompt ChatGPT to provide an answer either at an eighth-grade reading level or for a well-trained physician.
Dr. Sharma offered a final warning: The technology learns over time.
“It knows what your habits are. It will learn what you’re doing,” Dr. Sharma said. “Everything else on your browsers that are open, it’s learning from that also. So be careful what websites you visit before you go to ChatGPT.”
Dr. Sharma is a stock shareholder in Microsoft. Dr. Parasa and Dr. Gralneck reported no relevant financial relationships.
DDW is sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
AT DDW 2023
A 63-year-old male presented for evaluation of worsening genital lesions and associated swelling
.1 Clinically, ENV presents as verrucous, hyperkeratotic, cobblestone-like patches, plaques, and nodules with associated nonpitting edema of the affected body area.1 Secondary bacterial infections are common and often worsen the clinical course. The etiology of ENV involves chronic lymphatic obstruction and venous insufficiency, with additional risk factors including obesity, chronic lymphedema, bacterial infection, surgery or trauma, neoplasia, radiation, congestive heart failure, or scleroderma.2,3 While most commonly presenting on the lower extremities, cases have been reported involving the abdomen, sacrum, ears, buttocks, and penoscrotal area.1,2
Regardless of location, the pathogenesis of ENV remains the same. Chronic lymphatic obstruction results in accumulation and lymphostasis of protein-rich dermal fluid, which subsequently precipitates fibroblast proliferation and activation, suppression of the local immune response and development of recurrent lymphangitis, chronic inflammation, and potential secondary bacterial infection.2,4
There is no standard of care for the treatment and management of ENV and recurrence is common. Interventions often involve those used for chronic lymphedema – including leg elevation, compression stockings or devices, skin hygiene, and lymphatic pumping.2,3 Medical management with topical and oral retinoids has been reported, as well as emphasis on weight loss and infection control.1,4 Surgical intervention is often reserved for refractory cases that fail to respond to more conservative management, or severe presentations resulting in extensive functional and aesthetic impairment. Less commonly reported treatment modalities include lymphaticovenular anastomosis and ablative carbon dioxide laser use, although this latter intervention demonstrated minimal improvement in this patient.5,6
Penoscrotal ENV is a rare form of ENV affecting the genital region of males, often resulting in significant disfigurement, functional impairment, and psychosocial distress. Penoscrotal elephantiasis can be idiopathic, due to filarial infections, scleroinflammatory stricture of the urethra, Chlamydia trachomatis infection, and lymphostasis secondary to chronic inflammatory conditions such as streptococcal infections, radiotherapy, surgery, chronic venous stasis, or Kaposi sarcoma.7
In addition, hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) has been documented multiple times in the literature in association with the development of ENV, detailing lymphatic scarring secondary to chronic inguinal HS as the main pathogenic factor.8,9
Surgery is the mainstay of treatment for penoscrotal ENV, which not only improves functionality and cosmesis, but also aids in prevention of rare malignant sequelae, such as lymphangiosarcoma.10 Such interventions can involve lymphangioplasty to aid in lymphatic drainage or excision of the mass and subcutaneous tissue with full-thickness skin grafting for reconstruction.7 Collaboration between urology, plastic surgery, and dermatology is often essential to obtain adequate care with satisfactory outcomes and minimal recurrence for patients with this uncommon condition.
This case and photo were submitted by Marlee Hill, a medical student at the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City; and Michael Franzetti, MD, and Jeffrey McBride, MD, department of dermatology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center. The column was edited by Donna Bilu Martin, MD.
Dr. Donna Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to dermnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Hadian Y et al. Dermatol Online J. 2019 Dec 15;25(12):13030/qt6rn1s8ff.
