Clinician Reviews

Localized melanoma of the skin is highly curable with surgery, especially when the malignancy is in its early stages. Yet many patients with successfully resected cutaneous melanoma may live in fear of recurrence and feel highly anxious about the prospect that their next skin examination may reveal a new lesion or metastasis.

These findings come from a study of 51 patients who were treated for stage 0 (melanoma in situ) to stage IIA (Breslow thickness 1.01-2.0 mm without lymph node invasion or metastasis) disease, and who were interviewed about their experiences as survivors and their fear of recurrence.

“Consistent themes and subthemes brought up by participants included anxiety associated with follow-up skin examinations, frequent biopsy procedures attributable to screening intensity, fear of the sun, changes in sun exposure behavior, and increasing thoughts about death. Many of these experiences profoundly affected participants’ lives, despite the favorable prognosis for this group,” wrote Ayisha N. Mahama, MD, MPH, from the Dell Medical School at the University of Texas at Austin, and colleagues, in an article published online in JAMA Dermatology.
 

Interviews and Inventory

The investigators sought to characterize the psychological well-being of localized melanoma survivors who were treated in their practice. Participants took part in a semistructured interview and the Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory short form, with a score of 13 or greater indicating potential cases of clinically significant fear of recurrence.

The mean patient age was 48.5 years, and there were twice as many women as men (34 and 17, respectively). In all, 17 of the patients were treated for stage 0 melanoma, and the remainder were treated for stage I-IIA disease.

The interviews and survey revealed four main “themes” among the patients: anxiety surrounding follow-up appointments and relief after a normal examination; concerns about intensity of melanoma surveillance, including anxiety or reassurance about frequent biopsies and worries regarding familial melanoma risk; lifestyle changes related to sun exposure, such as limiting time outdoors, using sunscreen, and wearing protective clothing; and thoughts about life and death.

On the Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory short form, 38 of the 51 participants (75%) had a score of 13 or more points, indicating clinically significant fear of cancer recurrence, and when a higher threshold of 16 or more points were was applied, 34 participants (67%) still met the definition for clinically significant fear of recurrence.
 

Inform, Reassure, Counsel

“Given the crucial role that dermatologists play in diagnosing melanomas, there may be an opportunity to provide reassurance and support for patients to mitigate the psychological consequences of the diagnosis, by emphasizing the excellent life expectancy at a localized stage, particularly at stage 0. In addition, a referral to a mental health practitioner could be placed for patients with higher levels of anxiety and fear of recurrence,” Dr. Mahama and her coauthors wrote.

They also noted that their findings suggest that some individuals who undergo screening for melanoma might experience “psychological harms” from receiving a melanoma diagnosis “particularly given that many or most screening-detected early-stage melanomas will not progress.”

In an interview seeking objective commentary, a surgical oncologist who was not involved in the study said that anxiety about recurrence is common among patients with melanoma, many of whom may be unfamiliar with significant recent advances such as immunotherapy in the care of patients with more advanced disease.

“Often what we will do in addition to just sharing statistics, which are historical and don’t even necessarily reflect how much better we can do for patients now if the melanoma does recur or metastasize, is recommend close surveillance by their dermatologist,” said Sonia Cohen, MD, PhD, from the Mass General Cancer Center in Boston.

“The earlier we capture a recurrence the better we can help the patients. So that’s something we’ll recommend for patients to help give them a sense of control, and that they’re doing everything they can to capture current or new skin cancers,” she said.

Dr. Cohen and colleagues also instruct patients how to look for potential signs of recurrence, such as swollen lymph nodes or suspicious lesions. Patients who express extreme anxiety may also be referred to an oncology social worker or other support services, she said.

Also asked to comment on the results, Allison Dibiaso MSW, LICSW, a social worker at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, who specializes in melanoma, said that she often sees patients who have been successfully treated for early localized malignant melanoma who experience a fear of recurrence. “These patients frequently express feelings of uncertainty and worry, with the fear of another occurrence always on their mind. Managing this fear on a day-to-day basis can be challenging,” she told this news organization.

Moreover, patients with previous treatment for melanoma often experience significant anxiety before skin exams. “Some may feel anxious and worried a few days or weeks before their appointment wondering if something will reoccur and be discovered during the examination,” she said. “While some individuals develop coping skills to manage their anxiety beforehand, many still feel anxious about the possibility of recurrence until after the exam is over and results are confirmed.”

At Dana-Farber, patients with completely resected lesions are provided with individual counseling and have access to support groups specifically designed for patients with melanoma. In addition, a caregiver group is also available for those supporting patients with melanoma, and, “if needed, we provide referrals to therapists in their local community,” Ms. Dibiaso said.

The study was supported by awards/grants to senior author Adewole S. Adamson, MD, MPP from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Dermatology Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and the American Cancer Society. All authors reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Cohen had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. Ms. Dibiaso had no relevant conflicts to disclose.

Localized melanoma of the skin is highly curable with surgery, especially when the malignancy is in its early stages. Yet many patients with successfully resected cutaneous melanoma may live in fear of recurrence and feel highly anxious about the prospect that their next skin examination may reveal a new lesion or metastasis.

These findings come from a study of 51 patients who were treated for stage 0 (melanoma in situ) to stage IIA (Breslow thickness 1.01-2.0 mm without lymph node invasion or metastasis) disease, and who were interviewed about their experiences as survivors and their fear of recurrence.

“Consistent themes and subthemes brought up by participants included anxiety associated with follow-up skin examinations, frequent biopsy procedures attributable to screening intensity, fear of the sun, changes in sun exposure behavior, and increasing thoughts about death. Many of these experiences profoundly affected participants’ lives, despite the favorable prognosis for this group,” wrote Ayisha N. Mahama, MD, MPH, from the Dell Medical School at the University of Texas at Austin, and colleagues, in an article published online in JAMA Dermatology.
 

Interviews and Inventory

The investigators sought to characterize the psychological well-being of localized melanoma survivors who were treated in their practice. Participants took part in a semistructured interview and the Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory short form, with a score of 13 or greater indicating potential cases of clinically significant fear of recurrence.

The mean patient age was 48.5 years, and there were twice as many women as men (34 and 17, respectively). In all, 17 of the patients were treated for stage 0 melanoma, and the remainder were treated for stage I-IIA disease.

The interviews and survey revealed four main “themes” among the patients: anxiety surrounding follow-up appointments and relief after a normal examination; concerns about intensity of melanoma surveillance, including anxiety or reassurance about frequent biopsies and worries regarding familial melanoma risk; lifestyle changes related to sun exposure, such as limiting time outdoors, using sunscreen, and wearing protective clothing; and thoughts about life and death.

On the Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory short form, 38 of the 51 participants (75%) had a score of 13 or more points, indicating clinically significant fear of cancer recurrence, and when a higher threshold of 16 or more points were was applied, 34 participants (67%) still met the definition for clinically significant fear of recurrence.
 

Inform, Reassure, Counsel

“Given the crucial role that dermatologists play in diagnosing melanomas, there may be an opportunity to provide reassurance and support for patients to mitigate the psychological consequences of the diagnosis, by emphasizing the excellent life expectancy at a localized stage, particularly at stage 0. In addition, a referral to a mental health practitioner could be placed for patients with higher levels of anxiety and fear of recurrence,” Dr. Mahama and her coauthors wrote.

They also noted that their findings suggest that some individuals who undergo screening for melanoma might experience “psychological harms” from receiving a melanoma diagnosis “particularly given that many or most screening-detected early-stage melanomas will not progress.”

In an interview seeking objective commentary, a surgical oncologist who was not involved in the study said that anxiety about recurrence is common among patients with melanoma, many of whom may be unfamiliar with significant recent advances such as immunotherapy in the care of patients with more advanced disease.

“Often what we will do in addition to just sharing statistics, which are historical and don’t even necessarily reflect how much better we can do for patients now if the melanoma does recur or metastasize, is recommend close surveillance by their dermatologist,” said Sonia Cohen, MD, PhD, from the Mass General Cancer Center in Boston.

“The earlier we capture a recurrence the better we can help the patients. So that’s something we’ll recommend for patients to help give them a sense of control, and that they’re doing everything they can to capture current or new skin cancers,” she said.

Dr. Cohen and colleagues also instruct patients how to look for potential signs of recurrence, such as swollen lymph nodes or suspicious lesions. Patients who express extreme anxiety may also be referred to an oncology social worker or other support services, she said.

Also asked to comment on the results, Allison Dibiaso MSW, LICSW, a social worker at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, who specializes in melanoma, said that she often sees patients who have been successfully treated for early localized malignant melanoma who experience a fear of recurrence. “These patients frequently express feelings of uncertainty and worry, with the fear of another occurrence always on their mind. Managing this fear on a day-to-day basis can be challenging,” she told this news organization.

Moreover, patients with previous treatment for melanoma often experience significant anxiety before skin exams. “Some may feel anxious and worried a few days or weeks before their appointment wondering if something will reoccur and be discovered during the examination,” she said. “While some individuals develop coping skills to manage their anxiety beforehand, many still feel anxious about the possibility of recurrence until after the exam is over and results are confirmed.”

At Dana-Farber, patients with completely resected lesions are provided with individual counseling and have access to support groups specifically designed for patients with melanoma. In addition, a caregiver group is also available for those supporting patients with melanoma, and, “if needed, we provide referrals to therapists in their local community,” Ms. Dibiaso said.

The study was supported by awards/grants to senior author Adewole S. Adamson, MD, MPP from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Dermatology Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and the American Cancer Society. All authors reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Cohen had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. Ms. Dibiaso had no relevant conflicts to disclose.

Localized melanoma of the skin is highly curable with surgery, especially when the malignancy is in its early stages. Yet many patients with successfully resected cutaneous melanoma may live in fear of recurrence and feel highly anxious about the prospect that their next skin examination may reveal a new lesion or metastasis.

These findings come from a study of 51 patients who were treated for stage 0 (melanoma in situ) to stage IIA (Breslow thickness 1.01-2.0 mm without lymph node invasion or metastasis) disease, and who were interviewed about their experiences as survivors and their fear of recurrence.

“Consistent themes and subthemes brought up by participants included anxiety associated with follow-up skin examinations, frequent biopsy procedures attributable to screening intensity, fear of the sun, changes in sun exposure behavior, and increasing thoughts about death. Many of these experiences profoundly affected participants’ lives, despite the favorable prognosis for this group,” wrote Ayisha N. Mahama, MD, MPH, from the Dell Medical School at the University of Texas at Austin, and colleagues, in an article published online in JAMA Dermatology.
 

Interviews and Inventory

The investigators sought to characterize the psychological well-being of localized melanoma survivors who were treated in their practice. Participants took part in a semistructured interview and the Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory short form, with a score of 13 or greater indicating potential cases of clinically significant fear of recurrence.

The mean patient age was 48.5 years, and there were twice as many women as men (34 and 17, respectively). In all, 17 of the patients were treated for stage 0 melanoma, and the remainder were treated for stage I-IIA disease.

The interviews and survey revealed four main “themes” among the patients: anxiety surrounding follow-up appointments and relief after a normal examination; concerns about intensity of melanoma surveillance, including anxiety or reassurance about frequent biopsies and worries regarding familial melanoma risk; lifestyle changes related to sun exposure, such as limiting time outdoors, using sunscreen, and wearing protective clothing; and thoughts about life and death.

On the Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory short form, 38 of the 51 participants (75%) had a score of 13 or more points, indicating clinically significant fear of cancer recurrence, and when a higher threshold of 16 or more points were was applied, 34 participants (67%) still met the definition for clinically significant fear of recurrence.
 

Inform, Reassure, Counsel

“Given the crucial role that dermatologists play in diagnosing melanomas, there may be an opportunity to provide reassurance and support for patients to mitigate the psychological consequences of the diagnosis, by emphasizing the excellent life expectancy at a localized stage, particularly at stage 0. In addition, a referral to a mental health practitioner could be placed for patients with higher levels of anxiety and fear of recurrence,” Dr. Mahama and her coauthors wrote.

They also noted that their findings suggest that some individuals who undergo screening for melanoma might experience “psychological harms” from receiving a melanoma diagnosis “particularly given that many or most screening-detected early-stage melanomas will not progress.”

In an interview seeking objective commentary, a surgical oncologist who was not involved in the study said that anxiety about recurrence is common among patients with melanoma, many of whom may be unfamiliar with significant recent advances such as immunotherapy in the care of patients with more advanced disease.

“Often what we will do in addition to just sharing statistics, which are historical and don’t even necessarily reflect how much better we can do for patients now if the melanoma does recur or metastasize, is recommend close surveillance by their dermatologist,” said Sonia Cohen, MD, PhD, from the Mass General Cancer Center in Boston.

“The earlier we capture a recurrence the better we can help the patients. So that’s something we’ll recommend for patients to help give them a sense of control, and that they’re doing everything they can to capture current or new skin cancers,” she said.

Dr. Cohen and colleagues also instruct patients how to look for potential signs of recurrence, such as swollen lymph nodes or suspicious lesions. Patients who express extreme anxiety may also be referred to an oncology social worker or other support services, she said.

Also asked to comment on the results, Allison Dibiaso MSW, LICSW, a social worker at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, who specializes in melanoma, said that she often sees patients who have been successfully treated for early localized malignant melanoma who experience a fear of recurrence. “These patients frequently express feelings of uncertainty and worry, with the fear of another occurrence always on their mind. Managing this fear on a day-to-day basis can be challenging,” she told this news organization.

Moreover, patients with previous treatment for melanoma often experience significant anxiety before skin exams. “Some may feel anxious and worried a few days or weeks before their appointment wondering if something will reoccur and be discovered during the examination,” she said. “While some individuals develop coping skills to manage their anxiety beforehand, many still feel anxious about the possibility of recurrence until after the exam is over and results are confirmed.”

At Dana-Farber, patients with completely resected lesions are provided with individual counseling and have access to support groups specifically designed for patients with melanoma. In addition, a caregiver group is also available for those supporting patients with melanoma, and, “if needed, we provide referrals to therapists in their local community,” Ms. Dibiaso said.

The study was supported by awards/grants to senior author Adewole S. Adamson, MD, MPP from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Dermatology Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and the American Cancer Society. All authors reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Cohen had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. Ms. Dibiaso had no relevant conflicts to disclose.

Jill Schneiderhan, MD, remembers only receiving one or two lectures on basic pain physiology during medical school.

That time was not enough, Dr. Schneiderhan said, who is now a primary care physician and codirector of Integrative Family Medicine at Michigan Medicine in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Medical schools in the United States spend an average of 11 hours on pain management training.

“I think that the understanding of different types of pain and the nervous system is improving,” Dr. Schneiderhan said. “But how we as primary care providers can sit with patients with complicated pain experiences, and integrate various treatments into the primary care setting, is where the system falls apart.”

Despite one in five Americans experiencing chronic pain, a gap exists in the pain management training of primary care providers (PCPs). Pain specialists are calling for the empowerment of their first-line-of-defense counterparts with the knowledge and tools necessary to navigate the intricate challenges posed by chronic pain.

Treatment beyond medication is the primary challenge — particularly with pressures and time constraints inherent in family medicine.

“It’s so difficult to teach a PCP how to treat pain because pain management is an entire fellowship,” said Shravani Durbhakula, MD, MPH, MBA, who is on the Board of Directors for the American Academy of Pain Medicine Foundation. But “we encourage a multidisciplinary approach: This includes physical therapy, medication, injections, and other methods. Those different elements coming together typically give some relief.”
 

Categories of Chronic Pain

Experts sort pain into three broad categories: Nociceptive (from tissue injury), neuropathic (from a nerve injury), and nociplastic (from a sensitized nervous system).

Tissue injury is the most common cause of pain and is characterized by aching and throbbing, while nerve injury causes more burning and shooting sensations.

Nociplastic pain, which arises from abnormal processing of pain signals without clear evidence of tissue damage, is often hardest to understand and trickier to treat. These types of conditions include fibromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome, and nonspecific back pain, according to Dr. Durbhakula.

“One of the really big challenges is that it’s an invisible condition — you don’t have a cast on or crutches,” Dr. Durbhakula said. “We don’t have great objective measures for pain, and sometimes pain patients feel stigmatized and like their pain is dismissed.”

Primary care specialists should consider six steps to guide their pain assessments, including properly assessing the pain, identifying the pain generator, discussing sensible medications, considering appropriate procedures, recommending appropriate behavioral techniques, and focusing on multidisciplinary management, according to Dr. Durbhakula.

Persistent pain is often too complex to treat with singular methods. For instance, studies have shown pain can lead to structural changes in the brain, such as a decrease in gray matter and differences in neural areas that modulate pain. These neurologic changes illustrate the complicated nature of chronic pain and the need for a multipronged treatment plan.
 

Don’t Discount the ‘Fluffy Stuff’

One of the biggest challenges in managing chronic pain is the dearth of effective remedies, said Michael Kaplan, MD, a rheumatologist at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City.

