The COVID-19 literature has been peppered with reports about myocarditis accompanying the disease. If true, this could, in part, explain some of the observed cardiac injury and arrhythmias in seriously ill patients, but also have implications for prognosis.

But endomyocardial biopsies and autopsies, the gold-standard confirmation tests, have been few and far between. That has led some cardiologists to question the true rate of myocarditis with SARS-CoV-2, or even if there is definitive proof the virus causes myocarditis.

Predictors of death in COVID-19 are older age, cardiovascular comorbidities, and elevated troponin or NT-proBNP – none of which actually fit well with the epidemiology of myocarditis due to other causes, Alida L.P. Caforio, MD, of Padua (Italy) University said in an interview. Myocarditis is traditionally a disease of the young, and most cases are immune-mediated and do not release troponin.

Moreover, myocarditis is a diagnosis of exclusion. For it to be made with any certainty requires proof, by biopsy or autopsy, of inflammatory infiltrates within the myocardium with myocyte necrosis not typical of myocardial infarction, said Dr. Caforio, who chaired the European Society of Cardiology’s writing committee for its 2013 position statement on myocardial and pericardial diseases.

“We have one biopsy-proven case, and in this case there were no viruses in the myocardium, including COVID-19,” she said. “There’s no proof that we have COVID-19 causing myocarditis because it has not been found in the cardiomyocytes.”
 

Emerging evidence

The virus-negative case from Lombardy, Italy, followed an early case series suggesting fulminant myocarditis was involved in 7% of COVID-related deaths in Wuhan, China.

Other case reports include cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) findings typical of acute myocarditis in a man with no lung involvement or fever but a massive troponin spike, and myocarditis presenting as reverse takotsubo syndrome in a woman undergoing CMR and endomyocardial biopsy.

A CMR analysis in May said acute myocarditis, by 2018 Lake Louise Criteria, was present in eight of 10 patients with “myocarditis-like syndrome,” and a study just out June 30 said the coronavirus can infect heart cells in a lab dish.

Among the few autopsy series, a preprint on 12 patients with COVID-19 in the Seattle area showed coronavirus in the heart tissue of 1 patient.

“It was a low level, so there’s the possibility that it could be viremia, but the fact we do see actual cardiomyocyte injury associated with inflammation, that’s a myocarditis pattern. So it could be related to the SARS-CoV-2 virus,” said Desiree Marshall, MD, director of autopsy and after-death services, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle.

The “waters are a little bit muddy,” however, because the patient had a coinfection clinically with influenza and methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus, which raises the specter that influenza could also have contributed, she said.

Data pending publication from two additional patients show no coronavirus in the heart. Acute respiratory distress syndrome pathology was common in all patients, but there was no evidence of vascular inflammation, such as endotheliitis, Dr. Marshall said.

SARS-CoV-2 cell entry depends on the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor, which is widely expressed in the heart and on endothelial cells and is linked to inflammatory activation. Autopsy data from three COVID-19 patients showed endothelial cell infection in the heart and diffuse endothelial inflammation, but no sign of lymphocytic myocarditis.
 

Defining myocarditis

“There are some experts who believe we’re likely still dealing with myocarditis but with atypical features, while others suggest there is no myocarditis by strict classic criteria,” said Peter Liu, MD, chief scientific officer/vice president of research, University of Ottawa Heart Institute.

“I don’t think either extreme is accurate,” he said. “The truth is likely somewhere in between, with evidence of both cardiac injury and inflammation. But nothing in COVID-19, as we know today, is classic; it’s a new disease, so we need to be more open minded as new data emerge.”

Part of the divide may indeed stem from the way myocarditis is defined. “Based on traditional Dallas criteria, classic myocarditis requires evidence of myocyte necrosis, which we have, but also inflammatory cell infiltrate, which we don’t consistently have,” he said. “But on the other hand, there is evidence of inflammation-induced cardiac damage, often aggregated around blood vessels.”

The situation is evolving in recent days, and new data under review demonstrated inflammatory infiltrates, which fits the traditional myocarditis criteria, Dr. Liu noted. Yet the viral etiology for the inflammation is still elusive in definitive proof.

In traditional myocarditis, there is an abundance of lymphocytes and foci of inflammation in the myocardium, but COVID-19 is very unusual, in that these lymphocytes are not as exuberant, he said. Lymphopenia or low lymphocyte counts occur in up to 80% of patients. Also, older patients, who initially made up the bulk of the severe COVID-19 cases, are less T-lymphocyte responsive.

“So the lower your lymphocyte count, the worse your outcome is going to be and the more likely you’re going to get cytokine storm,” Dr. Liu said. “And that may be the reason the suspected myocarditis in COVID-19 is atypical because the lymphocytes, in fact, are being suppressed and there is instead more vasculitis.”

Recent data from myocardial gene expression analysis showed that the viral receptor ACE2 is present in the myocardium, and can be upregulated in conditions such as heart failure, he said. However, the highest ACE2 expression is found in pericytes around blood vessels, not myocytes. “This may explain the preferential vascular involvement often observed.”
 