2. Judge N and Kilic A. J Dermatol Case Rep. 2016 Nov 13;10(2):32-4.
3. Dean SM et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011 Jun;64(6):1104-10.
4. Sisto K and Khachemoune A. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2008;9(3):141-6.
5. Motegi S et al. Dermatology. 2007;215(2):147-51.
6. Robinson CG et al. J Cutan Med Surg. 2018;22(6):611-3.
7. Koualla S et al. Ann Chir Plast Esthet. 2023 Apr 10;S0294-1260(23)00035-3.
8. Lelonek E et al. Acta Derm Venereol. 2021 Feb 11;101(2):adv00389.
9. Good LM et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011 May;64(5):993-4.
10. Cerri A et al. Eur J Dermatol. 1998 Oct-Nov;8(7):511-4.
.1 Clinically, ENV presents as verrucous, hyperkeratotic, cobblestone-like patches, plaques, and nodules with associated nonpitting edema of the affected body area.1 Secondary bacterial infections are common and often worsen the clinical course. The etiology of ENV involves chronic lymphatic obstruction and venous insufficiency, with additional risk factors including obesity, chronic lymphedema, bacterial infection, surgery or trauma, neoplasia, radiation, congestive heart failure, or scleroderma.2,3 While most commonly presenting on the lower extremities, cases have been reported involving the abdomen, sacrum, ears, buttocks, and penoscrotal area.1,2
Regardless of location, the pathogenesis of ENV remains the same. Chronic lymphatic obstruction results in accumulation and lymphostasis of protein-rich dermal fluid, which subsequently precipitates fibroblast proliferation and activation, suppression of the local immune response and development of recurrent lymphangitis, chronic inflammation, and potential secondary bacterial infection.2,4
There is no standard of care for the treatment and management of ENV and recurrence is common. Interventions often involve those used for chronic lymphedema – including leg elevation, compression stockings or devices, skin hygiene, and lymphatic pumping.2,3 Medical management with topical and oral retinoids has been reported, as well as emphasis on weight loss and infection control.1,4 Surgical intervention is often reserved for refractory cases that fail to respond to more conservative management, or severe presentations resulting in extensive functional and aesthetic impairment. Less commonly reported treatment modalities include lymphaticovenular anastomosis and ablative carbon dioxide laser use, although this latter intervention demonstrated minimal improvement in this patient.5,6
Penoscrotal ENV is a rare form of ENV affecting the genital region of males, often resulting in significant disfigurement, functional impairment, and psychosocial distress. Penoscrotal elephantiasis can be idiopathic, due to filarial infections, scleroinflammatory stricture of the urethra, Chlamydia trachomatis infection, and lymphostasis secondary to chronic inflammatory conditions such as streptococcal infections, radiotherapy, surgery, chronic venous stasis, or Kaposi sarcoma.7
In addition, hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) has been documented multiple times in the literature in association with the development of ENV, detailing lymphatic scarring secondary to chronic inguinal HS as the main pathogenic factor.8,9
Surgery is the mainstay of treatment for penoscrotal ENV, which not only improves functionality and cosmesis, but also aids in prevention of rare malignant sequelae, such as lymphangiosarcoma.10 Such interventions can involve lymphangioplasty to aid in lymphatic drainage or excision of the mass and subcutaneous tissue with full-thickness skin grafting for reconstruction.7 Collaboration between urology, plastic surgery, and dermatology is often essential to obtain adequate care with satisfactory outcomes and minimal recurrence for patients with this uncommon condition.
This case and photo were submitted by Marlee Hill, a medical student at the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City; and Michael Franzetti, MD, and Jeffrey McBride, MD, department of dermatology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center. The column was edited by Donna Bilu Martin, MD.
Dr. Donna Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to dermnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Hadian Y et al. Dermatol Online J. 2019 Dec 15;25(12):13030/qt6rn1s8ff.
2. Judge N and Kilic A. J Dermatol Case Rep. 2016 Nov 13;10(2):32-4.
3. Dean SM et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011 Jun;64(6):1104-10.
4. Sisto K and Khachemoune A. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2008;9(3):141-6.
5. Motegi S et al. Dermatology. 2007;215(2):147-51.
6. Robinson CG et al. J Cutan Med Surg. 2018;22(6):611-3.
7. Koualla S et al. Ann Chir Plast Esthet. 2023 Apr 10;S0294-1260(23)00035-3.
8. Lelonek E et al. Acta Derm Venereol. 2021 Feb 11;101(2):adv00389.
9. Good LM et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011 May;64(5):993-4.
10. Cerri A et al. Eur J Dermatol. 1998 Oct-Nov;8(7):511-4.
.1 Clinically, ENV presents as verrucous, hyperkeratotic, cobblestone-like patches, plaques, and nodules with associated nonpitting edema of the affected body area.1 Secondary bacterial infections are common and often worsen the clinical course. The etiology of ENV involves chronic lymphatic obstruction and venous insufficiency, with additional risk factors including obesity, chronic lymphedema, bacterial infection, surgery or trauma, neoplasia, radiation, congestive heart failure, or scleroderma.2,3 While most commonly presenting on the lower extremities, cases have been reported involving the abdomen, sacrum, ears, buttocks, and penoscrotal area.1,2
Regardless of location, the pathogenesis of ENV remains the same. Chronic lymphatic obstruction results in accumulation and lymphostasis of protein-rich dermal fluid, which subsequently precipitates fibroblast proliferation and activation, suppression of the local immune response and development of recurrent lymphangitis, chronic inflammation, and potential secondary bacterial infection.2,4
There is no standard of care for the treatment and management of ENV and recurrence is common. Interventions often involve those used for chronic lymphedema – including leg elevation, compression stockings or devices, skin hygiene, and lymphatic pumping.2,3 Medical management with topical and oral retinoids has been reported, as well as emphasis on weight loss and infection control.1,4 Surgical intervention is often reserved for refractory cases that fail to respond to more conservative management, or severe presentations resulting in extensive functional and aesthetic impairment. Less commonly reported treatment modalities include lymphaticovenular anastomosis and ablative carbon dioxide laser use, although this latter intervention demonstrated minimal improvement in this patient.5,6
Penoscrotal ENV is a rare form of ENV affecting the genital region of males, often resulting in significant disfigurement, functional impairment, and psychosocial distress. Penoscrotal elephantiasis can be idiopathic, due to filarial infections, scleroinflammatory stricture of the urethra, Chlamydia trachomatis infection, and lymphostasis secondary to chronic inflammatory conditions such as streptococcal infections, radiotherapy, surgery, chronic venous stasis, or Kaposi sarcoma.7
In addition, hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) has been documented multiple times in the literature in association with the development of ENV, detailing lymphatic scarring secondary to chronic inguinal HS as the main pathogenic factor.8,9
Surgery is the mainstay of treatment for penoscrotal ENV, which not only improves functionality and cosmesis, but also aids in prevention of rare malignant sequelae, such as lymphangiosarcoma.10 Such interventions can involve lymphangioplasty to aid in lymphatic drainage or excision of the mass and subcutaneous tissue with full-thickness skin grafting for reconstruction.7 Collaboration between urology, plastic surgery, and dermatology is often essential to obtain adequate care with satisfactory outcomes and minimal recurrence for patients with this uncommon condition.