While other debilitating conditions have seen breakthroughs — insulin for diabetes, penicillin for pneumonia — pain remains without a cure.

“In the world of centralized pains, we’re lagging behind,” Dr. Kaplan said. “Opioids didn’t work, and here we are in the aftermath of an opioid epidemic.”

Patients can make significant headway with nonpharmacologic management, or what some consider to be the “fluffy stuff,” including yoga, meditation, acupuncture, dry needling, massage therapy, and acupuncture, according to Dr. Kaplan.

But these approaches are often financially unfeasible for patients because insurance companies sporadically cover them. However, free apps can help patients practice things like better sleep and meditation.

“These things actually work, and there is very low risk in trying them,” Dr. Kaplan said. To be sure, medication has an important place in pain management. Neuropathic pain medications or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs can be effective options for some patients, said Christopher Gilligan, MD, Chief of the Division of Pain Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts.

Drugs that target nerve pain include gabapentin and pregabalin, certain antidepressants, and anticonvulsants, which can help dull pain signals in the nerves.

“When a patient has not responded to a first- or second-line medication in those categories, that can be a time when referral to a pain medicine physician can be helpful,” Dr. Gilligan said.

Procedural options that are less invasive than surgery may also be appropriate, Dr. Gilligan said. These include nerve ablation and restorative neurostimulators for people with lower back pain and ganglion stimulation for patients experiencing neuropathic pain.

“The efficacy of interventions for specific pain conditions has gotten better over the years,” he said.
 

Learn to Listen

The two most important activities to recommend when treating chronic pain patients also can be the most difficult: Sleeping and exercise. For people experiencing unrelenting discomfort, both can feel impossible, according to Dan Clauw, MD, professor of anesthesiology at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

“If you stop moving, your pain is going to get worse and worse and worse,” Dr. Clauw said. “But you have to be careful about how you talk about it. For example, don’t use the word ‘exercise’ when you’re talking to a chronic pain patient, use the word ‘activity.’ ”

As people become more active, they begin sleeping better, he said.

Most importantly, Dr. Clauw said, clinicians must demonstrate empathy and listening skills. Patients with chronic pain often are used to being dismissed and have become isolated in their personal lives.

“There is a lack of properly trained providers who can listen rather than do procedures,” Dr. Clauw said. “What happens is people just constrict their lives over the course of having pain, and they fall into this shell of themselves. They need their doctors to hear them.”

For primary care doctors seeking more information on pain management, online resources can be helpful, said Robert L. Rich Jr, MD, former chair of the American Academy of Family Physicians Commission on Health of the Public and Science.

“One suggestion I’d begin with is to look at pain guidelines, not just from the CDC and AAFP but also from local medical boards,” Dr. Rich said, adding that California and Washington State have done extensive work on chronic pain. “I am seeing more of a movement again toward teaching the management of chronic pain, but we still need more training.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Jill Schneiderhan, MD, remembers only receiving one or two lectures on basic pain physiology during medical school.

That time was not enough, Dr. Schneiderhan said, who is now a primary care physician and codirector of Integrative Family Medicine at Michigan Medicine in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Medical schools in the United States spend an average of 11 hours on pain management training.

“I think that the understanding of different types of pain and the nervous system is improving,” Dr. Schneiderhan said. “But how we as primary care providers can sit with patients with complicated pain experiences, and integrate various treatments into the primary care setting, is where the system falls apart.”

Despite one in five Americans experiencing chronic pain, a gap exists in the pain management training of primary care providers (PCPs). Pain specialists are calling for the empowerment of their first-line-of-defense counterparts with the knowledge and tools necessary to navigate the intricate challenges posed by chronic pain.

Treatment beyond medication is the primary challenge — particularly with pressures and time constraints inherent in family medicine.

“It’s so difficult to teach a PCP how to treat pain because pain management is an entire fellowship,” said Shravani Durbhakula, MD, MPH, MBA, who is on the Board of Directors for the American Academy of Pain Medicine Foundation. But “we encourage a multidisciplinary approach: This includes physical therapy, medication, injections, and other methods. Those different elements coming together typically give some relief.”
 

Categories of Chronic Pain

Experts sort pain into three broad categories: Nociceptive (from tissue injury), neuropathic (from a nerve injury), and nociplastic (from a sensitized nervous system).

Tissue injury is the most common cause of pain and is characterized by aching and throbbing, while nerve injury causes more burning and shooting sensations.

Nociplastic pain, which arises from abnormal processing of pain signals without clear evidence of tissue damage, is often hardest to understand and trickier to treat. These types of conditions include fibromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome, and nonspecific back pain, according to Dr. Durbhakula.

“One of the really big challenges is that it’s an invisible condition — you don’t have a cast on or crutches,” Dr. Durbhakula said. “We don’t have great objective measures for pain, and sometimes pain patients feel stigmatized and like their pain is dismissed.”

Primary care specialists should consider six steps to guide their pain assessments, including properly assessing the pain, identifying the pain generator, discussing sensible medications, considering appropriate procedures, recommending appropriate behavioral techniques, and focusing on multidisciplinary management, according to Dr. Durbhakula.

Persistent pain is often too complex to treat with singular methods. For instance, studies have shown pain can lead to structural changes in the brain, such as a decrease in gray matter and differences in neural areas that modulate pain. These neurologic changes illustrate the complicated nature of chronic pain and the need for a multipronged treatment plan.
 

Don’t Discount the ‘Fluffy Stuff’

One of the biggest challenges in managing chronic pain is the dearth of effective remedies, said Michael Kaplan, MD, a rheumatologist at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City.

While other debilitating conditions have seen breakthroughs — insulin for diabetes, penicillin for pneumonia — pain remains without a cure.

“In the world of centralized pains, we’re lagging behind,” Dr. Kaplan said. “Opioids didn’t work, and here we are in the aftermath of an opioid epidemic.”

Patients can make significant headway with nonpharmacologic management, or what some consider to be the “fluffy stuff,” including yoga, meditation, acupuncture, dry needling, massage therapy, and acupuncture, according to Dr. Kaplan.

But these approaches are often financially unfeasible for patients because insurance companies sporadically cover them. However, free apps can help patients practice things like better sleep and meditation.

“These things actually work, and there is very low risk in trying them,” Dr. Kaplan said. To be sure, medication has an important place in pain management. Neuropathic pain medications or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs can be effective options for some patients, said Christopher Gilligan, MD, Chief of the Division of Pain Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts.

Drugs that target nerve pain include gabapentin and pregabalin, certain antidepressants, and anticonvulsants, which can help dull pain signals in the nerves.

“When a patient has not responded to a first- or second-line medication in those categories, that can be a time when referral to a pain medicine physician can be helpful,” Dr. Gilligan said.

Procedural options that are less invasive than surgery may also be appropriate, Dr. Gilligan said. These include nerve ablation and restorative neurostimulators for people with lower back pain and ganglion stimulation for patients experiencing neuropathic pain.

“The efficacy of interventions for specific pain conditions has gotten better over the years,” he said.
 

Learn to Listen

The two most important activities to recommend when treating chronic pain patients also can be the most difficult: Sleeping and exercise. For people experiencing unrelenting discomfort, both can feel impossible, according to Dan Clauw, MD, professor of anesthesiology at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

“If you stop moving, your pain is going to get worse and worse and worse,” Dr. Clauw said. “But you have to be careful about how you talk about it. For example, don’t use the word ‘exercise’ when you’re talking to a chronic pain patient, use the word ‘activity.’ ”

As people become more active, they begin sleeping better, he said.

Most importantly, Dr. Clauw said, clinicians must demonstrate empathy and listening skills. Patients with chronic pain often are used to being dismissed and have become isolated in their personal lives.

“There is a lack of properly trained providers who can listen rather than do procedures,” Dr. Clauw said. “What happens is people just constrict their lives over the course of having pain, and they fall into this shell of themselves. They need their doctors to hear them.”

For primary care doctors seeking more information on pain management, online resources can be helpful, said Robert L. Rich Jr, MD, former chair of the American Academy of Family Physicians Commission on Health of the Public and Science.

“One suggestion I’d begin with is to look at pain guidelines, not just from the CDC and AAFP but also from local medical boards,” Dr. Rich said, adding that California and Washington State have done extensive work on chronic pain. “I am seeing more of a movement again toward teaching the management of chronic pain, but we still need more training.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Jill Schneiderhan, MD, remembers only receiving one or two lectures on basic pain physiology during medical school.

That time was not enough, Dr. Schneiderhan said, who is now a primary care physician and codirector of Integrative Family Medicine at Michigan Medicine in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Medical schools in the United States spend an average of 11 hours on pain management training.

“I think that the understanding of different types of pain and the nervous system is improving,” Dr. Schneiderhan said. “But how we as primary care providers can sit with patients with complicated pain experiences, and integrate various treatments into the primary care setting, is where the system falls apart.”

Despite one in five Americans experiencing chronic pain, a gap exists in the pain management training of primary care providers (PCPs). Pain specialists are calling for the empowerment of their first-line-of-defense counterparts with the knowledge and tools necessary to navigate the intricate challenges posed by chronic pain.

Treatment beyond medication is the primary challenge — particularly with pressures and time constraints inherent in family medicine.

“It’s so difficult to teach a PCP how to treat pain because pain management is an entire fellowship,” said Shravani Durbhakula, MD, MPH, MBA, who is on the Board of Directors for the American Academy of Pain Medicine Foundation. But “we encourage a multidisciplinary approach: This includes physical therapy, medication, injections, and other methods. Those different elements coming together typically give some relief.”
 

Categories of Chronic Pain

Experts sort pain into three broad categories: Nociceptive (from tissue injury), neuropathic (from a nerve injury), and nociplastic (from a sensitized nervous system).

Tissue injury is the most common cause of pain and is characterized by aching and throbbing, while nerve injury causes more burning and shooting sensations.

Nociplastic pain, which arises from abnormal processing of pain signals without clear evidence of tissue damage, is often hardest to understand and trickier to treat. These types of conditions include fibromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome, and nonspecific back pain, according to Dr. Durbhakula.

“One of the really big challenges is that it’s an invisible condition — you don’t have a cast on or crutches,” Dr. Durbhakula said. “We don’t have great objective measures for pain, and sometimes pain patients feel stigmatized and like their pain is dismissed.”

Primary care specialists should consider six steps to guide their pain assessments, including properly assessing the pain, identifying the pain generator, discussing sensible medications, considering appropriate procedures, recommending appropriate behavioral techniques, and focusing on multidisciplinary management, according to Dr. Durbhakula.

Persistent pain is often too complex to treat with singular methods. For instance, studies have shown pain can lead to structural changes in the brain, such as a decrease in gray matter and differences in neural areas that modulate pain. These neurologic changes illustrate the complicated nature of chronic pain and the need for a multipronged treatment plan.
 

Don’t Discount the ‘Fluffy Stuff’

One of the biggest challenges in managing chronic pain is the dearth of effective remedies, said Michael Kaplan, MD, a rheumatologist at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City.

While other debilitating conditions have seen breakthroughs — insulin for diabetes, penicillin for pneumonia — pain remains without a cure.

“In the world of centralized pains, we’re lagging behind,” Dr. Kaplan said. “Opioids didn’t work, and here we are in the aftermath of an opioid epidemic.”

Patients can make significant headway with nonpharmacologic management, or what some consider to be the “fluffy stuff,” including yoga, meditation, acupuncture, dry needling, massage therapy, and acupuncture, according to Dr. Kaplan.

But these approaches are often financially unfeasible for patients because insurance companies sporadically cover them. However, free apps can help patients practice things like better sleep and meditation.

“These things actually work, and there is very low risk in trying them,” Dr. Kaplan said. To be sure, medication has an important place in pain management. Neuropathic pain medications or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs can be effective options for some patients, said Christopher Gilligan, MD, Chief of the Division of Pain Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts.

Drugs that target nerve pain include gabapentin and pregabalin, certain antidepressants, and anticonvulsants, which can help dull pain signals in the nerves.

“When a patient has not responded to a first- or second-line medication in those categories, that can be a time when referral to a pain medicine physician can be helpful,” Dr. Gilligan said.

Procedural options that are less invasive than surgery may also be appropriate, Dr. Gilligan said. These include nerve ablation and restorative neurostimulators for people with lower back pain and ganglion stimulation for patients experiencing neuropathic pain.

“The efficacy of interventions for specific pain conditions has gotten better over the years,” he said.
 

Learn to Listen

The two most important activities to recommend when treating chronic pain patients also can be the most difficult: Sleeping and exercise. For people experiencing unrelenting discomfort, both can feel impossible, according to Dan Clauw, MD, professor of anesthesiology at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

“If you stop moving, your pain is going to get worse and worse and worse,” Dr. Clauw said. “But you have to be careful about how you talk about it. For example, don’t use the word ‘exercise’ when you’re talking to a chronic pain patient, use the word ‘activity.’ ”

As people become more active, they begin sleeping better, he said.

Most importantly, Dr. Clauw said, clinicians must demonstrate empathy and listening skills. Patients with chronic pain often are used to being dismissed and have become isolated in their personal lives.

“There is a lack of properly trained providers who can listen rather than do procedures,” Dr. Clauw said. “What happens is people just constrict their lives over the course of having pain, and they fall into this shell of themselves. They need their doctors to hear them.”

For primary care doctors seeking more information on pain management, online resources can be helpful, said Robert L. Rich Jr, MD, former chair of the American Academy of Family Physicians Commission on Health of the Public and Science.

“One suggestion I’d begin with is to look at pain guidelines, not just from the CDC and AAFP but also from local medical boards,” Dr. Rich said, adding that California and Washington State have done extensive work on chronic pain. “I am seeing more of a movement again toward teaching the management of chronic pain, but we still need more training.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Pretreatment testing of patients starting systemic immunomodulatory therapies for chronic skin diseases fell short of recommendations, based on an analysis of more than 120,000 individuals in a national commercial insurance claims database.

Because of concerns for the potential reactivation of tuberculosis or hepatitis B or C, or for an increased risk for infections, myelosuppression, and hepatoxicity in the wake of immunomodulator use, some medical societies recommend screening patients for hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and tuberculosis before starting these medications, wrote Maria C. Schneeweiss, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, and colleagues.

“Conducting this study was crucial because of the increasing use of systemic immunomodulatory agents for chronic inflammatory skin diseases and the recognized need for pretreatment testing to prevent complications,” coauthor Denys Shay, a PhD candidate in population health sciences at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, said in an interview.

“Despite recommendations from professional societies, there was a lack of clarity on how consistently these guidelines were being followed in the United States. This study aimed to fill that gap in knowledge, providing a comprehensive view of current practices and highlighting areas for improvement,” he said.

In the study, published online in JAMA Dermatology, he and his coauthors identified 122,308 adults in the United States with psoriasis, hidradenitis suppurativa, or atopic dermatitis who started an immunomodulatory agent, including methotrexate (28,684 patients), tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha inhibitors (40,965), ustekinumab (12,841), interleukin (IL)-23 inhibitors (6116), IL-17A inhibitors (9799), dupilumab (7787), and apremilast (16,116). The data were from a commercial insurance claims database from December 31, 2002, to December 31, 2020.

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who underwent recommended screening lab tests including tuberculosis, hepatitis, liver function, complete blood cell counts (CBCs), and lipid panels within 6 months before treatment initiation and during the first 2 years of treatment. The median age of the study population was 49 years, and 52.1% were male.

A CBC was the most common pretreatment test across treatments, performed in 41%-69% of patients before starting treatment. Tuberculosis screening occurred in 11%-59% of patients within 6 months of initiating treatment, and 3%-26% had updated tests after 1 year. Similarly, 13%-41% of patients underwent hepatitis screening prior to treatment.

The highest levels of pretreatment testing occurred for TNF-alpha inhibitors, ustekinumab, IL-17A inhibitors, and IL-23 inhibitors, with similar patterns, while the lowest levels of testing occurred with apremilast and dupilumab.

Testing prevalence before starting apremilast and after a year of treatment was 15%-45% and 9%-36%, respectively. Testing before initiation and a year into treatment with dupilumab was 11%-41% and 3%-25%, respectively.

The findings were limited by several factors including the descriptive design, which does not allow for evaluation of the testing practices, the researchers said.

However, the results show the extent of patients with chronic inflammatory skin diseases (CISDs) who do not undergo pretreatment testing, and research is needed to create testing practices on the basis of recommendations for each agent and incorporating each patient’s history and clinical profile, they concluded.

“The finding that less than 60% of patients received recommended pretreatment testing was initially somewhat surprising,” Shay said in the interview. “However, the context provided by higher rates of baseline testing within the 6-12 months before treatment initiation and the potential for additional testing not captured by the dataset — such as hospital stays — suggests that the gap may not be as large as this estimate,” he said.

“The key message for clinicians is that there are considerable variations in laboratory testing practices with regard to the initiation of systemic immunomodulatory agents in patients with CISDs,” Shay said. “This represents a divergence from existing testing guidelines.”