This case and photo were submitted by Marlee Hill, a medical student at the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City; and Michael Franzetti, MD, and Jeffrey McBride, MD, department of dermatology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center. The column was edited by Donna Bilu Martin, MD.
Dr. Donna Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to dermnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Hadian Y et al. Dermatol Online J. 2019 Dec 15;25(12):13030/qt6rn1s8ff.
2. Judge N and Kilic A. J Dermatol Case Rep. 2016 Nov 13;10(2):32-4.
3. Dean SM et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011 Jun;64(6):1104-10.
4. Sisto K and Khachemoune A. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2008;9(3):141-6.
5. Motegi S et al. Dermatology. 2007;215(2):147-51.
6. Robinson CG et al. J Cutan Med Surg. 2018;22(6):611-3.
7. Koualla S et al. Ann Chir Plast Esthet. 2023 Apr 10;S0294-1260(23)00035-3.
8. Lelonek E et al. Acta Derm Venereol. 2021 Feb 11;101(2):adv00389.
9. Good LM et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011 May;64(5):993-4.
10. Cerri A et al. Eur J Dermatol. 1998 Oct-Nov;8(7):511-4.
PV: Novel rusfertide shows ‘impressive’ efficacy
“The results are surprisingly positive,” said senior author Ronald Hoffman, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, in discussing the late-breaking research at a press briefing during the European Hematology Association Hybrid Congress 2023.
“Importantly, the study met all of its efficacy endpoints, including the proportion of responders, absence of phlebotomy eligibility, and hematocrit control,” Dr. Hoffman said.
PV, a relatively common clonal myeloproliferative neoplasm, is characterized by uncontrolled erythrocytosis, or excessive production of red blood cells, increasing the risk for serious complications such as thromboembolic and cardiovascular events – the most common causes of morbidity and mortality in this blood cancer.
To treat PV, the maintenance of hematocrit levels at below 45% is critical. However, the current standard of care, therapeutic phlebotomy, with or without cytoreductive agents, falls short in maintaining those lower levels in the majority of patients, Dr. Hoffman explained.
To improve responses, rusfertide was developed as a novel, synthetic form of hepcidin, a peptide hormone that is produced by the liver and functions to maintain iron homeostasis and control the formation of red blood cells.
“This is somewhat of a paradigm shift,” said Dr. Hoffman in the press briefing. “We’re trying to use a hormone made by the liver to control excessive red blood cell production from polycythemia vera.”
For the phase 2 REVIVE study evaluating rusfertide in PV, the authors enrolled 53 patients with PV who had a high phlebotomy burden while receiving the current standard of care. The study’s criteria called for patients to have received at least three therapeutic phlebotomies in the 28 weeks prior to enrollment, with or without concurrent cytoreductive agents.
During a first part of the study, patients received subcutaneous rusfertide once weekly over 28 weeks, during which period the dose was adjusted individually to achieve control of HCT levels below 45%.
The second part was a withdrawal phase extending from weeks 29 to 41, in which patients were randomized in a blinded fashion to either continue on rusfertide (n = 26) or receive a placebo (n = 27).
The patients had a median age of 58; they were 71.7% male, and 54.7% had previously been treated with therapeutic phlebotomy alone while 45.3% received therapeutic phlebotomy plus cytoreductive agents.
Patients were considered to be responders if they met three criteria, including having HCT control without phlebotomy eligibility, no therapeutic phlebotomy, and having completed 12 weeks of treatment.
At the end of the second phase, 69.2% of patients receiving rusfertide were responders versus just 18.5% in the placebo group (P = .0003).
Notably, the improvement with rusfertide was observed among those receiving therapeutic phlebotomy alone, as well as with cytoreductive agents (both P = .02).
Compared with placebo, rusfertide provided significant improvement in measures including the maintenance of response, the absence of the need for therapeutic phlebotomy, and persistent HCT control (P < .0001 for all).
Whereas the phlebotomy-free rate with rusfertide during the dose-finding weeks of 1-17 was 76.9% and in weeks 17-29, 87.3%, the rate increased in part 2 of the study to 92.3%.
Additional symptom benefits reported with rusfertide at week 29 versus baseline in part 1 of the study included significant improvements in concentration (P = .0018), itching (P = .0054), fatigue (P = .0074), and inactivity (P = .0005).
In terms of safety, rusfertide was generally well tolerated, with 83% of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) being grade 1-2, while 17% were grade 3, and none were grade 4 or 5.
The most common TEAEs consisted of injection-site reactions, which were localized, and grade 1-2 in severity. The incidence of reactions decreased with ongoing treatment. There were only two discontinuations resulting from TEAEs.
Among a total of 70 patients who were enrolled, 52 (74.3%) have continued to receive rusfertide for at least 1 year, 32 (45.7%) for at least 1.5 years, and 10 (14.3%) for at least 2 years, indicating the long-term tolerability of rusfertide.
Further commenting, first author Marina Kremyanskaya, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of medicine, hematology, and medical oncology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, added that a key benefit is rusfertide’s tolerability with combination therapies, which is important in enabling the avoidance of phlebotomies.
“Many patients on cytoreductive therapies still require phlebotomies, and they can’t tolerate a dose increase, either due to cytopenias or other adverse reactions,” she said in an interview. “So adding rusfertide allows for better control of their hematocrits on a lower dose of their respective cytoreductive drug.”
“The combination treatment thus allows for elimination of phlebotomy requirements and potentially improves their symptoms,” Dr. Kremyanskaya said, adding that “using a lower dose of cytoreductive drug such as interferon or hydroxyurea could offer a symptomatic relief to patients as well.”
Overall, she agreed that the responses are remarkably positive.
“I think this is what is so impressive about this agent – basically everybody responds,” Dr. Kremyanskaya said. “When we first started treating patients, we were so impressed, as none of the other drugs we use to treat PV, or any other hematologic malignancy, come anywhere close to this response rate.”
In commenting on the study, Claire Harrison, MD, a professor of myeloproliferative neoplasms and deputy medical director of research at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust in London, agreed that “these data show a strong signal for effectiveness of this therapy in controlling red cell proliferation in PV without inducing iron deficiency and adding to the symptom burden of patients.”
The alternative of phlebotomy “is painful and consumes patient time and hospital resources,” she said in an interview.
Dr. Harrison noted that an earlier signal suggested squamous cell cancer might be of potential concern, but the signal “has not re-emerged [suggesting] this does indeed seem to be a safe and extremely effective therapy.”
Further commenting on the study during the press briefing, Konstanze Döhner, MD, of the University of Ulm (Germany) added that “this is exciting data.”
“For a long time, we had no therapeutic options for PV, and now the field is rapidly developing,” she said.
In ongoing research, rusfertide is currently being studied in the phase 3, placebo-controlled VERIFY randomized trial.
The study was sponsored by Protagonist Therapeutics. Dr. Hoffman reports being on the advisory board for Protagonist Therapeutics, and Dr. Kremyanskaya is a consultant for Protagonist Therapeutics. Dr. Harrison had no disclosures to report.
“The results are surprisingly positive,” said senior author Ronald Hoffman, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, in discussing the late-breaking research at a press briefing during the European Hematology Association Hybrid Congress 2023.
“Importantly, the study met all of its efficacy endpoints, including the proportion of responders, absence of phlebotomy eligibility, and hematocrit control,” Dr. Hoffman said.
PV, a relatively common clonal myeloproliferative neoplasm, is characterized by uncontrolled erythrocytosis, or excessive production of red blood cells, increasing the risk for serious complications such as thromboembolic and cardiovascular events – the most common causes of morbidity and mortality in this blood cancer.
To treat PV, the maintenance of hematocrit levels at below 45% is critical. However, the current standard of care, therapeutic phlebotomy, with or without cytoreductive agents, falls short in maintaining those lower levels in the majority of patients, Dr. Hoffman explained.
To improve responses, rusfertide was developed as a novel, synthetic form of hepcidin, a peptide hormone that is produced by the liver and functions to maintain iron homeostasis and control the formation of red blood cells.
“This is somewhat of a paradigm shift,” said Dr. Hoffman in the press briefing. “We’re trying to use a hormone made by the liver to control excessive red blood cell production from polycythemia vera.”
For the phase 2 REVIVE study evaluating rusfertide in PV, the authors enrolled 53 patients with PV who had a high phlebotomy burden while receiving the current standard of care. The study’s criteria called for patients to have received at least three therapeutic phlebotomies in the 28 weeks prior to enrollment, with or without concurrent cytoreductive agents.
During a first part of the study, patients received subcutaneous rusfertide once weekly over 28 weeks, during which period the dose was adjusted individually to achieve control of HCT levels below 45%.
The second part was a withdrawal phase extending from weeks 29 to 41, in which patients were randomized in a blinded fashion to either continue on rusfertide (n = 26) or receive a placebo (n = 27).
The patients had a median age of 58; they were 71.7% male, and 54.7% had previously been treated with therapeutic phlebotomy alone while 45.3% received therapeutic phlebotomy plus cytoreductive agents.
Patients were considered to be responders if they met three criteria, including having HCT control without phlebotomy eligibility, no therapeutic phlebotomy, and having completed 12 weeks of treatment.
At the end of the second phase, 69.2% of patients receiving rusfertide were responders versus just 18.5% in the placebo group (P = .0003).
Notably, the improvement with rusfertide was observed among those receiving therapeutic phlebotomy alone, as well as with cytoreductive agents (both P = .02).
Compared with placebo, rusfertide provided significant improvement in measures including the maintenance of response, the absence of the need for therapeutic phlebotomy, and persistent HCT control (P < .0001 for all).