“Further research is needed to understand the reasons for the variations in pretreatment testing practices and whether this heterogeneity affects patient outcomes,” he added.

Resist Routine Testing

The study findings represent a call to action in the form of ongoing assessment of the safety, clinical utility, and cost-effectiveness of pretreatment testing, wrote Clinton W. Enos, MD, Ana Ormaza Vera, MD, and Abby S. Van Voorhees, MD, of the Department of Dermatology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia, in an accompanying editorial.

The data in the current study suggesting less frequent laboratory testing compared with current guidelines could stem from a high comfort level with many of the therapies that have been available and in use for many years, they noted. Clinicians’ lack of knowledge of the laboratory screening and monitoring guidelines also may play a role, they said.

However, the authors cautioned against routine checking of laboratory results “without purpose” and without attention to their clinical utility and cost. “A thorough medical history is essential and can serve as a sensitive indicator of which patients are more at risk for diseases such as TB or hepatitis, thereby allowing for more meaningful laboratory screening use,” they said.

Evidence supporting prescreening labs for the spectrum of systemic agents used in dermatology varies considerably, “some trapped in time and carried forward for decades until finally questioned, others rooted in treatment mechanism and clinical data,” Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chief of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, said in an interview.

The study elucidated the current state of clinical practice, said Friedman, who was not involved with the study. This includes screening even if the label says it is not necessary and letting screening slide when guidelines say otherwise — even if the guidelines are outdated and insurance requires certain metrics prior to approval, he said.

Looking ahead, “we need better consensus and even better communication/education on said guidance,” Dr. Friedman said. “Clear, concise, evidenced-based, and expert-validated guidance to ensure we are meaningfully using medical resources” is what is needed, he added. “It will certainly take a village, and close collaboration between the industry and practitioners is key to success.”

The study was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Shay had no financial conflicts to disclose. Lead author Dr. Schneeweiss disclosed grants from UCB Pharma and AbbVie to Brigham and Women’s Hospital outside the submitted work. Other authors disclosed receiving personal fees from Aetion and grants from UCB Pharma and Takeda outside the submitted work; grants from Amarin, Kowa, Novartis, and Pfizer outside the submitted work; and personal fees from Hims & Hers, AbbVie, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Digital Diagnostics, Lilly, Equillium, ASLAN, Boehringer Ingelheim, ACOM, Olaplex, and Legacy Healthcare during the study. No other disclosures were reported.

Editorial author Dr. Enos disclosed serving as an investigator for Amgen and Castle Biosciences and receiving grants from Arcutis Biotherapeutics outside the submitted work. Dr. Van Voorhees disclosed an honorarium outside the submitted work.

Dr. Friedman had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Pretreatment testing of patients starting systemic immunomodulatory therapies for chronic skin diseases fell short of recommendations, based on an analysis of more than 120,000 individuals in a national commercial insurance claims database.

Because of concerns for the potential reactivation of tuberculosis or hepatitis B or C, or for an increased risk for infections, myelosuppression, and hepatoxicity in the wake of immunomodulator use, some medical societies recommend screening patients for hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and tuberculosis before starting these medications, wrote Maria C. Schneeweiss, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, and colleagues.

“Conducting this study was crucial because of the increasing use of systemic immunomodulatory agents for chronic inflammatory skin diseases and the recognized need for pretreatment testing to prevent complications,” coauthor Denys Shay, a PhD candidate in population health sciences at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, said in an interview.

“Despite recommendations from professional societies, there was a lack of clarity on how consistently these guidelines were being followed in the United States. This study aimed to fill that gap in knowledge, providing a comprehensive view of current practices and highlighting areas for improvement,” he said.

In the study, published online in JAMA Dermatology, he and his coauthors identified 122,308 adults in the United States with psoriasis, hidradenitis suppurativa, or atopic dermatitis who started an immunomodulatory agent, including methotrexate (28,684 patients), tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha inhibitors (40,965), ustekinumab (12,841), interleukin (IL)-23 inhibitors (6116), IL-17A inhibitors (9799), dupilumab (7787), and apremilast (16,116). The data were from a commercial insurance claims database from December 31, 2002, to December 31, 2020.

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who underwent recommended screening lab tests including tuberculosis, hepatitis, liver function, complete blood cell counts (CBCs), and lipid panels within 6 months before treatment initiation and during the first 2 years of treatment. The median age of the study population was 49 years, and 52.1% were male.

A CBC was the most common pretreatment test across treatments, performed in 41%-69% of patients before starting treatment. Tuberculosis screening occurred in 11%-59% of patients within 6 months of initiating treatment, and 3%-26% had updated tests after 1 year. Similarly, 13%-41% of patients underwent hepatitis screening prior to treatment.

The highest levels of pretreatment testing occurred for TNF-alpha inhibitors, ustekinumab, IL-17A inhibitors, and IL-23 inhibitors, with similar patterns, while the lowest levels of testing occurred with apremilast and dupilumab.

Testing prevalence before starting apremilast and after a year of treatment was 15%-45% and 9%-36%, respectively. Testing before initiation and a year into treatment with dupilumab was 11%-41% and 3%-25%, respectively.

The findings were limited by several factors including the descriptive design, which does not allow for evaluation of the testing practices, the researchers said.

However, the results show the extent of patients with chronic inflammatory skin diseases (CISDs) who do not undergo pretreatment testing, and research is needed to create testing practices on the basis of recommendations for each agent and incorporating each patient’s history and clinical profile, they concluded.

“The finding that less than 60% of patients received recommended pretreatment testing was initially somewhat surprising,” Shay said in the interview. “However, the context provided by higher rates of baseline testing within the 6-12 months before treatment initiation and the potential for additional testing not captured by the dataset — such as hospital stays — suggests that the gap may not be as large as this estimate,” he said.

“The key message for clinicians is that there are considerable variations in laboratory testing practices with regard to the initiation of systemic immunomodulatory agents in patients with CISDs,” Shay said. “This represents a divergence from existing testing guidelines.”

“Further research is needed to understand the reasons for the variations in pretreatment testing practices and whether this heterogeneity affects patient outcomes,” he added.

Resist Routine Testing

The study findings represent a call to action in the form of ongoing assessment of the safety, clinical utility, and cost-effectiveness of pretreatment testing, wrote Clinton W. Enos, MD, Ana Ormaza Vera, MD, and Abby S. Van Voorhees, MD, of the Department of Dermatology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia, in an accompanying editorial.

The data in the current study suggesting less frequent laboratory testing compared with current guidelines could stem from a high comfort level with many of the therapies that have been available and in use for many years, they noted. Clinicians’ lack of knowledge of the laboratory screening and monitoring guidelines also may play a role, they said.

However, the authors cautioned against routine checking of laboratory results “without purpose” and without attention to their clinical utility and cost. “A thorough medical history is essential and can serve as a sensitive indicator of which patients are more at risk for diseases such as TB or hepatitis, thereby allowing for more meaningful laboratory screening use,” they said.

Evidence supporting prescreening labs for the spectrum of systemic agents used in dermatology varies considerably, “some trapped in time and carried forward for decades until finally questioned, others rooted in treatment mechanism and clinical data,” Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chief of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, said in an interview.

The study elucidated the current state of clinical practice, said Friedman, who was not involved with the study. This includes screening even if the label says it is not necessary and letting screening slide when guidelines say otherwise — even if the guidelines are outdated and insurance requires certain metrics prior to approval, he said.

Looking ahead, “we need better consensus and even better communication/education on said guidance,” Dr. Friedman said. “Clear, concise, evidenced-based, and expert-validated guidance to ensure we are meaningfully using medical resources” is what is needed, he added. “It will certainly take a village, and close collaboration between the industry and practitioners is key to success.”

The study was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Shay had no financial conflicts to disclose. Lead author Dr. Schneeweiss disclosed grants from UCB Pharma and AbbVie to Brigham and Women’s Hospital outside the submitted work. Other authors disclosed receiving personal fees from Aetion and grants from UCB Pharma and Takeda outside the submitted work; grants from Amarin, Kowa, Novartis, and Pfizer outside the submitted work; and personal fees from Hims & Hers, AbbVie, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Digital Diagnostics, Lilly, Equillium, ASLAN, Boehringer Ingelheim, ACOM, Olaplex, and Legacy Healthcare during the study. No other disclosures were reported.

Editorial author Dr. Enos disclosed serving as an investigator for Amgen and Castle Biosciences and receiving grants from Arcutis Biotherapeutics outside the submitted work. Dr. Van Voorhees disclosed an honorarium outside the submitted work.

Dr. Friedman had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Pretreatment testing of patients starting systemic immunomodulatory therapies for chronic skin diseases fell short of recommendations, based on an analysis of more than 120,000 individuals in a national commercial insurance claims database.

Because of concerns for the potential reactivation of tuberculosis or hepatitis B or C, or for an increased risk for infections, myelosuppression, and hepatoxicity in the wake of immunomodulator use, some medical societies recommend screening patients for hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and tuberculosis before starting these medications, wrote Maria C. Schneeweiss, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, and colleagues.

“Conducting this study was crucial because of the increasing use of systemic immunomodulatory agents for chronic inflammatory skin diseases and the recognized need for pretreatment testing to prevent complications,” coauthor Denys Shay, a PhD candidate in population health sciences at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, said in an interview.

“Despite recommendations from professional societies, there was a lack of clarity on how consistently these guidelines were being followed in the United States. This study aimed to fill that gap in knowledge, providing a comprehensive view of current practices and highlighting areas for improvement,” he said.

In the study, published online in JAMA Dermatology, he and his coauthors identified 122,308 adults in the United States with psoriasis, hidradenitis suppurativa, or atopic dermatitis who started an immunomodulatory agent, including methotrexate (28,684 patients), tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha inhibitors (40,965), ustekinumab (12,841), interleukin (IL)-23 inhibitors (6116), IL-17A inhibitors (9799), dupilumab (7787), and apremilast (16,116). The data were from a commercial insurance claims database from December 31, 2002, to December 31, 2020.

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who underwent recommended screening lab tests including tuberculosis, hepatitis, liver function, complete blood cell counts (CBCs), and lipid panels within 6 months before treatment initiation and during the first 2 years of treatment. The median age of the study population was 49 years, and 52.1% were male.

A CBC was the most common pretreatment test across treatments, performed in 41%-69% of patients before starting treatment. Tuberculosis screening occurred in 11%-59% of patients within 6 months of initiating treatment, and 3%-26% had updated tests after 1 year. Similarly, 13%-41% of patients underwent hepatitis screening prior to treatment.

The highest levels of pretreatment testing occurred for TNF-alpha inhibitors, ustekinumab, IL-17A inhibitors, and IL-23 inhibitors, with similar patterns, while the lowest levels of testing occurred with apremilast and dupilumab.

Testing prevalence before starting apremilast and after a year of treatment was 15%-45% and 9%-36%, respectively. Testing before initiation and a year into treatment with dupilumab was 11%-41% and 3%-25%, respectively.

The findings were limited by several factors including the descriptive design, which does not allow for evaluation of the testing practices, the researchers said.

However, the results show the extent of patients with chronic inflammatory skin diseases (CISDs) who do not undergo pretreatment testing, and research is needed to create testing practices on the basis of recommendations for each agent and incorporating each patient’s history and clinical profile, they concluded.

“The finding that less than 60% of patients received recommended pretreatment testing was initially somewhat surprising,” Shay said in the interview. “However, the context provided by higher rates of baseline testing within the 6-12 months before treatment initiation and the potential for additional testing not captured by the dataset — such as hospital stays — suggests that the gap may not be as large as this estimate,” he said.

“The key message for clinicians is that there are considerable variations in laboratory testing practices with regard to the initiation of systemic immunomodulatory agents in patients with CISDs,” Shay said. “This represents a divergence from existing testing guidelines.”

“Further research is needed to understand the reasons for the variations in pretreatment testing practices and whether this heterogeneity affects patient outcomes,” he added.

Resist Routine Testing

The study findings represent a call to action in the form of ongoing assessment of the safety, clinical utility, and cost-effectiveness of pretreatment testing, wrote Clinton W. Enos, MD, Ana Ormaza Vera, MD, and Abby S. Van Voorhees, MD, of the Department of Dermatology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia, in an accompanying editorial.

The data in the current study suggesting less frequent laboratory testing compared with current guidelines could stem from a high comfort level with many of the therapies that have been available and in use for many years, they noted. Clinicians’ lack of knowledge of the laboratory screening and monitoring guidelines also may play a role, they said.

However, the authors cautioned against routine checking of laboratory results “without purpose” and without attention to their clinical utility and cost. “A thorough medical history is essential and can serve as a sensitive indicator of which patients are more at risk for diseases such as TB or hepatitis, thereby allowing for more meaningful laboratory screening use,” they said.

Evidence supporting prescreening labs for the spectrum of systemic agents used in dermatology varies considerably, “some trapped in time and carried forward for decades until finally questioned, others rooted in treatment mechanism and clinical data,” Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chief of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, said in an interview.

The study elucidated the current state of clinical practice, said Friedman, who was not involved with the study. This includes screening even if the label says it is not necessary and letting screening slide when guidelines say otherwise — even if the guidelines are outdated and insurance requires certain metrics prior to approval, he said.

Looking ahead, “we need better consensus and even better communication/education on said guidance,” Dr. Friedman said. “Clear, concise, evidenced-based, and expert-validated guidance to ensure we are meaningfully using medical resources” is what is needed, he added. “It will certainly take a village, and close collaboration between the industry and practitioners is key to success.”

The study was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Shay had no financial conflicts to disclose. Lead author Dr. Schneeweiss disclosed grants from UCB Pharma and AbbVie to Brigham and Women’s Hospital outside the submitted work. Other authors disclosed receiving personal fees from Aetion and grants from UCB Pharma and Takeda outside the submitted work; grants from Amarin, Kowa, Novartis, and Pfizer outside the submitted work; and personal fees from Hims & Hers, AbbVie, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Digital Diagnostics, Lilly, Equillium, ASLAN, Boehringer Ingelheim, ACOM, Olaplex, and Legacy Healthcare during the study. No other disclosures were reported.

Editorial author Dr. Enos disclosed serving as an investigator for Amgen and Castle Biosciences and receiving grants from Arcutis Biotherapeutics outside the submitted work. Dr. Van Voorhees disclosed an honorarium outside the submitted work.

Dr. Friedman had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As more and more treatments for obesity become available, what does the future hold for these patients? Here are five things that clinicians need to know.

1. Public health officials will prioritize dietary quality over quantity.

Dietitians, healthcare providers, and scientists are already prioritizing the quality of calories, and now policymakers are aligning with this goal, with calls for more research on ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) to answer the key question, “Why do UPFs cause people to eat 500 more calories per day compared with unprocessed foods?” The food industry has taken notice of the potential “Ozempic effect” associated with reduced spending on groceries and is responding with product lines “designed to complement” glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) while simultaneously lobbying against any UPF reform. However, with emerging data on how sugar taxes may reduce sales and Congress honing in on the diabetes epidemic, we are hopeful that change is coming in 2024.

2. Antiobesity medications will target fat loss instead of weight loss.

Currently, the US Food and Drug Administration requires antiobesity medications to prove safe weight loss of ≥ 5% over placebo. The focus on weight has been long-standing, but with highly effective medications like tirzepatide causing about 20% weight loss, attention is shifting to body composition — namely, how do we optimize fat loss while preserving muscle? We are seeing this transition in the research community. Bimagrumab, for example, a once-monthly injection that increases muscle mass and decreases fat mass, is being tested in a phase 3 clinical trial alongside semaglutide. Agents initially designed for spinal muscular atrophy, like apitegromab and taldefgrobep alfa, are being repurposed for obesity. Watch for results of these phase 2 trials in 2024.

3. Increasing energy expenditure is the holy grail of obesity research.

The success of GLP-1 RAs, and the even greater success of dual- and triple-target agents like tirzepatide and retatrutide, tells us that obesity is, indeed, a hormone problem. These medications primarily cause weight loss by suppressing appetite and reducing caloric intake. As scientists develop more therapeutics to normalize appetite regulation, attention will shift to optimizing energy expenditure. Researchers are already investigating brown fat, mitochondrial uncouplers, and skeletal muscle metabolism, but no agent thus far has been proven to be both safe and effective in increasing energy expenditure. Of these, keep an eye on clinical trials involving brown fat and the excitement over the anti-inflammatory cytokine growth differentiating factor 15 (GDF15).

4. Chronic disease without chronic medications.

Obesity is a chronic disease, just like hypertension or diabetes. Similarly, medications that treat chronic diseases are expected to be taken long-term because discontinuation often results in disease recurrence. However, obesity research is getting closer and closer to options that require less frequent administration. Bimagrumab, for example, is a once-monthly injection. In endocrinology, the premier example is osteoporosis: Osteoporosis can be treated with just 3 years of an annual injection and never require treatment again. In obesity, anticipate more basic science discoveries aimed at developing safe and specific treatments that are truly disease-modifying — ones that reverse appetitive dysregulation, reduce proinflammatory adiposity, and optimize anabolic metabolism.

5. Barriers to access are barriers to progress.

The biggest challenge to obesity treatment today is access: drug shortages, medication costs, and lack of obesity medicine providers. Shortages of medications like semaglutide 2.4 mg are being driven by high “demand”; in other words, manufacturers failed to anticipate the massive interest in antiobesity medications.

Medicare and most state Medicaid programs don’t cover these medications; commercial payers are refusing, reversing, or limiting coverage. An out-of-pocket monthly cost over $1000 limits affordability for the majority of Americans.

Seeking care from an obesity medicine doctor is a challenge as well. Over 40% of US adults have obesity, but less than 1% of doctors are certified in obesity medicine. Meanwhile, private equity is eager to address the lack of access through compounding pharmacies, medispas, or telemedicine services, but the quality of care varies greatly. Some companies purposely avoid the term “patient,” preferring ethics-free labels like “consumers” or “members.”

The $100 billion–dollar weight loss industry unfortunately has created financial incentives that drive obesity commerce over obesity care. Because of these barriers, the epidemic of obesity, with a prevalence projected to be 50% by 2030, will not be solved or slowed despite the scientific progress in obesity treatment. A single silver lining exists among policymakers who are aiming to correct our costly sick-care system in steps, starting with pharmacy benefit manager reform. Five of these bills are the ones to track in 2024: Pharmacy Benefit Manager Reform Act, Pharmacy Benefits Manager Accountability Act, Pharmacy Benefit Manager Sunshine and Accountability Act, Pharmacy Benefit Manager Transparency Act of 2023, and Lower Costs, More Transparency Act.

I believe that these five things will have the most impact on the treatment of our patients with obesity. Stay tuned throughout the year as I share updates in obesity research, pharmacotherapy, and public policy.
 

Dr. Tchang is Assistant Professor, Clinical Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Weill Cornell Medicine; Physician, Department of Medicine, Iris Cantor Women’s Health Center, Comprehensive Weight Control Center, New York, NY. She disclosed ties with Gelesis and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As more and more treatments for obesity become available, what does the future hold for these patients? Here are five things that clinicians need to know.

1. Public health officials will prioritize dietary quality over quantity.

Dietitians, healthcare providers, and scientists are already prioritizing the quality of calories, and now policymakers are aligning with this goal, with calls for more research on ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) to answer the key question, “Why do UPFs cause people to eat 500 more calories per day compared with unprocessed foods?” The food industry has taken notice of the potential “Ozempic effect” associated with reduced spending on groceries and is responding with product lines “designed to complement” glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) while simultaneously lobbying against any UPF reform. However, with emerging data on how sugar taxes may reduce sales and Congress honing in on the diabetes epidemic, we are hopeful that change is coming in 2024.

2. Antiobesity medications will target fat loss instead of weight loss.

Currently, the US Food and Drug Administration requires antiobesity medications to prove safe weight loss of ≥ 5% over placebo. The focus on weight has been long-standing, but with highly effective medications like tirzepatide causing about 20% weight loss, attention is shifting to body composition — namely, how do we optimize fat loss while preserving muscle? We are seeing this transition in the research community. Bimagrumab, for example, a once-monthly injection that increases muscle mass and decreases fat mass, is being tested in a phase 3 clinical trial alongside semaglutide. Agents initially designed for spinal muscular atrophy, like apitegromab and taldefgrobep alfa, are being repurposed for obesity. Watch for results of these phase 2 trials in 2024.

3. Increasing energy expenditure is the holy grail of obesity research.

The success of GLP-1 RAs, and the even greater success of dual- and triple-target agents like tirzepatide and retatrutide, tells us that obesity is, indeed, a hormone problem. These medications primarily cause weight loss by suppressing appetite and reducing caloric intake. As scientists develop more therapeutics to normalize appetite regulation, attention will shift to optimizing energy expenditure. Researchers are already investigating brown fat, mitochondrial uncouplers, and skeletal muscle metabolism, but no agent thus far has been proven to be both safe and effective in increasing energy expenditure. Of these, keep an eye on clinical trials involving brown fat and the excitement over the anti-inflammatory cytokine growth differentiating factor 15 (GDF15).

4. Chronic disease without chronic medications.

Obesity is a chronic disease, just like hypertension or diabetes. Similarly, medications that treat chronic diseases are expected to be taken long-term because discontinuation often results in disease recurrence. However, obesity research is getting closer and closer to options that require less frequent administration. Bimagrumab, for example, is a once-monthly injection. In endocrinology, the premier example is osteoporosis: Osteoporosis can be treated with just 3 years of an annual injection and never require treatment again. In obesity, anticipate more basic science discoveries aimed at developing safe and specific treatments that are truly disease-modifying — ones that reverse appetitive dysregulation, reduce proinflammatory adiposity, and optimize anabolic metabolism.

5. Barriers to access are barriers to progress.

The biggest challenge to obesity treatment today is access: drug shortages, medication costs, and lack of obesity medicine providers. Shortages of medications like semaglutide 2.4 mg are being driven by high “demand”; in other words, manufacturers failed to anticipate the massive interest in antiobesity medications.

Medicare and most state Medicaid programs don’t cover these medications; commercial payers are refusing, reversing, or limiting coverage. An out-of-pocket monthly cost over $1000 limits affordability for the majority of Americans.

Seeking care from an obesity medicine doctor is a challenge as well. Over 40% of US adults have obesity, but less than 1% of doctors are certified in obesity medicine. Meanwhile, private equity is eager to address the lack of access through compounding pharmacies, medispas, or telemedicine services, but the quality of care varies greatly. Some companies purposely avoid the term “patient,” preferring ethics-free labels like “consumers” or “members.”

The $100 billion–dollar weight loss industry unfortunately has created financial incentives that drive obesity commerce over obesity care. Because of these barriers, the epidemic of obesity, with a prevalence projected to be 50% by 2030, will not be solved or slowed despite the scientific progress in obesity treatment. A single silver lining exists among policymakers who are aiming to correct our costly sick-care system in steps, starting with pharmacy benefit manager reform. Five of these bills are the ones to track in 2024: Pharmacy Benefit Manager Reform Act, Pharmacy Benefits Manager Accountability Act, Pharmacy Benefit Manager Sunshine and Accountability Act, Pharmacy Benefit Manager Transparency Act of 2023, and Lower Costs, More Transparency Act.

I believe that these five things will have the most impact on the treatment of our patients with obesity. Stay tuned throughout the year as I share updates in obesity research, pharmacotherapy, and public policy.
 

Dr. Tchang is Assistant Professor, Clinical Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Weill Cornell Medicine; Physician, Department of Medicine, Iris Cantor Women’s Health Center, Comprehensive Weight Control Center, New York, NY. She disclosed ties with Gelesis and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As more and more treatments for obesity become available, what does the future hold for these patients? Here are five things that clinicians need to know.

1. Public health officials will prioritize dietary quality over quantity.

Dietitians, healthcare providers, and scientists are already prioritizing the quality of calories, and now policymakers are aligning with this goal, with calls for more research on ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) to answer the key question, “Why do UPFs cause people to eat 500 more calories per day compared with unprocessed foods?” The food industry has taken notice of the potential “Ozempic effect” associated with reduced spending on groceries and is responding with product lines “designed to complement” glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) while simultaneously lobbying against any UPF reform. However, with emerging data on how sugar taxes may reduce sales and Congress honing in on the diabetes epidemic, we are hopeful that change is coming in 2024.

2. Antiobesity medications will target fat loss instead of weight loss.

Currently, the US Food and Drug Administration requires antiobesity medications to prove safe weight loss of ≥ 5% over placebo. The focus on weight has been long-standing, but with highly effective medications like tirzepatide causing about 20% weight loss, attention is shifting to body composition — namely, how do we optimize fat loss while preserving muscle? We are seeing this transition in the research community. Bimagrumab, for example, a once-monthly injection that increases muscle mass and decreases fat mass, is being tested in a phase 3 clinical trial alongside semaglutide. Agents initially designed for spinal muscular atrophy, like apitegromab and taldefgrobep alfa, are being repurposed for obesity. Watch for results of these phase 2 trials in 2024.

3. Increasing energy expenditure is the holy grail of obesity research.

The success of GLP-1 RAs, and the even greater success of dual- and triple-target agents like tirzepatide and retatrutide, tells us that obesity is, indeed, a hormone problem. These medications primarily cause weight loss by suppressing appetite and reducing caloric intake. As scientists develop more therapeutics to normalize appetite regulation, attention will shift to optimizing energy expenditure. Researchers are already investigating brown fat, mitochondrial uncouplers, and skeletal muscle metabolism, but no agent thus far has been proven to be both safe and effective in increasing energy expenditure. Of these, keep an eye on clinical trials involving brown fat and the excitement over the anti-inflammatory cytokine growth differentiating factor 15 (GDF15).

4. Chronic disease without chronic medications.

Obesity is a chronic disease, just like hypertension or diabetes. Similarly, medications that treat chronic diseases are expected to be taken long-term because discontinuation often results in disease recurrence. However, obesity research is getting closer and closer to options that require less frequent administration. Bimagrumab, for example, is a once-monthly injection. In endocrinology, the premier example is osteoporosis: Osteoporosis can be treated with just 3 years of an annual injection and never require treatment again. In obesity, anticipate more basic science discoveries aimed at developing safe and specific treatments that are truly disease-modifying — ones that reverse appetitive dysregulation, reduce proinflammatory adiposity, and optimize anabolic metabolism.

5. Barriers to access are barriers to progress.

The biggest challenge to obesity treatment today is access: drug shortages, medication costs, and lack of obesity medicine providers. Shortages of medications like semaglutide 2.4 mg are being driven by high “demand”; in other words, manufacturers failed to anticipate the massive interest in antiobesity medications.

Medicare and most state Medicaid programs don’t cover these medications; commercial payers are refusing, reversing, or limiting coverage. An out-of-pocket monthly cost over $1000 limits affordability for the majority of Americans.

Seeking care from an obesity medicine doctor is a challenge as well. Over 40% of US adults have obesity, but less than 1% of doctors are certified in obesity medicine. Meanwhile, private equity is eager to address the lack of access through compounding pharmacies, medispas, or telemedicine services, but the quality of care varies greatly. Some companies purposely avoid the term “patient,” preferring ethics-free labels like “consumers” or “members.”

The $100 billion–dollar weight loss industry unfortunately has created financial incentives that drive obesity commerce over obesity care. Because of these barriers, the epidemic of obesity, with a prevalence projected to be 50% by 2030, will not be solved or slowed despite the scientific progress in obesity treatment. A single silver lining exists among policymakers who are aiming to correct our costly sick-care system in steps, starting with pharmacy benefit manager reform. Five of these bills are the ones to track in 2024: Pharmacy Benefit Manager Reform Act, Pharmacy Benefits Manager Accountability Act, Pharmacy Benefit Manager Sunshine and Accountability Act, Pharmacy Benefit Manager Transparency Act of 2023, and Lower Costs, More Transparency Act.

I believe that these five things will have the most impact on the treatment of our patients with obesity. Stay tuned throughout the year as I share updates in obesity research, pharmacotherapy, and public policy.
 

Dr. Tchang is Assistant Professor, Clinical Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Weill Cornell Medicine; Physician, Department of Medicine, Iris Cantor Women’s Health Center, Comprehensive Weight Control Center, New York, NY. She disclosed ties with Gelesis and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Eugene Yang, MD, often confronts the complexities of weighing various medical interventions for high blood pressure. Among these is when to scale back antihypertensive drugs or stop them completely.

He considers a patient’s comorbidities, severity of symptoms, and risk factors for heart attack and stroke, among other variables. Central to this calculus is the recognition of age as a pivotal determinant of quality of life, according to Dr. Yang, the chair of the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Council at the American College of Cardiology.

For older adults, for example, the variance in functional status can be striking. One octogenarian may be bedbound due to severe dementia, while another might be playing pickleball three times a week.

“This happens to me in my practice all the time. I have patients who are restricted in mobility and have severe memory loss: Their functionality is quite poor,” Dr. Yang said. “In a patient where we have a limited life expectancy, where they have limited function or core memory, the goal is not to prolong life: It’s to make them more comfortable.”

Knowing when to deprescribe blood pressure medications is crucial. For some, lifestyle changes can do the trick. For others, particularly older patients, their comorbid conditions and medication regimens need to be considered.

“There’s a recognition that we need to move to a new paradigm where we need to decide when to be aggressive and when to be less aggressive,” Dr. Yang said.

The American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology most recently released guidelines in 2017, changing the cutoff for diagnosis from 140/90 to 130/80 mm Hg. The groups have issued no updates since then, leaving primary care physicians and their colleagues to navigate this territory with caution, balancing the benefits of reduction with the potential harms of undertreatment.

One example of an area that needs updating is the consideration of the age, currently missing from current guidance on hypertension management from government and medical bodies in the United States. However, European Society of Hypertension guidelines, updated in June 2023, recommend adults over age 80 or those classified as frail should be treated when their systolic blood pressure exceeds 160.

“For the first time, we have a chapter in the guidelines on hypertension and management in older people,” Reinhold Kreutz, MD, PhD, immediate past-president of the European Society of Hypertension, said. “If a patient has low blood pressure and symptoms such as dizziness or frailty, a reduction in medication should be considered.”

High blood pressure does not always present with noticeable symptoms, and patients do not always show up for an office visit in time for early intervention. It can pave the way for severe health complications including heart failure, stroke, kidney disease, heart attack, and, ultimately, death.

Grim statistics reveal its toll: Hypertension was a primary or contributing cause of nearly 700,000 deaths in the United States in 2021, and nearly half of adults have the condition. Only about one in four adults have their high blood pressure under control.
 

New Research Provides Insight

A recent study may provide needed insights for primary care clinicians: Gradually reducing hypertensive medication may not induce the feared fluctuations in blood pressure, contrary to prior concerns.

Researchers in Seoul, South Korea, analyzed the blood pressure of 83 patients diagnosed with hypertension who reduced their use of medication. They found that the use of less medication was associated with an increase in blood pressure readings taken at home but not in the clinic nor did it appear to influence blood pressure variability. The mean age of participants was 66 years.

Research shows systolic blood pressure variability is an important predictor of cardiovascular outcomes, as well as the risk for dementia.

When crafting treatment plans, clinicians should recognize the diverse factors at play for a particular patient, particularly concerning other health conditions.

Obesity, diabetes, and hyperlipidemia are among the common comorbidities often intertwined with hypertension. Because additional conditions come with more symptoms to consider and various medications, these health profiles demand tailored approaches to hypertension treatment.

Clinicians can recommend lifestyle modifications like dietary changes and regular exercise as first steps for patients who are diagnosed with grade 1 hypertension but who do not have cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, or organ damage. However, in cases where comorbidities are present or hypertension escalates to grade 2, clinicians should turn to medications for management, according to the International Society of Hypertension.

Patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction have unique challenges, according to Keith C. Ferdinand, MD, the Gereld S. Berenson Endowed Chair in Preventative Cardiology at the Tulane School of Medicine in New Orleans, Louisiana.

“Patients who have heart disease, they get a pump so the blood pressure comes down — but medicine is often needed to prevent further heart failure,” Dr. Ferdinand said.

Dr. Ferdinand stressed the importance of continuous medication to stave off further cardiac deterioration. He advocated for a cautious approach, emphasizing the continued use of medications like sacubitril/valsartan, beta-blockers, or sodium-glucose transport protein inhibitors to safeguard against heart failure progression.

Patients should also self-monitor blood pressure at home and be taught how to properly fit a cuff to enable accurate measurements. This approach empowers patients to actively engage in their health management and detect any deviations that warrant further attention, he said.
 

Medications for Hypertension

The use of any of the five major drug classes — angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, beta-blockers, calcium blockers, and thiazide/thiazide-like diuretics — and their combinations are recommended as the basis of antihypertensive treatment strategies.

Dr. Yang said primary care clinicians must be careful to decrease doses slowly. Central-acting medications such as clonidine and beta-blockers ultimately reduce heart rate and dilate blood vessels.

Decreasing the dose too quickly can create a rebound effect, and medication should be means reduced and closely monitored over the course of several weeks, Dr. Yang said.

“You cannot just withdraw abruptly with certain medications — you have to wean off slowly,” because patients may experience high blood pressure again, Dr. Yang said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Eugene Yang, MD, often confronts the complexities of weighing various medical interventions for high blood pressure. Among these is when to scale back antihypertensive drugs or stop them completely.

He considers a patient’s comorbidities, severity of symptoms, and risk factors for heart attack and stroke, among other variables. Central to this calculus is the recognition of age as a pivotal determinant of quality of life, according to Dr. Yang, the chair of the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Council at the American College of Cardiology.

For older adults, for example, the variance in functional status can be striking. One octogenarian may be bedbound due to severe dementia, while another might be playing pickleball three times a week.