Whereas the phlebotomy-free rate with rusfertide during the dose-finding weeks of 1-17 was 76.9% and in weeks 17-29, 87.3%, the rate increased in part 2 of the study to 92.3%.
Additional symptom benefits reported with rusfertide at week 29 versus baseline in part 1 of the study included significant improvements in concentration (P = .0018), itching (P = .0054), fatigue (P = .0074), and inactivity (P = .0005).
In terms of safety, rusfertide was generally well tolerated, with 83% of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) being grade 1-2, while 17% were grade 3, and none were grade 4 or 5.
The most common TEAEs consisted of injection-site reactions, which were localized, and grade 1-2 in severity. The incidence of reactions decreased with ongoing treatment. There were only two discontinuations resulting from TEAEs.
Among a total of 70 patients who were enrolled, 52 (74.3%) have continued to receive rusfertide for at least 1 year, 32 (45.7%) for at least 1.5 years, and 10 (14.3%) for at least 2 years, indicating the long-term tolerability of rusfertide.
Further commenting, first author Marina Kremyanskaya, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of medicine, hematology, and medical oncology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, added that a key benefit is rusfertide’s tolerability with combination therapies, which is important in enabling the avoidance of phlebotomies.
“Many patients on cytoreductive therapies still require phlebotomies, and they can’t tolerate a dose increase, either due to cytopenias or other adverse reactions,” she said in an interview. “So adding rusfertide allows for better control of their hematocrits on a lower dose of their respective cytoreductive drug.”
“The combination treatment thus allows for elimination of phlebotomy requirements and potentially improves their symptoms,” Dr. Kremyanskaya said, adding that “using a lower dose of cytoreductive drug such as interferon or hydroxyurea could offer a symptomatic relief to patients as well.”
Overall, she agreed that the responses are remarkably positive.
“I think this is what is so impressive about this agent – basically everybody responds,” Dr. Kremyanskaya said. “When we first started treating patients, we were so impressed, as none of the other drugs we use to treat PV, or any other hematologic malignancy, come anywhere close to this response rate.”
In commenting on the study, Claire Harrison, MD, a professor of myeloproliferative neoplasms and deputy medical director of research at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust in London, agreed that “these data show a strong signal for effectiveness of this therapy in controlling red cell proliferation in PV without inducing iron deficiency and adding to the symptom burden of patients.”
The alternative of phlebotomy “is painful and consumes patient time and hospital resources,” she said in an interview.
Dr. Harrison noted that an earlier signal suggested squamous cell cancer might be of potential concern, but the signal “has not re-emerged [suggesting] this does indeed seem to be a safe and extremely effective therapy.”
Further commenting on the study during the press briefing, Konstanze Döhner, MD, of the University of Ulm (Germany) added that “this is exciting data.”
“For a long time, we had no therapeutic options for PV, and now the field is rapidly developing,” she said.
In ongoing research, rusfertide is currently being studied in the phase 3, placebo-controlled VERIFY randomized trial.
The study was sponsored by Protagonist Therapeutics. Dr. Hoffman reports being on the advisory board for Protagonist Therapeutics, and Dr. Kremyanskaya is a consultant for Protagonist Therapeutics. Dr. Harrison had no disclosures to report.
“The results are surprisingly positive,” said senior author Ronald Hoffman, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, in discussing the late-breaking research at a press briefing during the European Hematology Association Hybrid Congress 2023.
“Importantly, the study met all of its efficacy endpoints, including the proportion of responders, absence of phlebotomy eligibility, and hematocrit control,” Dr. Hoffman said.
PV, a relatively common clonal myeloproliferative neoplasm, is characterized by uncontrolled erythrocytosis, or excessive production of red blood cells, increasing the risk for serious complications such as thromboembolic and cardiovascular events – the most common causes of morbidity and mortality in this blood cancer.
To treat PV, the maintenance of hematocrit levels at below 45% is critical. However, the current standard of care, therapeutic phlebotomy, with or without cytoreductive agents, falls short in maintaining those lower levels in the majority of patients, Dr. Hoffman explained.
To improve responses, rusfertide was developed as a novel, synthetic form of hepcidin, a peptide hormone that is produced by the liver and functions to maintain iron homeostasis and control the formation of red blood cells.
“This is somewhat of a paradigm shift,” said Dr. Hoffman in the press briefing. “We’re trying to use a hormone made by the liver to control excessive red blood cell production from polycythemia vera.”
For the phase 2 REVIVE study evaluating rusfertide in PV, the authors enrolled 53 patients with PV who had a high phlebotomy burden while receiving the current standard of care. The study’s criteria called for patients to have received at least three therapeutic phlebotomies in the 28 weeks prior to enrollment, with or without concurrent cytoreductive agents.
During a first part of the study, patients received subcutaneous rusfertide once weekly over 28 weeks, during which period the dose was adjusted individually to achieve control of HCT levels below 45%.
The second part was a withdrawal phase extending from weeks 29 to 41, in which patients were randomized in a blinded fashion to either continue on rusfertide (n = 26) or receive a placebo (n = 27).
The patients had a median age of 58; they were 71.7% male, and 54.7% had previously been treated with therapeutic phlebotomy alone while 45.3% received therapeutic phlebotomy plus cytoreductive agents.