“This happens to me in my practice all the time. I have patients who are restricted in mobility and have severe memory loss: Their functionality is quite poor,” Dr. Yang said. “In a patient where we have a limited life expectancy, where they have limited function or core memory, the goal is not to prolong life: It’s to make them more comfortable.”

Knowing when to deprescribe blood pressure medications is crucial. For some, lifestyle changes can do the trick. For others, particularly older patients, their comorbid conditions and medication regimens need to be considered.

“There’s a recognition that we need to move to a new paradigm where we need to decide when to be aggressive and when to be less aggressive,” Dr. Yang said.

The American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology most recently released guidelines in 2017, changing the cutoff for diagnosis from 140/90 to 130/80 mm Hg. The groups have issued no updates since then, leaving primary care physicians and their colleagues to navigate this territory with caution, balancing the benefits of reduction with the potential harms of undertreatment.

One example of an area that needs updating is the consideration of the age, currently missing from current guidance on hypertension management from government and medical bodies in the United States. However, European Society of Hypertension guidelines, updated in June 2023, recommend adults over age 80 or those classified as frail should be treated when their systolic blood pressure exceeds 160.

“For the first time, we have a chapter in the guidelines on hypertension and management in older people,” Reinhold Kreutz, MD, PhD, immediate past-president of the European Society of Hypertension, said. “If a patient has low blood pressure and symptoms such as dizziness or frailty, a reduction in medication should be considered.”

High blood pressure does not always present with noticeable symptoms, and patients do not always show up for an office visit in time for early intervention. It can pave the way for severe health complications including heart failure, stroke, kidney disease, heart attack, and, ultimately, death.

Grim statistics reveal its toll: Hypertension was a primary or contributing cause of nearly 700,000 deaths in the United States in 2021, and nearly half of adults have the condition. Only about one in four adults have their high blood pressure under control.
 

New Research Provides Insight

A recent study may provide needed insights for primary care clinicians: Gradually reducing hypertensive medication may not induce the feared fluctuations in blood pressure, contrary to prior concerns.

Researchers in Seoul, South Korea, analyzed the blood pressure of 83 patients diagnosed with hypertension who reduced their use of medication. They found that the use of less medication was associated with an increase in blood pressure readings taken at home but not in the clinic nor did it appear to influence blood pressure variability. The mean age of participants was 66 years.

Research shows systolic blood pressure variability is an important predictor of cardiovascular outcomes, as well as the risk for dementia.

When crafting treatment plans, clinicians should recognize the diverse factors at play for a particular patient, particularly concerning other health conditions.

Obesity, diabetes, and hyperlipidemia are among the common comorbidities often intertwined with hypertension. Because additional conditions come with more symptoms to consider and various medications, these health profiles demand tailored approaches to hypertension treatment.

Clinicians can recommend lifestyle modifications like dietary changes and regular exercise as first steps for patients who are diagnosed with grade 1 hypertension but who do not have cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, or organ damage. However, in cases where comorbidities are present or hypertension escalates to grade 2, clinicians should turn to medications for management, according to the International Society of Hypertension.

Patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction have unique challenges, according to Keith C. Ferdinand, MD, the Gereld S. Berenson Endowed Chair in Preventative Cardiology at the Tulane School of Medicine in New Orleans, Louisiana.

“Patients who have heart disease, they get a pump so the blood pressure comes down — but medicine is often needed to prevent further heart failure,” Dr. Ferdinand said.

Dr. Ferdinand stressed the importance of continuous medication to stave off further cardiac deterioration. He advocated for a cautious approach, emphasizing the continued use of medications like sacubitril/valsartan, beta-blockers, or sodium-glucose transport protein inhibitors to safeguard against heart failure progression.

Patients should also self-monitor blood pressure at home and be taught how to properly fit a cuff to enable accurate measurements. This approach empowers patients to actively engage in their health management and detect any deviations that warrant further attention, he said.
 

Medications for Hypertension

The use of any of the five major drug classes — angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, beta-blockers, calcium blockers, and thiazide/thiazide-like diuretics — and their combinations are recommended as the basis of antihypertensive treatment strategies.

Dr. Yang said primary care clinicians must be careful to decrease doses slowly. Central-acting medications such as clonidine and beta-blockers ultimately reduce heart rate and dilate blood vessels.

Decreasing the dose too quickly can create a rebound effect, and medication should be means reduced and closely monitored over the course of several weeks, Dr. Yang said.

“You cannot just withdraw abruptly with certain medications — you have to wean off slowly,” because patients may experience high blood pressure again, Dr. Yang said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Eugene Yang, MD, often confronts the complexities of weighing various medical interventions for high blood pressure. Among these is when to scale back antihypertensive drugs or stop them completely.

He considers a patient’s comorbidities, severity of symptoms, and risk factors for heart attack and stroke, among other variables. Central to this calculus is the recognition of age as a pivotal determinant of quality of life, according to Dr. Yang, the chair of the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Council at the American College of Cardiology.

For older adults, for example, the variance in functional status can be striking. One octogenarian may be bedbound due to severe dementia, while another might be playing pickleball three times a week.

“This happens to me in my practice all the time. I have patients who are restricted in mobility and have severe memory loss: Their functionality is quite poor,” Dr. Yang said. “In a patient where we have a limited life expectancy, where they have limited function or core memory, the goal is not to prolong life: It’s to make them more comfortable.”

Knowing when to deprescribe blood pressure medications is crucial. For some, lifestyle changes can do the trick. For others, particularly older patients, their comorbid conditions and medication regimens need to be considered.

“There’s a recognition that we need to move to a new paradigm where we need to decide when to be aggressive and when to be less aggressive,” Dr. Yang said.

The American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology most recently released guidelines in 2017, changing the cutoff for diagnosis from 140/90 to 130/80 mm Hg. The groups have issued no updates since then, leaving primary care physicians and their colleagues to navigate this territory with caution, balancing the benefits of reduction with the potential harms of undertreatment.

One example of an area that needs updating is the consideration of the age, currently missing from current guidance on hypertension management from government and medical bodies in the United States. However, European Society of Hypertension guidelines, updated in June 2023, recommend adults over age 80 or those classified as frail should be treated when their systolic blood pressure exceeds 160.

“For the first time, we have a chapter in the guidelines on hypertension and management in older people,” Reinhold Kreutz, MD, PhD, immediate past-president of the European Society of Hypertension, said. “If a patient has low blood pressure and symptoms such as dizziness or frailty, a reduction in medication should be considered.”

High blood pressure does not always present with noticeable symptoms, and patients do not always show up for an office visit in time for early intervention. It can pave the way for severe health complications including heart failure, stroke, kidney disease, heart attack, and, ultimately, death.

Grim statistics reveal its toll: Hypertension was a primary or contributing cause of nearly 700,000 deaths in the United States in 2021, and nearly half of adults have the condition. Only about one in four adults have their high blood pressure under control.
 

New Research Provides Insight

A recent study may provide needed insights for primary care clinicians: Gradually reducing hypertensive medication may not induce the feared fluctuations in blood pressure, contrary to prior concerns.

Researchers in Seoul, South Korea, analyzed the blood pressure of 83 patients diagnosed with hypertension who reduced their use of medication. They found that the use of less medication was associated with an increase in blood pressure readings taken at home but not in the clinic nor did it appear to influence blood pressure variability. The mean age of participants was 66 years.

Research shows systolic blood pressure variability is an important predictor of cardiovascular outcomes, as well as the risk for dementia.

When crafting treatment plans, clinicians should recognize the diverse factors at play for a particular patient, particularly concerning other health conditions.

Obesity, diabetes, and hyperlipidemia are among the common comorbidities often intertwined with hypertension. Because additional conditions come with more symptoms to consider and various medications, these health profiles demand tailored approaches to hypertension treatment.

Clinicians can recommend lifestyle modifications like dietary changes and regular exercise as first steps for patients who are diagnosed with grade 1 hypertension but who do not have cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, or organ damage. However, in cases where comorbidities are present or hypertension escalates to grade 2, clinicians should turn to medications for management, according to the International Society of Hypertension.

Patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction have unique challenges, according to Keith C. Ferdinand, MD, the Gereld S. Berenson Endowed Chair in Preventative Cardiology at the Tulane School of Medicine in New Orleans, Louisiana.

“Patients who have heart disease, they get a pump so the blood pressure comes down — but medicine is often needed to prevent further heart failure,” Dr. Ferdinand said.

Dr. Ferdinand stressed the importance of continuous medication to stave off further cardiac deterioration. He advocated for a cautious approach, emphasizing the continued use of medications like sacubitril/valsartan, beta-blockers, or sodium-glucose transport protein inhibitors to safeguard against heart failure progression.

Patients should also self-monitor blood pressure at home and be taught how to properly fit a cuff to enable accurate measurements. This approach empowers patients to actively engage in their health management and detect any deviations that warrant further attention, he said.
 

Medications for Hypertension

The use of any of the five major drug classes — angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, beta-blockers, calcium blockers, and thiazide/thiazide-like diuretics — and their combinations are recommended as the basis of antihypertensive treatment strategies.

Dr. Yang said primary care clinicians must be careful to decrease doses slowly. Central-acting medications such as clonidine and beta-blockers ultimately reduce heart rate and dilate blood vessels.

Decreasing the dose too quickly can create a rebound effect, and medication should be means reduced and closely monitored over the course of several weeks, Dr. Yang said.

“You cannot just withdraw abruptly with certain medications — you have to wean off slowly,” because patients may experience high blood pressure again, Dr. Yang said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has issued a reminder to healthcare professionals regarding the potential serious adverse reactions associated with Paxlovid when administered in combination with specific immunosuppressants.

These immunosuppressants, encompassing calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus and ciclosporin) and mTOR inhibitors (everolimus and sirolimus), possess a narrow safe dosage range. They are recognized for their role in diminishing the activity of the immune system and are typically prescribed for autoimmune conditions and organ transplant recipients.

The highlighted risk arises due to drug-drug interactions, which can compromise the body’s ability to eliminate these medicines effectively.

Paxlovid, also known as nirmatrelvir with ritonavir, is an antiviral medication used to treat COVID-19 in adults who do not require supplemental oxygen and who are at an increased risk of progressing to severe COVID-19. It should be administered as soon as possible after a diagnosis of COVID-19 has been made and within 5 days of symptom onset.

Conditional marketing authorization for Paxlovid was granted across the European Union (EU) on January 28, 2022, and subsequently transitioned to full marketing authorization on February 24, 2023.

Developed by Pfizer, Paxlovid exhibited an 89% reduction in the risk for hospitalization or death among unvaccinated individuals in a phase 2-3 clinical trial. This led the National Institutes of Health to prioritize Paxlovid over other COVID-19 treatments. Subsequent real-world studies have affirmed its effectiveness, even among the vaccinated.

When combining Paxlovid with tacrolimus, ciclosporin, everolimus, or sirolimus, healthcare professionals need to actively monitor their blood levels. This proactive approach is essential to mitigate the risk for drug-drug interactions and potential serious reactions. They should collaborate with a multidisciplinary team of specialists to navigate the complexities of administering these medications concurrently.

Further, Paxlovid must not be coadministered with medications highly reliant on CYP3A liver enzymes for elimination, such as the immunosuppressant voclosporin. When administered together, there is a risk for these drugs interfering with each other’s metabolism, potentially leading to altered blood levels, reduced effectiveness, or an increased risk for adverse reactions.

After a thorough review, PRAC has highlighted potential serious adverse reactions, including fatal cases, due to drug interactions between Paxlovid and specified immunosuppressants. Thus, it issued a direct healthcare professional communication (DHPC) to emphasize the recognized risk for these interactions, as previously outlined in Paxlovid’s product information.

The DHPC for Paxlovid will undergo further evaluation by EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use and, upon adoption, will be disseminated to healthcare professionals. The communication plan will include publication on the DHPCs page and in national registers across EU Member States.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has issued a reminder to healthcare professionals regarding the potential serious adverse reactions associated with Paxlovid when administered in combination with specific immunosuppressants.

These immunosuppressants, encompassing calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus and ciclosporin) and mTOR inhibitors (everolimus and sirolimus), possess a narrow safe dosage range. They are recognized for their role in diminishing the activity of the immune system and are typically prescribed for autoimmune conditions and organ transplant recipients.

The highlighted risk arises due to drug-drug interactions, which can compromise the body’s ability to eliminate these medicines effectively.

Paxlovid, also known as nirmatrelvir with ritonavir, is an antiviral medication used to treat COVID-19 in adults who do not require supplemental oxygen and who are at an increased risk of progressing to severe COVID-19. It should be administered as soon as possible after a diagnosis of COVID-19 has been made and within 5 days of symptom onset.

Conditional marketing authorization for Paxlovid was granted across the European Union (EU) on January 28, 2022, and subsequently transitioned to full marketing authorization on February 24, 2023.

Developed by Pfizer, Paxlovid exhibited an 89% reduction in the risk for hospitalization or death among unvaccinated individuals in a phase 2-3 clinical trial. This led the National Institutes of Health to prioritize Paxlovid over other COVID-19 treatments. Subsequent real-world studies have affirmed its effectiveness, even among the vaccinated.

When combining Paxlovid with tacrolimus, ciclosporin, everolimus, or sirolimus, healthcare professionals need to actively monitor their blood levels. This proactive approach is essential to mitigate the risk for drug-drug interactions and potential serious reactions. They should collaborate with a multidisciplinary team of specialists to navigate the complexities of administering these medications concurrently.

Further, Paxlovid must not be coadministered with medications highly reliant on CYP3A liver enzymes for elimination, such as the immunosuppressant voclosporin. When administered together, there is a risk for these drugs interfering with each other’s metabolism, potentially leading to altered blood levels, reduced effectiveness, or an increased risk for adverse reactions.

After a thorough review, PRAC has highlighted potential serious adverse reactions, including fatal cases, due to drug interactions between Paxlovid and specified immunosuppressants. Thus, it issued a direct healthcare professional communication (DHPC) to emphasize the recognized risk for these interactions, as previously outlined in Paxlovid’s product information.

The DHPC for Paxlovid will undergo further evaluation by EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use and, upon adoption, will be disseminated to healthcare professionals. The communication plan will include publication on the DHPCs page and in national registers across EU Member States.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has issued a reminder to healthcare professionals regarding the potential serious adverse reactions associated with Paxlovid when administered in combination with specific immunosuppressants.

These immunosuppressants, encompassing calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus and ciclosporin) and mTOR inhibitors (everolimus and sirolimus), possess a narrow safe dosage range. They are recognized for their role in diminishing the activity of the immune system and are typically prescribed for autoimmune conditions and organ transplant recipients.

The highlighted risk arises due to drug-drug interactions, which can compromise the body’s ability to eliminate these medicines effectively.

Paxlovid, also known as nirmatrelvir with ritonavir, is an antiviral medication used to treat COVID-19 in adults who do not require supplemental oxygen and who are at an increased risk of progressing to severe COVID-19. It should be administered as soon as possible after a diagnosis of COVID-19 has been made and within 5 days of symptom onset.

Conditional marketing authorization for Paxlovid was granted across the European Union (EU) on January 28, 2022, and subsequently transitioned to full marketing authorization on February 24, 2023.

Developed by Pfizer, Paxlovid exhibited an 89% reduction in the risk for hospitalization or death among unvaccinated individuals in a phase 2-3 clinical trial. This led the National Institutes of Health to prioritize Paxlovid over other COVID-19 treatments. Subsequent real-world studies have affirmed its effectiveness, even among the vaccinated.

When combining Paxlovid with tacrolimus, ciclosporin, everolimus, or sirolimus, healthcare professionals need to actively monitor their blood levels. This proactive approach is essential to mitigate the risk for drug-drug interactions and potential serious reactions. They should collaborate with a multidisciplinary team of specialists to navigate the complexities of administering these medications concurrently.

Further, Paxlovid must not be coadministered with medications highly reliant on CYP3A liver enzymes for elimination, such as the immunosuppressant voclosporin. When administered together, there is a risk for these drugs interfering with each other’s metabolism, potentially leading to altered blood levels, reduced effectiveness, or an increased risk for adverse reactions.

After a thorough review, PRAC has highlighted potential serious adverse reactions, including fatal cases, due to drug interactions between Paxlovid and specified immunosuppressants. Thus, it issued a direct healthcare professional communication (DHPC) to emphasize the recognized risk for these interactions, as previously outlined in Paxlovid’s product information.

The DHPC for Paxlovid will undergo further evaluation by EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use and, upon adoption, will be disseminated to healthcare professionals. The communication plan will include publication on the DHPCs page and in national registers across EU Member States.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Maria Maio wasn’t the only person in her workplace battling COVID-19 in early December 2023. But while everyone else she knows got better, she got long COVID.

A celebrity makeup artist, the 55-year-old New Yorker had been boosted and vaccinated at every opportunity since vaccines were approved at the end of 2020, until the fall of 2023, when she skipped the shot.