Patients were considered to be responders if they met three criteria, including having HCT control without phlebotomy eligibility, no therapeutic phlebotomy, and having completed 12 weeks of treatment.
At the end of the second phase, 69.2% of patients receiving rusfertide were responders versus just 18.5% in the placebo group (P = .0003).
Notably, the improvement with rusfertide was observed among those receiving therapeutic phlebotomy alone, as well as with cytoreductive agents (both P = .02).
Compared with placebo, rusfertide provided significant improvement in measures including the maintenance of response, the absence of the need for therapeutic phlebotomy, and persistent HCT control (P < .0001 for all).
Whereas the phlebotomy-free rate with rusfertide during the dose-finding weeks of 1-17 was 76.9% and in weeks 17-29, 87.3%, the rate increased in part 2 of the study to 92.3%.
Additional symptom benefits reported with rusfertide at week 29 versus baseline in part 1 of the study included significant improvements in concentration (P = .0018), itching (P = .0054), fatigue (P = .0074), and inactivity (P = .0005).
In terms of safety, rusfertide was generally well tolerated, with 83% of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) being grade 1-2, while 17% were grade 3, and none were grade 4 or 5.
The most common TEAEs consisted of injection-site reactions, which were localized, and grade 1-2 in severity. The incidence of reactions decreased with ongoing treatment. There were only two discontinuations resulting from TEAEs.
Among a total of 70 patients who were enrolled, 52 (74.3%) have continued to receive rusfertide for at least 1 year, 32 (45.7%) for at least 1.5 years, and 10 (14.3%) for at least 2 years, indicating the long-term tolerability of rusfertide.
Further commenting, first author Marina Kremyanskaya, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of medicine, hematology, and medical oncology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, added that a key benefit is rusfertide’s tolerability with combination therapies, which is important in enabling the avoidance of phlebotomies.
“Many patients on cytoreductive therapies still require phlebotomies, and they can’t tolerate a dose increase, either due to cytopenias or other adverse reactions,” she said in an interview. “So adding rusfertide allows for better control of their hematocrits on a lower dose of their respective cytoreductive drug.”
“The combination treatment thus allows for elimination of phlebotomy requirements and potentially improves their symptoms,” Dr. Kremyanskaya said, adding that “using a lower dose of cytoreductive drug such as interferon or hydroxyurea could offer a symptomatic relief to patients as well.”
Overall, she agreed that the responses are remarkably positive.
“I think this is what is so impressive about this agent – basically everybody responds,” Dr. Kremyanskaya said. “When we first started treating patients, we were so impressed, as none of the other drugs we use to treat PV, or any other hematologic malignancy, come anywhere close to this response rate.”
In commenting on the study, Claire Harrison, MD, a professor of myeloproliferative neoplasms and deputy medical director of research at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust in London, agreed that “these data show a strong signal for effectiveness of this therapy in controlling red cell proliferation in PV without inducing iron deficiency and adding to the symptom burden of patients.”
The alternative of phlebotomy “is painful and consumes patient time and hospital resources,” she said in an interview.
Dr. Harrison noted that an earlier signal suggested squamous cell cancer might be of potential concern, but the signal “has not re-emerged [suggesting] this does indeed seem to be a safe and extremely effective therapy.”
Further commenting on the study during the press briefing, Konstanze Döhner, MD, of the University of Ulm (Germany) added that “this is exciting data.”
“For a long time, we had no therapeutic options for PV, and now the field is rapidly developing,” she said.
In ongoing research, rusfertide is currently being studied in the phase 3, placebo-controlled VERIFY randomized trial.
The study was sponsored by Protagonist Therapeutics. Dr. Hoffman reports being on the advisory board for Protagonist Therapeutics, and Dr. Kremyanskaya is a consultant for Protagonist Therapeutics. Dr. Harrison had no disclosures to report.
FROM EHA 2023
FDA warns of tattoo ink tied to dangerous infections
The Food and Drug Administration draft guidance released recently on possible contamination of tattoo ink was not concerning Whitney Donohue, 34, owner of Forget Me Not Tattoo in Billings, Mont.
“I get our ink directly through the manufacturer – not at a store or through Amazon or eBay,” she said. “You never know if it’s going to be repackaged.”
Tattoo artists themselves, she said, regulate the quality of ink they use.
Still, the threat is real, said Bruce Brod, MD, a clinical professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania Health System. “I’ve seen several different infections from tattooing, and they are from organisms that tend to contaminate things in damp, liquid-type environments.”
, dermatologists said.
“Tattooing involves puncturing the epidermis about 100 times per second with needles and depositing ink 1.5 to 2 millimeters below the surface of the skin, deep into the dermis,” the guidance states. “Contaminated tattoo ink can cause infections and serious injuries. Because these inks are injected, pathogens or other harmful substances in these inks can travel from the injection site through the blood and lymphatic systems to other parts of the body.”
The guidance comes as body art continues to get more popular. According to a 2019 poll, 30% of Americans had at least one tattoo – up from 21% in 2012. Forty percent of people 18-34 and 36% of those ages 35-54 had at least one tattoo. And though they are commonplace, tattoos come with medical risks that should be known beforehand, doctors said.