“I really started subscribing to the mindset that you have an immune system and your immune system is supposed to work for you,” she said. “That was the stupidest thing I’ve ever done.”

Maio was not the only person to skip the latest booster: A recent study reported that while nearly 80% of adults in the United States said they’d received their first series of vaccines, barely 20% were up to date on boosters. Nor was Maio alone in getting long COVID 4 years after the start of the deadliest pandemic in a century.

It’s tempting, this far out from the shutdowns of 2020, to think the virus is over, that we’re immune, and nobody’s going to get sick anymore. But while fewer people are getting COVID, it is still very much a part of our lives. And as Maio and others are learning the hard way, long COVID is, too — and it can be deadly.

For those who have recently contracted long COVID, it can feel as if the whole world has moved on from the pandemic, and they are being left behind.
 

Too Easy to Let Our Guard Down

“It’s really difficult to prevent exposure to COVID no matter how careful you are and no matter how many times you are vaccinated,” said Akiko Iwasaki, an immunology professor at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and pioneer in long COVID research. Iwasaki was quick to point out that “we should never blame anybody for getting long COVID because there is no bulletproof way of preventing long COVID from happening” — although research shows you can increase your protection through vaccination, masking, and increasing ventilation indoors.

Also, just because you didn’t get long COVID after catching the virus once, doesn’t mean you’ll dodge the bullet if you get sick again, as Maio has now learned twice. She had long COVID in 2022 after her second bout with the virus, with breathing problems and brain fog that lasted for several months.

Subsequent long COVID experiences won’t necessarily mimic previous ones. Although Maio developed brain fog again, this time she didn’t have the breathing problems that plagued her in 2022. Instead, she had headaches so excruciating she thought she was dying of a brain aneurysm.

A Journal of the American Medical Association study released in May identified the 37 most common symptoms of long COVID, including symptom subgroups that occurred in 80% of the nearly 10,000 study participants. But the symptoms that patients with long COVID are experiencing now are slightly different from earlier in the pandemic or at least that’s what doctors are finding at the Post-COVID Recovery Clinic affiliated with the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

Michael Risbano, MD, the clinic’s codirector, said fewer patients have pulmonary or lung damage now than in the past, but a steady stream report problems with brain fog, forgetfulness, exercise intolerance (shortness of breath and fatigue with exercise and difficulty performing any kind of exertional activity), and post-exertional malaise (feeling wiped out or fatigued for hours or even days after physical or mental activity).
 

Long COVID Treatments Showing Improvement — Slowly

“There still isn’t a great way to treat any of this,” said Risbano, whose clinic is involved with the National Institute of Health’s RECOVER-VITAL trial, which is evaluating potential treatments including Paxlovid and exercise to treat autonomic dysfunction with similarities to myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome and POTS, exercise intolerance, and neurocognitive effects such as brain fog.

Risbano and colleagues have found that physical therapy and exercise training have helped patients with exercise intolerance and neurocognitive problems. “It’s not a quick thing where they go through one visit and are better the next day,” he stressed. “It takes a little bit of time, a little bit of effort, a little bit of homework — there are no silver bullets, no magic medications.”

A quick fix was definitely not in the cards for Dean Jones, PhD, who could barely move when he developed long COVID in May 2023. A 74-year-old biochemist and professor of medicine at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, he’d recovered fully the first time he had COVID, in August 2022, but had a completely different experience the second time. He had been vaccinated four times when he began experiencing chronic fatigue, intense exertion-induced migraines, severe airway congestion, brain fog, and shortness of breath. The symptoms began after Memorial Day and worsened over the next month.

His resting heart rate began racing even when he was sleeping, jumping from 53 to 70 beats per minute. “It was almost as though the virus had hit my heart rather than the lungs alone,” he said.

Doctors prescribed multiple inhalers and glucocorticoids to calm Jones’s immune system. The worst symptoms began to abate after a few weeks. The bad ones continued for fully 2 months, severely limiting Jones’s activity. Although he no longer slept all day, just walking from one room to another was exhausting. A dedicated scientist who typically worked 10-15 hours a day before getting sick, he was lucky to focus on work-related tasks for a fraction of that time.

Although the migraines went away early on, the headaches remained until well into the fall. Jones’s energy level gradually returned, and by Christmas, he was beginning to feel as healthy as he had before getting COVID in May.

Still, he’s not complaining that it took so long to get better. “At 74, there’s a lot of colleagues who have already passed away,” he said. “I respect the realities of my age. There are so many people who died from COVID that I’m thankful I had those vaccines. I’m thankful that I pulled through it and was able to rebound.”
 

Time Helps Healing — But Prompt Care Still Needed

Recovery is the case for most patients with long COVID, said Lisa Sanders, MD, medical director of the Yale New Haven Health Systems Long COVID Consultation Clinic, which opened in March 2023. Although the clinic has a small segment of patients who have had the condition since 2020, “people who recover, who are most people, move on,” she said. “Even the patients who sometimes have to wait a month or so to see me, some of them say, ‘I’m already starting to get better. I wasn’t sure I should come.’”

Maio, too, is recovering but only after multiple visits to the emergency room and a neurologist in late December and early January. The third emergency room trip was prompted after a brief episode in which she lost the feeling in her legs, which began convulsing. A CAT scan showed severely constricted blood vessels in her brain, leading the medical team to speculate she might have reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (RCVS), which can trigger the thunderclap headaches that had been causing her such misery.

After her third such headache prompted a fourth emergency room visit, further tests confirmed RCVS, which doctors said was related to inflammation caused by COVID. Maio was then admitted to the hospital, where she spent 4 days starting on a regimen of blood pressure medication, magnesium for the headaches, and oxycodone for pain management.

The TV show Maio works on went back into production after the holidays. She went back at the end of January. She’s still having headaches, though they’re less intense, and she’s still taking medication. She was scheduled for another test to look at her blood vessels in February.

Maio has yet to forgive herself for skipping the last booster, even though there’s no guarantee it would have prevented her from getting sick. Her message for others: it’s better to be safe than to be as sorry as she is.

“I’ll never, ever be persuaded by people who don’t believe in vaccines because I believe in science, and I believe in vaccines — that’s why people don’t die at the age of 30 anymore,” she said. “I really think that people need to know about this and what to expect. Because it is horrendous. It is very painful. I would never want anyone to go through this. Ever.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Maria Maio wasn’t the only person in her workplace battling COVID-19 in early December 2023. But while everyone else she knows got better, she got long COVID.

A celebrity makeup artist, the 55-year-old New Yorker had been boosted and vaccinated at every opportunity since vaccines were approved at the end of 2020, until the fall of 2023, when she skipped the shot.

“I really started subscribing to the mindset that you have an immune system and your immune system is supposed to work for you,” she said. “That was the stupidest thing I’ve ever done.”

Maio was not the only person to skip the latest booster: A recent study reported that while nearly 80% of adults in the United States said they’d received their first series of vaccines, barely 20% were up to date on boosters. Nor was Maio alone in getting long COVID 4 years after the start of the deadliest pandemic in a century.

It’s tempting, this far out from the shutdowns of 2020, to think the virus is over, that we’re immune, and nobody’s going to get sick anymore. But while fewer people are getting COVID, it is still very much a part of our lives. And as Maio and others are learning the hard way, long COVID is, too — and it can be deadly.

For those who have recently contracted long COVID, it can feel as if the whole world has moved on from the pandemic, and they are being left behind.
 

Too Easy to Let Our Guard Down

“It’s really difficult to prevent exposure to COVID no matter how careful you are and no matter how many times you are vaccinated,” said Akiko Iwasaki, an immunology professor at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and pioneer in long COVID research. Iwasaki was quick to point out that “we should never blame anybody for getting long COVID because there is no bulletproof way of preventing long COVID from happening” — although research shows you can increase your protection through vaccination, masking, and increasing ventilation indoors.

Also, just because you didn’t get long COVID after catching the virus once, doesn’t mean you’ll dodge the bullet if you get sick again, as Maio has now learned twice. She had long COVID in 2022 after her second bout with the virus, with breathing problems and brain fog that lasted for several months.

Subsequent long COVID experiences won’t necessarily mimic previous ones. Although Maio developed brain fog again, this time she didn’t have the breathing problems that plagued her in 2022. Instead, she had headaches so excruciating she thought she was dying of a brain aneurysm.

A Journal of the American Medical Association study released in May identified the 37 most common symptoms of long COVID, including symptom subgroups that occurred in 80% of the nearly 10,000 study participants. But the symptoms that patients with long COVID are experiencing now are slightly different from earlier in the pandemic or at least that’s what doctors are finding at the Post-COVID Recovery Clinic affiliated with the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

Michael Risbano, MD, the clinic’s codirector, said fewer patients have pulmonary or lung damage now than in the past, but a steady stream report problems with brain fog, forgetfulness, exercise intolerance (shortness of breath and fatigue with exercise and difficulty performing any kind of exertional activity), and post-exertional malaise (feeling wiped out or fatigued for hours or even days after physical or mental activity).
 

Long COVID Treatments Showing Improvement — Slowly

“There still isn’t a great way to treat any of this,” said Risbano, whose clinic is involved with the National Institute of Health’s RECOVER-VITAL trial, which is evaluating potential treatments including Paxlovid and exercise to treat autonomic dysfunction with similarities to myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome and POTS, exercise intolerance, and neurocognitive effects such as brain fog.

Risbano and colleagues have found that physical therapy and exercise training have helped patients with exercise intolerance and neurocognitive problems. “It’s not a quick thing where they go through one visit and are better the next day,” he stressed. “It takes a little bit of time, a little bit of effort, a little bit of homework — there are no silver bullets, no magic medications.”

A quick fix was definitely not in the cards for Dean Jones, PhD, who could barely move when he developed long COVID in May 2023. A 74-year-old biochemist and professor of medicine at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, he’d recovered fully the first time he had COVID, in August 2022, but had a completely different experience the second time. He had been vaccinated four times when he began experiencing chronic fatigue, intense exertion-induced migraines, severe airway congestion, brain fog, and shortness of breath. The symptoms began after Memorial Day and worsened over the next month.

His resting heart rate began racing even when he was sleeping, jumping from 53 to 70 beats per minute. “It was almost as though the virus had hit my heart rather than the lungs alone,” he said.

Doctors prescribed multiple inhalers and glucocorticoids to calm Jones’s immune system. The worst symptoms began to abate after a few weeks. The bad ones continued for fully 2 months, severely limiting Jones’s activity. Although he no longer slept all day, just walking from one room to another was exhausting. A dedicated scientist who typically worked 10-15 hours a day before getting sick, he was lucky to focus on work-related tasks for a fraction of that time.

Although the migraines went away early on, the headaches remained until well into the fall. Jones’s energy level gradually returned, and by Christmas, he was beginning to feel as healthy as he had before getting COVID in May.

Still, he’s not complaining that it took so long to get better. “At 74, there’s a lot of colleagues who have already passed away,” he said. “I respect the realities of my age. There are so many people who died from COVID that I’m thankful I had those vaccines. I’m thankful that I pulled through it and was able to rebound.”
 

Time Helps Healing — But Prompt Care Still Needed

Recovery is the case for most patients with long COVID, said Lisa Sanders, MD, medical director of the Yale New Haven Health Systems Long COVID Consultation Clinic, which opened in March 2023. Although the clinic has a small segment of patients who have had the condition since 2020, “people who recover, who are most people, move on,” she said. “Even the patients who sometimes have to wait a month or so to see me, some of them say, ‘I’m already starting to get better. I wasn’t sure I should come.’”

Maio, too, is recovering but only after multiple visits to the emergency room and a neurologist in late December and early January. The third emergency room trip was prompted after a brief episode in which she lost the feeling in her legs, which began convulsing. A CAT scan showed severely constricted blood vessels in her brain, leading the medical team to speculate she might have reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (RCVS), which can trigger the thunderclap headaches that had been causing her such misery.

After her third such headache prompted a fourth emergency room visit, further tests confirmed RCVS, which doctors said was related to inflammation caused by COVID. Maio was then admitted to the hospital, where she spent 4 days starting on a regimen of blood pressure medication, magnesium for the headaches, and oxycodone for pain management.

The TV show Maio works on went back into production after the holidays. She went back at the end of January. She’s still having headaches, though they’re less intense, and she’s still taking medication. She was scheduled for another test to look at her blood vessels in February.

Maio has yet to forgive herself for skipping the last booster, even though there’s no guarantee it would have prevented her from getting sick. Her message for others: it’s better to be safe than to be as sorry as she is.

“I’ll never, ever be persuaded by people who don’t believe in vaccines because I believe in science, and I believe in vaccines — that’s why people don’t die at the age of 30 anymore,” she said. “I really think that people need to know about this and what to expect. Because it is horrendous. It is very painful. I would never want anyone to go through this. Ever.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Maria Maio wasn’t the only person in her workplace battling COVID-19 in early December 2023. But while everyone else she knows got better, she got long COVID.

A celebrity makeup artist, the 55-year-old New Yorker had been boosted and vaccinated at every opportunity since vaccines were approved at the end of 2020, until the fall of 2023, when she skipped the shot.

“I really started subscribing to the mindset that you have an immune system and your immune system is supposed to work for you,” she said. “That was the stupidest thing I’ve ever done.”

Maio was not the only person to skip the latest booster: A recent study reported that while nearly 80% of adults in the United States said they’d received their first series of vaccines, barely 20% were up to date on boosters. Nor was Maio alone in getting long COVID 4 years after the start of the deadliest pandemic in a century.

It’s tempting, this far out from the shutdowns of 2020, to think the virus is over, that we’re immune, and nobody’s going to get sick anymore. But while fewer people are getting COVID, it is still very much a part of our lives. And as Maio and others are learning the hard way, long COVID is, too — and it can be deadly.

For those who have recently contracted long COVID, it can feel as if the whole world has moved on from the pandemic, and they are being left behind.
 

Too Easy to Let Our Guard Down

“It’s really difficult to prevent exposure to COVID no matter how careful you are and no matter how many times you are vaccinated,” said Akiko Iwasaki, an immunology professor at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and pioneer in long COVID research. Iwasaki was quick to point out that “we should never blame anybody for getting long COVID because there is no bulletproof way of preventing long COVID from happening” — although research shows you can increase your protection through vaccination, masking, and increasing ventilation indoors.

Also, just because you didn’t get long COVID after catching the virus once, doesn’t mean you’ll dodge the bullet if you get sick again, as Maio has now learned twice. She had long COVID in 2022 after her second bout with the virus, with breathing problems and brain fog that lasted for several months.

Subsequent long COVID experiences won’t necessarily mimic previous ones. Although Maio developed brain fog again, this time she didn’t have the breathing problems that plagued her in 2022. Instead, she had headaches so excruciating she thought she was dying of a brain aneurysm.

A Journal of the American Medical Association study released in May identified the 37 most common symptoms of long COVID, including symptom subgroups that occurred in 80% of the nearly 10,000 study participants. But the symptoms that patients with long COVID are experiencing now are slightly different from earlier in the pandemic or at least that’s what doctors are finding at the Post-COVID Recovery Clinic affiliated with the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

Michael Risbano, MD, the clinic’s codirector, said fewer patients have pulmonary or lung damage now than in the past, but a steady stream report problems with brain fog, forgetfulness, exercise intolerance (shortness of breath and fatigue with exercise and difficulty performing any kind of exertional activity), and post-exertional malaise (feeling wiped out or fatigued for hours or even days after physical or mental activity).
 

Long COVID Treatments Showing Improvement — Slowly

“There still isn’t a great way to treat any of this,” said Risbano, whose clinic is involved with the National Institute of Health’s RECOVER-VITAL trial, which is evaluating potential treatments including Paxlovid and exercise to treat autonomic dysfunction with similarities to myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome and POTS, exercise intolerance, and neurocognitive effects such as brain fog.

Risbano and colleagues have found that physical therapy and exercise training have helped patients with exercise intolerance and neurocognitive problems. “It’s not a quick thing where they go through one visit and are better the next day,” he stressed. “It takes a little bit of time, a little bit of effort, a little bit of homework — there are no silver bullets, no magic medications.”

A quick fix was definitely not in the cards for Dean Jones, PhD, who could barely move when he developed long COVID in May 2023. A 74-year-old biochemist and professor of medicine at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, he’d recovered fully the first time he had COVID, in August 2022, but had a completely different experience the second time. He had been vaccinated four times when he began experiencing chronic fatigue, intense exertion-induced migraines, severe airway congestion, brain fog, and shortness of breath. The symptoms began after Memorial Day and worsened over the next month.

His resting heart rate began racing even when he was sleeping, jumping from 53 to 70 beats per minute. “It was almost as though the virus had hit my heart rather than the lungs alone,” he said.

Doctors prescribed multiple inhalers and glucocorticoids to calm Jones’s immune system. The worst symptoms began to abate after a few weeks. The bad ones continued for fully 2 months, severely limiting Jones’s activity. Although he no longer slept all day, just walking from one room to another was exhausting. A dedicated scientist who typically worked 10-15 hours a day before getting sick, he was lucky to focus on work-related tasks for a fraction of that time.

Although the migraines went away early on, the headaches remained until well into the fall. Jones’s energy level gradually returned, and by Christmas, he was beginning to feel as healthy as he had before getting COVID in May.

Still, he’s not complaining that it took so long to get better. “At 74, there’s a lot of colleagues who have already passed away,” he said. “I respect the realities of my age. There are so many people who died from COVID that I’m thankful I had those vaccines. I’m thankful that I pulled through it and was able to rebound.”
 

Time Helps Healing — But Prompt Care Still Needed

Recovery is the case for most patients with long COVID, said Lisa Sanders, MD, medical director of the Yale New Haven Health Systems Long COVID Consultation Clinic, which opened in March 2023. Although the clinic has a small segment of patients who have had the condition since 2020, “people who recover, who are most people, move on,” she said. “Even the patients who sometimes have to wait a month or so to see me, some of them say, ‘I’m already starting to get better. I wasn’t sure I should come.’”

Maio, too, is recovering but only after multiple visits to the emergency room and a neurologist in late December and early January. The third emergency room trip was prompted after a brief episode in which she lost the feeling in her legs, which began convulsing. A CAT scan showed severely constricted blood vessels in her brain, leading the medical team to speculate she might have reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (RCVS), which can trigger the thunderclap headaches that had been causing her such misery.

After her third such headache prompted a fourth emergency room visit, further tests confirmed RCVS, which doctors said was related to inflammation caused by COVID. Maio was then admitted to the hospital, where she spent 4 days starting on a regimen of blood pressure medication, magnesium for the headaches, and oxycodone for pain management.

The TV show Maio works on went back into production after the holidays. She went back at the end of January. She’s still having headaches, though they’re less intense, and she’s still taking medication. She was scheduled for another test to look at her blood vessels in February.

Maio has yet to forgive herself for skipping the last booster, even though there’s no guarantee it would have prevented her from getting sick. Her message for others: it’s better to be safe than to be as sorry as she is.

“I’ll never, ever be persuaded by people who don’t believe in vaccines because I believe in science, and I believe in vaccines — that’s why people don’t die at the age of 30 anymore,” she said. “I really think that people need to know about this and what to expect. Because it is horrendous. It is very painful. I would never want anyone to go through this. Ever.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO – Soon after Brett M. Coldiron, MD, launched his Cincinnati-based dermatology and Mohs surgery practice more than 20 years ago, he reported his first three cases of thin melanomas to the Ohio Department of Health, as mandated by state law.

“I got sent reams of paperwork to fill out that I did not understand,” Dr. Coldiron, a past president of the American College of Mohs Surgery and the American Academy of Dermatology, recalled at the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update. “Then, I got chewed out for not reporting sooner and threatened with thousands of dollars in fines if I did not promptly report the forms in the future. It was an obnoxious experience.”

About 15 years later, while testifying at the Ohio Legislature on medical reasons to restrict the use of tanning beds, a lobbyist for the tanning bed industry told him that the melanoma rates had been stable in Ohio for the previous 5 years. “It turns out they were cherry picking certain segments of data to fit their narrative,” Dr. Coldiron said. “I was stunned and it kind of deflated me. I thought about this for a long time, and thought, ‘how do we solve this issue of reporting melanoma cases without adding work to existing staff if you’re a small practice and without spending significant amounts of money? Let’s make this easier.’ ”

In addition to reducing the use of tanning beds, proper reporting of melanoma cases is important for reasons that include efforts to increase sunscreen use and to be counted in ongoing research efforts to obtain a realistic snapshot of melanoma prevalence and incidence, he said.

Quality of melanoma case reporting relies on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR), and the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program, which collects data on the incidence, treatment, staging, and survival for 28% of the US population. All 50 states and US territories require melanoma to be reported to the NPCR, but while most hospital systems have reporting protocols and dedicated data registrars, private practices may not.

Also, many dermatopathology practices operate independently and do not have dedicated registrars and may not report cases. “Melanoma is unique in that it is often completely managed in outpatient settings and these melanomas may never be reported,” said Dr. Coldiron, current president of the Ohio Dermatological Foundation. “That’s the practice gap.” One study published in 2018 found that only 49% of dermatologists knew that melanoma was a reportable disease and only 34% routinely reported newly diagnosed cases to their state’s cancer registry. He characterized melanoma reporting as an unfunded mandate.

“Hospitals are doing the most of them, because they have a registrar,” he said. “Small practices have to assign someone to do this, and it can be difficult to train that person. It’s time consuming. The first time we did it, it took an hour,” but, he said, taking a 2-hour tutorial from the Ohio Department of Health helped.

He noted that there is a lack of awareness and clinicians think it’s the dermatopathologist’s job to report cases, “while the dermatopathologist thinks it’s the clinician’s job,” and many of the entry fields are not applicable to thinner melanomas.

There is also a “patchwork” of ways that state departments of health accept the information, not all electronically, he continued. For example, those in Arizona, Montana, West Virginia, Delaware, Vermont, and Maine accept paper copies only, “meaning you have to download a PDF, fill it out, and fax it back to them,” Dr. Coldiron said at the meeting, which was hosted by Scripps Cancer Center.

To facilitate reporting in Ohio, Dr. Coldiron and two of his dermatology fellows, Matthew DaCunha, MD, and Michael Tassavor, MD, partnered with a local melanoma support group – Melanoma Know More — to assist with collection data in the reporting of thin melanomas, training volunteers from the group for the task. “We have them sign a HIPAA form and take the two-hour online tutorial,” he said. They download data that Ohio dermatologists have faxed to a dedicated secure HIPAA-compliant cloud-based fax line that Dr. Coldiron has set up, and the cases are then sent to the Ohio Department of Health.

Dr. Coldiron and colleagues have also partnered with the University of Cincinnati Clermont, which offers a National Cancer Registries Association–accredited certificate program — one of several nationwide. Students in this program are trained to become cancer registrars. “The university staff are gung-ho about it because they are looking for easy cases to train the students on. Also, the Ohio Department of Health staff are keen to help train the students and even help them find jobs or hire them after they complete the degree. Staff from the department of health and college faculty are fully engaged and supervising. It’s a win-win for all.”

According to Dr. Coldiron, in 2023, 8 Ohio dermatology practices were sending their reports to the fax line he set up and 7 more have signed up in recent months, making 15 practices to date. “It’s self-perpetuating at this point,” he said. “The Ohio Department of Health and the University of Cincinnati are invested in this program long-term.” The fax service costs Dr. Coldiron $42 per month — a small price to pay, he said, for being a clearinghouse for private Ohio dermatology practices looking for a practical way to report their melanoma cases. The model has increased melanoma reporting in Ohio by 2.8% in the last 2 years, “which doesn’t seem like that many, but if there are 6500 cases of melanoma, and you can increase reporting by a couple hundred cases, that’s a lot,” he said.

His goal is to expand this model to more states. “Dermatologists, surgical oncologists, and cancer center administrators should embrace this opportunity to make their practices a clearinghouse for their state,” he said. “This is an opportunity to improve state health, quality improvement projects, help providers, and gain recognition as a center of excellence. The increase in incidence of melanoma will lend great clout to public and legislative requests for prevention, treatment, and research dollars.”

In an interview, Hugh Greenway, MD, the head of Mohs and dermatologic surgery at Scripps Clinic in San Diego, also noted that cutaneous melanoma is significantly underreported in spite of individual state requirements. “As Dr. Coldiron reminds us, the main reason is that in many cases the pathology diagnosis and report come from the dermatologist’s/dermatopathologist’s office,” Dr. Greenway said. “With no hospital or large multispecialty laboratory involved, the reporting may be incomplete or not done. This is not the case with almost all other cancers where a hospital laboratory is involved.”

If widespread adoption of Dr. Coldiron’s model can occur, he added, “then we will have much better melanoma reporting data on which to both help our patients and specialty. He is to be applauded for producing a workable solution to the problem of underreporting.”

Dr. Coldiron reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Greenway reported that he conducts research for Castle Biosciences. He is also course director of the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update.

SAN DIEGO – Soon after Brett M. Coldiron, MD, launched his Cincinnati-based dermatology and Mohs surgery practice more than 20 years ago, he reported his first three cases of thin melanomas to the Ohio Department of Health, as mandated by state law.

“I got sent reams of paperwork to fill out that I did not understand,” Dr. Coldiron, a past president of the American College of Mohs Surgery and the American Academy of Dermatology, recalled at the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update. “Then, I got chewed out for not reporting sooner and threatened with thousands of dollars in fines if I did not promptly report the forms in the future. It was an obnoxious experience.”

About 15 years later, while testifying at the Ohio Legislature on medical reasons to restrict the use of tanning beds, a lobbyist for the tanning bed industry told him that the melanoma rates had been stable in Ohio for the previous 5 years. “It turns out they were cherry picking certain segments of data to fit their narrative,” Dr. Coldiron said. “I was stunned and it kind of deflated me. I thought about this for a long time, and thought, ‘how do we solve this issue of reporting melanoma cases without adding work to existing staff if you’re a small practice and without spending significant amounts of money? Let’s make this easier.’ ”

In addition to reducing the use of tanning beds, proper reporting of melanoma cases is important for reasons that include efforts to increase sunscreen use and to be counted in ongoing research efforts to obtain a realistic snapshot of melanoma prevalence and incidence, he said.

Quality of melanoma case reporting relies on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR), and the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program, which collects data on the incidence, treatment, staging, and survival for 28% of the US population. All 50 states and US territories require melanoma to be reported to the NPCR, but while most hospital systems have reporting protocols and dedicated data registrars, private practices may not.

Also, many dermatopathology practices operate independently and do not have dedicated registrars and may not report cases. “Melanoma is unique in that it is often completely managed in outpatient settings and these melanomas may never be reported,” said Dr. Coldiron, current president of the Ohio Dermatological Foundation. “That’s the practice gap.” One study published in 2018 found that only 49% of dermatologists knew that melanoma was a reportable disease and only 34% routinely reported newly diagnosed cases to their state’s cancer registry. He characterized melanoma reporting as an unfunded mandate.

“Hospitals are doing the most of them, because they have a registrar,” he said. “Small practices have to assign someone to do this, and it can be difficult to train that person. It’s time consuming. The first time we did it, it took an hour,” but, he said, taking a 2-hour tutorial from the Ohio Department of Health helped.

He noted that there is a lack of awareness and clinicians think it’s the dermatopathologist’s job to report cases, “while the dermatopathologist thinks it’s the clinician’s job,” and many of the entry fields are not applicable to thinner melanomas.

There is also a “patchwork” of ways that state departments of health accept the information, not all electronically, he continued. For example, those in Arizona, Montana, West Virginia, Delaware, Vermont, and Maine accept paper copies only, “meaning you have to download a PDF, fill it out, and fax it back to them,” Dr. Coldiron said at the meeting, which was hosted by Scripps Cancer Center.

To facilitate reporting in Ohio, Dr. Coldiron and two of his dermatology fellows, Matthew DaCunha, MD, and Michael Tassavor, MD, partnered with a local melanoma support group – Melanoma Know More — to assist with collection data in the reporting of thin melanomas, training volunteers from the group for the task. “We have them sign a HIPAA form and take the two-hour online tutorial,” he said. They download data that Ohio dermatologists have faxed to a dedicated secure HIPAA-compliant cloud-based fax line that Dr. Coldiron has set up, and the cases are then sent to the Ohio Department of Health.

Dr. Coldiron and colleagues have also partnered with the University of Cincinnati Clermont, which offers a National Cancer Registries Association–accredited certificate program — one of several nationwide. Students in this program are trained to become cancer registrars. “The university staff are gung-ho about it because they are looking for easy cases to train the students on. Also, the Ohio Department of Health staff are keen to help train the students and even help them find jobs or hire them after they complete the degree. Staff from the department of health and college faculty are fully engaged and supervising. It’s a win-win for all.”

According to Dr. Coldiron, in 2023, 8 Ohio dermatology practices were sending their reports to the fax line he set up and 7 more have signed up in recent months, making 15 practices to date. “It’s self-perpetuating at this point,” he said. “The Ohio Department of Health and the University of Cincinnati are invested in this program long-term.” The fax service costs Dr. Coldiron $42 per month — a small price to pay, he said, for being a clearinghouse for private Ohio dermatology practices looking for a practical way to report their melanoma cases. The model has increased melanoma reporting in Ohio by 2.8% in the last 2 years, “which doesn’t seem like that many, but if there are 6500 cases of melanoma, and you can increase reporting by a couple hundred cases, that’s a lot,” he said.

His goal is to expand this model to more states. “Dermatologists, surgical oncologists, and cancer center administrators should embrace this opportunity to make their practices a clearinghouse for their state,” he said. “This is an opportunity to improve state health, quality improvement projects, help providers, and gain recognition as a center of excellence. The increase in incidence of melanoma will lend great clout to public and legislative requests for prevention, treatment, and research dollars.”

In an interview, Hugh Greenway, MD, the head of Mohs and dermatologic surgery at Scripps Clinic in San Diego, also noted that cutaneous melanoma is significantly underreported in spite of individual state requirements. “As Dr. Coldiron reminds us, the main reason is that in many cases the pathology diagnosis and report come from the dermatologist’s/dermatopathologist’s office,” Dr. Greenway said. “With no hospital or large multispecialty laboratory involved, the reporting may be incomplete or not done. This is not the case with almost all other cancers where a hospital laboratory is involved.”

If widespread adoption of Dr. Coldiron’s model can occur, he added, “then we will have much better melanoma reporting data on which to both help our patients and specialty. He is to be applauded for producing a workable solution to the problem of underreporting.”

Dr. Coldiron reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Greenway reported that he conducts research for Castle Biosciences. He is also course director of the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update.

SAN DIEGO – Soon after Brett M. Coldiron, MD, launched his Cincinnati-based dermatology and Mohs surgery practice more than 20 years ago, he reported his first three cases of thin melanomas to the Ohio Department of Health, as mandated by state law.

“I got sent reams of paperwork to fill out that I did not understand,” Dr. Coldiron, a past president of the American College of Mohs Surgery and the American Academy of Dermatology, recalled at the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update. “Then, I got chewed out for not reporting sooner and threatened with thousands of dollars in fines if I did not promptly report the forms in the future. It was an obnoxious experience.”

About 15 years later, while testifying at the Ohio Legislature on medical reasons to restrict the use of tanning beds, a lobbyist for the tanning bed industry told him that the melanoma rates had been stable in Ohio for the previous 5 years. “It turns out they were cherry picking certain segments of data to fit their narrative,” Dr. Coldiron said. “I was stunned and it kind of deflated me. I thought about this for a long time, and thought, ‘how do we solve this issue of reporting melanoma cases without adding work to existing staff if you’re a small practice and without spending significant amounts of money? Let’s make this easier.’ ”

In addition to reducing the use of tanning beds, proper reporting of melanoma cases is important for reasons that include efforts to increase sunscreen use and to be counted in ongoing research efforts to obtain a realistic snapshot of melanoma prevalence and incidence, he said.

Quality of melanoma case reporting relies on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR), and the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program, which collects data on the incidence, treatment, staging, and survival for 28% of the US population. All 50 states and US territories require melanoma to be reported to the NPCR, but while most hospital systems have reporting protocols and dedicated data registrars, private practices may not.

Also, many dermatopathology practices operate independently and do not have dedicated registrars and may not report cases. “Melanoma is unique in that it is often completely managed in outpatient settings and these melanomas may never be reported,” said Dr. Coldiron, current president of the Ohio Dermatological Foundation. “That’s the practice gap.” One study published in 2018 found that only 49% of dermatologists knew that melanoma was a reportable disease and only 34% routinely reported newly diagnosed cases to their state’s cancer registry. He characterized melanoma reporting as an unfunded mandate.

“Hospitals are doing the most of them, because they have a registrar,” he said. “Small practices have to assign someone to do this, and it can be difficult to train that person. It’s time consuming. The first time we did it, it took an hour,” but, he said, taking a 2-hour tutorial from the Ohio Department of Health helped.

He noted that there is a lack of awareness and clinicians think it’s the dermatopathologist’s job to report cases, “while the dermatopathologist thinks it’s the clinician’s job,” and many of the entry fields are not applicable to thinner melanomas.

There is also a “patchwork” of ways that state departments of health accept the information, not all electronically, he continued. For example, those in Arizona, Montana, West Virginia, Delaware, Vermont, and Maine accept paper copies only, “meaning you have to download a PDF, fill it out, and fax it back to them,” Dr. Coldiron said at the meeting, which was hosted by Scripps Cancer Center.

To facilitate reporting in Ohio, Dr. Coldiron and two of his dermatology fellows, Matthew DaCunha, MD, and Michael Tassavor, MD, partnered with a local melanoma support group – Melanoma Know More — to assist with collection data in the reporting of thin melanomas, training volunteers from the group for the task. “We have them sign a HIPAA form and take the two-hour online tutorial,” he said. They download data that Ohio dermatologists have faxed to a dedicated secure HIPAA-compliant cloud-based fax line that Dr. Coldiron has set up, and the cases are then sent to the Ohio Department of Health.