Commonly reported symptoms of tattoo ink–associated infections include rashes, blisters, painful nodules, and severe abscesses. One of the most common bacteria found in contaminated tattoo ink is nontuberculous mycobacteria, which is related to the bacteria that causes tuberculosis and can be found in soil and water.
The guidance lists several unsanitary manufacturing conditions that may lead to ink contamination, including:
- Preparing or packing of tattoo inks in facilities that are hard to sanitize, such as carpeted areas
- Ink or ink components left uncovered, especially near open air ducts
- Unsanitary mixing of tattoo inks, including with unclean utensils or containers
- Lack of appropriate attire by staff, failure to use hairnets, lab coats, aprons, gowns, masks, or gloves
“Infections will often spread along the drainage channels in the skin and create squiggly, uneven lines of big red, lumpy nodules,” Dr. Brod said.
Between 2003 and 2023, there were 18 recalls of tattoo inks that were contaminated with various microorganisms, according to the FDA. In May 2019, the FDA issued a safety alert advising consumers, tattoo artists, and retailers to avoid using or selling certain tattoo inks contaminated with microorganisms.
Reputable ink manufacturers use a process called gamma radiation, which refers to electromagnetic radiation of high frequencies to kill microorganisms in the ink and its packaging.
Most of the trustworthy, high-quality ink manufacturers are well-known among tattoo artists, Ms. Donohue said.
While she has seen customers with sensitive skin have allergic reactions, she has not seen someone come back with an infection in her 9 years working in the tattoo industry.
Because tattoo ink is considered a cosmetic product, there is not much regulatory oversight involved, which means the sterility and quality of ingredients vary, said Teo Soleymani, MD, an assistant clinical professor of dermatology and dermatological surgery at the UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine.
“Cosmeceuticals aren’t regulated by the FDA like prescription medication,” he said. “What we’ve seen many times is inadvertent contamination during the application process or contamination while the inks are being made.”
In years past, unclean needles spreading hepatitis and HIV were more of a concern, but those rates have dropped significantly, Dr. Soleymani said.
The infections that have increased are from rare bacteria that exist in stagnant water. And they are injected into a part of the body that allows them to evade the immune system, he said: shallow enough that there aren’t many associated blood vessels, but not still below the layer of skin that gets sloughed off every 28 days.
Sometimes, antibiotics alone won’t cut it, and the tattoo will require surgical removal.
“The aesthetic you were going for has to be not only removed, but you’re left with a surgical scar,” Dr. Soleymani said. “Tattoos can be beautiful, but they can come with unwanted visitors that can cause months of misery.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The Food and Drug Administration draft guidance released recently on possible contamination of tattoo ink was not concerning Whitney Donohue, 34, owner of Forget Me Not Tattoo in Billings, Mont.
“I get our ink directly through the manufacturer – not at a store or through Amazon or eBay,” she said. “You never know if it’s going to be repackaged.”
Tattoo artists themselves, she said, regulate the quality of ink they use.
Still, the threat is real, said Bruce Brod, MD, a clinical professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania Health System. “I’ve seen several different infections from tattooing, and they are from organisms that tend to contaminate things in damp, liquid-type environments.”
, dermatologists said.
“Tattooing involves puncturing the epidermis about 100 times per second with needles and depositing ink 1.5 to 2 millimeters below the surface of the skin, deep into the dermis,” the guidance states. “Contaminated tattoo ink can cause infections and serious injuries. Because these inks are injected, pathogens or other harmful substances in these inks can travel from the injection site through the blood and lymphatic systems to other parts of the body.”
The guidance comes as body art continues to get more popular. According to a 2019 poll, 30% of Americans had at least one tattoo – up from 21% in 2012. Forty percent of people 18-34 and 36% of those ages 35-54 had at least one tattoo. And though they are commonplace, tattoos come with medical risks that should be known beforehand, doctors said.
Commonly reported symptoms of tattoo ink–associated infections include rashes, blisters, painful nodules, and severe abscesses. One of the most common bacteria found in contaminated tattoo ink is nontuberculous mycobacteria, which is related to the bacteria that causes tuberculosis and can be found in soil and water.
The guidance lists several unsanitary manufacturing conditions that may lead to ink contamination, including:
- Preparing or packing of tattoo inks in facilities that are hard to sanitize, such as carpeted areas
- Ink or ink components left uncovered, especially near open air ducts
- Unsanitary mixing of tattoo inks, including with unclean utensils or containers
- Lack of appropriate attire by staff, failure to use hairnets, lab coats, aprons, gowns, masks, or gloves
“Infections will often spread along the drainage channels in the skin and create squiggly, uneven lines of big red, lumpy nodules,” Dr. Brod said.
Between 2003 and 2023, there were 18 recalls of tattoo inks that were contaminated with various microorganisms, according to the FDA. In May 2019, the FDA issued a safety alert advising consumers, tattoo artists, and retailers to avoid using or selling certain tattoo inks contaminated with microorganisms.
Reputable ink manufacturers use a process called gamma radiation, which refers to electromagnetic radiation of high frequencies to kill microorganisms in the ink and its packaging.