Dr. Coldiron and colleagues have also partnered with the University of Cincinnati Clermont, which offers a National Cancer Registries Association–accredited certificate program — one of several nationwide. Students in this program are trained to become cancer registrars. “The university staff are gung-ho about it because they are looking for easy cases to train the students on. Also, the Ohio Department of Health staff are keen to help train the students and even help them find jobs or hire them after they complete the degree. Staff from the department of health and college faculty are fully engaged and supervising. It’s a win-win for all.”

According to Dr. Coldiron, in 2023, 8 Ohio dermatology practices were sending their reports to the fax line he set up and 7 more have signed up in recent months, making 15 practices to date. “It’s self-perpetuating at this point,” he said. “The Ohio Department of Health and the University of Cincinnati are invested in this program long-term.” The fax service costs Dr. Coldiron $42 per month — a small price to pay, he said, for being a clearinghouse for private Ohio dermatology practices looking for a practical way to report their melanoma cases. The model has increased melanoma reporting in Ohio by 2.8% in the last 2 years, “which doesn’t seem like that many, but if there are 6500 cases of melanoma, and you can increase reporting by a couple hundred cases, that’s a lot,” he said.

His goal is to expand this model to more states. “Dermatologists, surgical oncologists, and cancer center administrators should embrace this opportunity to make their practices a clearinghouse for their state,” he said. “This is an opportunity to improve state health, quality improvement projects, help providers, and gain recognition as a center of excellence. The increase in incidence of melanoma will lend great clout to public and legislative requests for prevention, treatment, and research dollars.”

In an interview, Hugh Greenway, MD, the head of Mohs and dermatologic surgery at Scripps Clinic in San Diego, also noted that cutaneous melanoma is significantly underreported in spite of individual state requirements. “As Dr. Coldiron reminds us, the main reason is that in many cases the pathology diagnosis and report come from the dermatologist’s/dermatopathologist’s office,” Dr. Greenway said. “With no hospital or large multispecialty laboratory involved, the reporting may be incomplete or not done. This is not the case with almost all other cancers where a hospital laboratory is involved.”

If widespread adoption of Dr. Coldiron’s model can occur, he added, “then we will have much better melanoma reporting data on which to both help our patients and specialty. He is to be applauded for producing a workable solution to the problem of underreporting.”

Dr. Coldiron reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Greenway reported that he conducts research for Castle Biosciences. He is also course director of the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update.

TOPLINE:

Despite diabetes technology, many with type 1 diabetes (T1D) miss glycemic targets and experience severe hypoglycemia and impaired awareness of hypoglycemia (IAH). 

METHODOLOGY:

• The clinical management of T1D through technology is now recognized as the standard of care, but its real-world impact on glycemic targets and severe hypoglycemic events and IAH is unclear.
• Researchers assessed the self-reported prevalence of glycemic metrics, severe hypoglycemia, and hypoglycemia awareness according to the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and automated insulin delivery (AID) systems.
• They enrolled 2044 individuals diagnosed with T1D for at least 2 years (mean age, 43.0 years; 72.1% women; 95.4% White) from the T1D Exchange Registry and online communities who filled an online survey.
• Participants were stratified on the basis of the presence or absence of CGM and different insulin delivery methods (multiple daily injections, conventional pumps, or AID systems).
• The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who achieved glycemic targets (self-reported A1c), had severe hypoglycemia (any low glucose incidence in 12 months), and/or IAH (a modified Gold score on a seven-point Likert scale).

TAKEAWAY:

• Most participants (91.7%) used CGM, and 50.8% of CGM users used an AID system.
• Despite advanced interventions, only 59.6% (95% CI, 57.3%-61.8%) of CGM users met the glycemic target (A1c < 7%), while nearly 40% of CGM users and 35.6% of AID users didn’t reach the target.
• At least one event of severe hypoglycemia in the previous 12 months was reported in 10.8% of CGM users and 16.6% of those using an AID system.
• IAH prevalence was seen in 31.1% (95% CI, 29.0%-33.2%) and 30.3% (95% CI, 17.5%-33.3%) of participants using CGM and CGM + AID, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“Educational initiatives continue to be important for all individuals with type 1 diabetes, and the development of novel therapeutic options and strategies, including bihormonal AID systems and beta-cell replacement, will be required to enable more of these individuals to meet treatment goals,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, published online in Diabetes Care, was led by Jennifer L. Sherr, MD, PhD, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.

LIMITATIONS:

The survey participants in this study were from the T1D Exchange online community, who tend to be highly involved, have technology experience, and are more likely to achieve glycemic targets. The data reported as part of the survey were based on self-reports by participants and may be subject to recall bias. Notably, severe hypoglycemic events may be overreported by individuals using CGM and AID systems due to sensor alarms.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Vertex Pharmaceuticals. Several authors disclosed financial relationships, including grants, consulting fees, honoraria, stock ownership, and employment with pharmaceutical and device companies and other entities.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Despite diabetes technology, many with type 1 diabetes (T1D) miss glycemic targets and experience severe hypoglycemia and impaired awareness of hypoglycemia (IAH). 

METHODOLOGY:

• The clinical management of T1D through technology is now recognized as the standard of care, but its real-world impact on glycemic targets and severe hypoglycemic events and IAH is unclear.
• Researchers assessed the self-reported prevalence of glycemic metrics, severe hypoglycemia, and hypoglycemia awareness according to the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and automated insulin delivery (AID) systems.
• They enrolled 2044 individuals diagnosed with T1D for at least 2 years (mean age, 43.0 years; 72.1% women; 95.4% White) from the T1D Exchange Registry and online communities who filled an online survey.
• Participants were stratified on the basis of the presence or absence of CGM and different insulin delivery methods (multiple daily injections, conventional pumps, or AID systems).
• The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who achieved glycemic targets (self-reported A1c), had severe hypoglycemia (any low glucose incidence in 12 months), and/or IAH (a modified Gold score on a seven-point Likert scale).

TAKEAWAY:

• Most participants (91.7%) used CGM, and 50.8% of CGM users used an AID system.
• Despite advanced interventions, only 59.6% (95% CI, 57.3%-61.8%) of CGM users met the glycemic target (A1c < 7%), while nearly 40% of CGM users and 35.6% of AID users didn’t reach the target.
• At least one event of severe hypoglycemia in the previous 12 months was reported in 10.8% of CGM users and 16.6% of those using an AID system.
• IAH prevalence was seen in 31.1% (95% CI, 29.0%-33.2%) and 30.3% (95% CI, 17.5%-33.3%) of participants using CGM and CGM + AID, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“Educational initiatives continue to be important for all individuals with type 1 diabetes, and the development of novel therapeutic options and strategies, including bihormonal AID systems and beta-cell replacement, will be required to enable more of these individuals to meet treatment goals,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, published online in Diabetes Care, was led by Jennifer L. Sherr, MD, PhD, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.

LIMITATIONS:

The survey participants in this study were from the T1D Exchange online community, who tend to be highly involved, have technology experience, and are more likely to achieve glycemic targets. The data reported as part of the survey were based on self-reports by participants and may be subject to recall bias. Notably, severe hypoglycemic events may be overreported by individuals using CGM and AID systems due to sensor alarms.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Vertex Pharmaceuticals. Several authors disclosed financial relationships, including grants, consulting fees, honoraria, stock ownership, and employment with pharmaceutical and device companies and other entities.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Despite diabetes technology, many with type 1 diabetes (T1D) miss glycemic targets and experience severe hypoglycemia and impaired awareness of hypoglycemia (IAH). 

METHODOLOGY:

• The clinical management of T1D through technology is now recognized as the standard of care, but its real-world impact on glycemic targets and severe hypoglycemic events and IAH is unclear.
• Researchers assessed the self-reported prevalence of glycemic metrics, severe hypoglycemia, and hypoglycemia awareness according to the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and automated insulin delivery (AID) systems.
• They enrolled 2044 individuals diagnosed with T1D for at least 2 years (mean age, 43.0 years; 72.1% women; 95.4% White) from the T1D Exchange Registry and online communities who filled an online survey.
• Participants were stratified on the basis of the presence or absence of CGM and different insulin delivery methods (multiple daily injections, conventional pumps, or AID systems).
• The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who achieved glycemic targets (self-reported A1c), had severe hypoglycemia (any low glucose incidence in 12 months), and/or IAH (a modified Gold score on a seven-point Likert scale).

TAKEAWAY:

• Most participants (91.7%) used CGM, and 50.8% of CGM users used an AID system.
• Despite advanced interventions, only 59.6% (95% CI, 57.3%-61.8%) of CGM users met the glycemic target (A1c < 7%), while nearly 40% of CGM users and 35.6% of AID users didn’t reach the target.
• At least one event of severe hypoglycemia in the previous 12 months was reported in 10.8% of CGM users and 16.6% of those using an AID system.
• IAH prevalence was seen in 31.1% (95% CI, 29.0%-33.2%) and 30.3% (95% CI, 17.5%-33.3%) of participants using CGM and CGM + AID, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“Educational initiatives continue to be important for all individuals with type 1 diabetes, and the development of novel therapeutic options and strategies, including bihormonal AID systems and beta-cell replacement, will be required to enable more of these individuals to meet treatment goals,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, published online in Diabetes Care, was led by Jennifer L. Sherr, MD, PhD, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.

LIMITATIONS:

The survey participants in this study were from the T1D Exchange online community, who tend to be highly involved, have technology experience, and are more likely to achieve glycemic targets. The data reported as part of the survey were based on self-reports by participants and may be subject to recall bias. Notably, severe hypoglycemic events may be overreported by individuals using CGM and AID systems due to sensor alarms.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Vertex Pharmaceuticals. Several authors disclosed financial relationships, including grants, consulting fees, honoraria, stock ownership, and employment with pharmaceutical and device companies and other entities.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Oral intragastric expandable capsules taken twice daily before meals reduce body weight in adults with overweight or obesity compared with placebo, with mild gastrointestinal adverse events.

METHODOLOGY:

• Numerous anti-obesity pharmacotherapies have demonstrated effectiveness in reducing weight, but they may lead to side effects.
• This 24-week phase 3 randomized placebo-controlled study evaluated 2.24 g oral intragastric expandable capsules for weight loss in 280 adults (ages 18-60 years) with overweight or obesity (body mass index ≥ 24 kg/m2).
• One capsule, taken before lunch and dinner with water, expands to fill about one quarter of average stomach volume and then passes through the body, similar to the US Food and Drug Administration–cleared device Plenity.
• Primary endpoints were the percentage change in body weight from baseline and the weight loss response rate (weight loss of at least 5% of baseline body weight) at week 24.
• Researchers analyzed efficacy outcomes in two ways: Intention to treat (a full analysis based on groups to which they were randomly assigned) and per protocol (based on data from participants who follow the protocol).

TAKEAWAY:

• At 24 weeks, the change in mean body weight was higher with intragastric expandable capsules than with placebo using the per protocol set (estimated treatment difference [ETD], −3.6%; P < .001), with similar results using the full analysis set.
• The weight loss response rate at 24 weeks was higher with intragastric expandable capsules than with placebo using the per protocol set (ETD, 29.6%; P < .001), with similar results using the full analysis set.
• Reduction in fasting insulin levels was higher with intragastric expandable capsules than with placebo (P = .008), while improvements in the lipid profile, fasting plasma glucose levels, and heart rate were similar between the groups.
• Gastrointestinal disorders were reported in 25.0% of participants in the intragastric expandable capsule group compared with 21.9% in the placebo group, with most being transient and mild in severity.

IN PRACTICE:

“As a mild and safe anti-obesity medication, intragastric expandable capsules provide a new therapeutic choice for individuals with overweight or obesity, helping them to enhance and maintain the effect of diet restriction,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

Difei Lu, MD, Department of Endocrinology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China, led the study, which was published online in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The study included individuals who were overweight or obese, who might have been more willing to lose weight than the general population. Moreover, only 3.25% of the participants had type 2 diabetes, and participants were relatively young. This may have reduced the potential to discover metabolic or cardiovascular improvement by the product.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Xiamen Junde Pharmaceutical Technology. The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Oral intragastric expandable capsules taken twice daily before meals reduce body weight in adults with overweight or obesity compared with placebo, with mild gastrointestinal adverse events.

METHODOLOGY:

• Numerous anti-obesity pharmacotherapies have demonstrated effectiveness in reducing weight, but they may lead to side effects.
• This 24-week phase 3 randomized placebo-controlled study evaluated 2.24 g oral intragastric expandable capsules for weight loss in 280 adults (ages 18-60 years) with overweight or obesity (body mass index ≥ 24 kg/m2).
• One capsule, taken before lunch and dinner with water, expands to fill about one quarter of average stomach volume and then passes through the body, similar to the US Food and Drug Administration–cleared device Plenity.
• Primary endpoints were the percentage change in body weight from baseline and the weight loss response rate (weight loss of at least 5% of baseline body weight) at week 24.
• Researchers analyzed efficacy outcomes in two ways: Intention to treat (a full analysis based on groups to which they were randomly assigned) and per protocol (based on data from participants who follow the protocol).

TAKEAWAY:

• At 24 weeks, the change in mean body weight was higher with intragastric expandable capsules than with placebo using the per protocol set (estimated treatment difference [ETD], −3.6%; P < .001), with similar results using the full analysis set.
• The weight loss response rate at 24 weeks was higher with intragastric expandable capsules than with placebo using the per protocol set (ETD, 29.6%; P < .001), with similar results using the full analysis set.
• Reduction in fasting insulin levels was higher with intragastric expandable capsules than with placebo (P = .008), while improvements in the lipid profile, fasting plasma glucose levels, and heart rate were similar between the groups.
• Gastrointestinal disorders were reported in 25.0% of participants in the intragastric expandable capsule group compared with 21.9% in the placebo group, with most being transient and mild in severity.

IN PRACTICE:

“As a mild and safe anti-obesity medication, intragastric expandable capsules provide a new therapeutic choice for individuals with overweight or obesity, helping them to enhance and maintain the effect of diet restriction,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

Difei Lu, MD, Department of Endocrinology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China, led the study, which was published online in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The study included individuals who were overweight or obese, who might have been more willing to lose weight than the general population. Moreover, only 3.25% of the participants had type 2 diabetes, and participants were relatively young. This may have reduced the potential to discover metabolic or cardiovascular improvement by the product.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Xiamen Junde Pharmaceutical Technology. The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Oral intragastric expandable capsules taken twice daily before meals reduce body weight in adults with overweight or obesity compared with placebo, with mild gastrointestinal adverse events.

METHODOLOGY:

• Numerous anti-obesity pharmacotherapies have demonstrated effectiveness in reducing weight, but they may lead to side effects.
• This 24-week phase 3 randomized placebo-controlled study evaluated 2.24 g oral intragastric expandable capsules for weight loss in 280 adults (ages 18-60 years) with overweight or obesity (body mass index ≥ 24 kg/m2).
• One capsule, taken before lunch and dinner with water, expands to fill about one quarter of average stomach volume and then passes through the body, similar to the US Food and Drug Administration–cleared device Plenity.
• Primary endpoints were the percentage change in body weight from baseline and the weight loss response rate (weight loss of at least 5% of baseline body weight) at week 24.
• Researchers analyzed efficacy outcomes in two ways: Intention to treat (a full analysis based on groups to which they were randomly assigned) and per protocol (based on data from participants who follow the protocol).

TAKEAWAY:

• At 24 weeks, the change in mean body weight was higher with intragastric expandable capsules than with placebo using the per protocol set (estimated treatment difference [ETD], −3.6%; P < .001), with similar results using the full analysis set.
• The weight loss response rate at 24 weeks was higher with intragastric expandable capsules than with placebo using the per protocol set (ETD, 29.6%; P < .001), with similar results using the full analysis set.
• Reduction in fasting insulin levels was higher with intragastric expandable capsules than with placebo (P = .008), while improvements in the lipid profile, fasting plasma glucose levels, and heart rate were similar between the groups.
• Gastrointestinal disorders were reported in 25.0% of participants in the intragastric expandable capsule group compared with 21.9% in the placebo group, with most being transient and mild in severity.

IN PRACTICE:

“As a mild and safe anti-obesity medication, intragastric expandable capsules provide a new therapeutic choice for individuals with overweight or obesity, helping them to enhance and maintain the effect of diet restriction,” wrote the authors.

SOURCE:

Difei Lu, MD, Department of Endocrinology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China, led the study, which was published online in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The study included individuals who were overweight or obese, who might have been more willing to lose weight than the general population. Moreover, only 3.25% of the participants had type 2 diabetes, and participants were relatively young. This may have reduced the potential to discover metabolic or cardiovascular improvement by the product.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Xiamen Junde Pharmaceutical Technology. The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.