Most of the trustworthy, high-quality ink manufacturers are well-known among tattoo artists, Ms. Donohue said.
While she has seen customers with sensitive skin have allergic reactions, she has not seen someone come back with an infection in her 9 years working in the tattoo industry.
Because tattoo ink is considered a cosmetic product, there is not much regulatory oversight involved, which means the sterility and quality of ingredients vary, said Teo Soleymani, MD, an assistant clinical professor of dermatology and dermatological surgery at the UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine.
“Cosmeceuticals aren’t regulated by the FDA like prescription medication,” he said. “What we’ve seen many times is inadvertent contamination during the application process or contamination while the inks are being made.”
In years past, unclean needles spreading hepatitis and HIV were more of a concern, but those rates have dropped significantly, Dr. Soleymani said.
The infections that have increased are from rare bacteria that exist in stagnant water. And they are injected into a part of the body that allows them to evade the immune system, he said: shallow enough that there aren’t many associated blood vessels, but not still below the layer of skin that gets sloughed off every 28 days.
Sometimes, antibiotics alone won’t cut it, and the tattoo will require surgical removal.
“The aesthetic you were going for has to be not only removed, but you’re left with a surgical scar,” Dr. Soleymani said. “Tattoos can be beautiful, but they can come with unwanted visitors that can cause months of misery.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The Food and Drug Administration draft guidance released recently on possible contamination of tattoo ink was not concerning Whitney Donohue, 34, owner of Forget Me Not Tattoo in Billings, Mont.
“I get our ink directly through the manufacturer – not at a store or through Amazon or eBay,” she said. “You never know if it’s going to be repackaged.”
Tattoo artists themselves, she said, regulate the quality of ink they use.
Still, the threat is real, said Bruce Brod, MD, a clinical professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania Health System. “I’ve seen several different infections from tattooing, and they are from organisms that tend to contaminate things in damp, liquid-type environments.”
, dermatologists said.
“Tattooing involves puncturing the epidermis about 100 times per second with needles and depositing ink 1.5 to 2 millimeters below the surface of the skin, deep into the dermis,” the guidance states. “Contaminated tattoo ink can cause infections and serious injuries. Because these inks are injected, pathogens or other harmful substances in these inks can travel from the injection site through the blood and lymphatic systems to other parts of the body.”
The guidance comes as body art continues to get more popular. According to a 2019 poll, 30% of Americans had at least one tattoo – up from 21% in 2012. Forty percent of people 18-34 and 36% of those ages 35-54 had at least one tattoo. And though they are commonplace, tattoos come with medical risks that should be known beforehand, doctors said.
Commonly reported symptoms of tattoo ink–associated infections include rashes, blisters, painful nodules, and severe abscesses. One of the most common bacteria found in contaminated tattoo ink is nontuberculous mycobacteria, which is related to the bacteria that causes tuberculosis and can be found in soil and water.
The guidance lists several unsanitary manufacturing conditions that may lead to ink contamination, including:
- Preparing or packing of tattoo inks in facilities that are hard to sanitize, such as carpeted areas
- Ink or ink components left uncovered, especially near open air ducts
- Unsanitary mixing of tattoo inks, including with unclean utensils or containers
- Lack of appropriate attire by staff, failure to use hairnets, lab coats, aprons, gowns, masks, or gloves
“Infections will often spread along the drainage channels in the skin and create squiggly, uneven lines of big red, lumpy nodules,” Dr. Brod said.
Between 2003 and 2023, there were 18 recalls of tattoo inks that were contaminated with various microorganisms, according to the FDA. In May 2019, the FDA issued a safety alert advising consumers, tattoo artists, and retailers to avoid using or selling certain tattoo inks contaminated with microorganisms.
Reputable ink manufacturers use a process called gamma radiation, which refers to electromagnetic radiation of high frequencies to kill microorganisms in the ink and its packaging.
Most of the trustworthy, high-quality ink manufacturers are well-known among tattoo artists, Ms. Donohue said.
While she has seen customers with sensitive skin have allergic reactions, she has not seen someone come back with an infection in her 9 years working in the tattoo industry.
Because tattoo ink is considered a cosmetic product, there is not much regulatory oversight involved, which means the sterility and quality of ingredients vary, said Teo Soleymani, MD, an assistant clinical professor of dermatology and dermatological surgery at the UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine.
“Cosmeceuticals aren’t regulated by the FDA like prescription medication,” he said. “What we’ve seen many times is inadvertent contamination during the application process or contamination while the inks are being made.”
In years past, unclean needles spreading hepatitis and HIV were more of a concern, but those rates have dropped significantly, Dr. Soleymani said.
The infections that have increased are from rare bacteria that exist in stagnant water. And they are injected into a part of the body that allows them to evade the immune system, he said: shallow enough that there aren’t many associated blood vessels, but not still below the layer of skin that gets sloughed off every 28 days.
Sometimes, antibiotics alone won’t cut it, and the tattoo will require surgical removal.
“The aesthetic you were going for has to be not only removed, but you’re left with a surgical scar,” Dr. Soleymani said. “Tattoos can be beautiful, but they can come with unwanted visitors that can cause months of misery.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.