Cardiac damage in the young

Evidence started evolving in early April that young COVID-19 patients without lung disease, generally in their 20s and 30s, can have very high troponin peaks and a form of cardiac damage that does not appear to be related to sepsis, systemic shock, or cytokine storm.

“That’s the group that I do think has some myocarditis, but it’s different. It’s not lymphocytic myocarditis, like enteroviral myocarditis,” Leslie T. Cooper Jr., MD, a myocarditis expert at Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, said in an interview.

“The data to date suggest that most SARS cardiac injury is related to stress or high circulating cytokine levels. However, myocarditis probably does affect some patients, he added. “The few published cases suggest a role for macrophages or endothelial cells, which could affect cardiac myocyte function. This type of injury could cause the ST-segment elevation MI-like patterns we have seen in young people with normal epicardial coronary arteries.”

Dr. Cooper, who coauthored a report on the management of COVID-19 cardiovascular syndrome, pointed out that it’s been hard for researchers to isolate genome from autopsy samples because of RNA degradation prior to autopsy and the use of formalin fixation for tissues prior to RNA extraction.

“Most labs are not doing next-generation sequencing, and even with that, RNA protection and fresh tissue may be required to detect viral genome,” he said.
 

No proven therapy

Although up to 50% of acute myocarditis cases undergo spontaneous healing, recognition and multidisciplinary management of clinically suspected myocarditis is important. The optimal treatment remains unclear.

An early case report suggested use of methylprednisolone and intravenous immunoglobulin helped spare the life of a 37-year-old with clinically suspected fulminant myocarditis with cardiogenic shock.

In a related commentary, Dr. Caforio and colleagues pointed out that the World Health Organization considers the use of IV corticosteroids controversial, even in pneumonia due to COVID-19, because it may reduce viral clearance and increase sepsis risk. Intravenous immunoglobulin is also questionable because there is no IgG response to COVID-19 in the plasma donors’ pool.

“Immunosuppression should be reserved for only virus-negative non-COVID myocarditis,” Dr. Caforio said in an interview. “There is no appropriate treatment nowadays for clinically suspected COVID-19 myocarditis. There is no proven therapy for COVID-19, even less for COVID-19 myocarditis.”

Although definitive publication of the RECOVERY trial is still pending, the benefits of dexamethasone – a steroid that works predominantly through its anti-inflammatory effects – appear to be in the sickest patients, such as those requiring ICU admission or respiratory support.

“Many of the same patients would have systemic inflammation and would have also shown elevated cardiac biomarkers,” Dr. Liu observed. “Therefore, it is conceivable that a subset who had cardiac inflammation also benefited from the treatment. Further data, possibly through subgroup analysis and eventually meta-analysis, may help us to understand if dexamethasone also benefited patients with dominant cardiac injury.”

Dr. Caforio, Dr. Marshall, Dr. Liu, and Dr. Cooper reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The COVID-19 literature has been peppered with reports about myocarditis accompanying the disease. If true, this could, in part, explain some of the observed cardiac injury and arrhythmias in seriously ill patients, but also have implications for prognosis.

But endomyocardial biopsies and autopsies, the gold-standard confirmation tests, have been few and far between. That has led some cardiologists to question the true rate of myocarditis with SARS-CoV-2, or even if there is definitive proof the virus causes myocarditis.

Predictors of death in COVID-19 are older age, cardiovascular comorbidities, and elevated troponin or NT-proBNP – none of which actually fit well with the epidemiology of myocarditis due to other causes, Alida L.P. Caforio, MD, of Padua (Italy) University said in an interview. Myocarditis is traditionally a disease of the young, and most cases are immune-mediated and do not release troponin.

Moreover, myocarditis is a diagnosis of exclusion. For it to be made with any certainty requires proof, by biopsy or autopsy, of inflammatory infiltrates within the myocardium with myocyte necrosis not typical of myocardial infarction, said Dr. Caforio, who chaired the European Society of Cardiology’s writing committee for its 2013 position statement on myocardial and pericardial diseases.

“We have one biopsy-proven case, and in this case there were no viruses in the myocardium, including COVID-19,” she said. “There’s no proof that we have COVID-19 causing myocarditis because it has not been found in the cardiomyocytes.”
 

Emerging evidence

The virus-negative case from Lombardy, Italy, followed an early case series suggesting fulminant myocarditis was involved in 7% of COVID-related deaths in Wuhan, China.

Other case reports include cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) findings typical of acute myocarditis in a man with no lung involvement or fever but a massive troponin spike, and myocarditis presenting as reverse takotsubo syndrome in a woman undergoing CMR and endomyocardial biopsy.

A CMR analysis in May said acute myocarditis, by 2018 Lake Louise Criteria, was present in eight of 10 patients with “myocarditis-like syndrome,” and a study just out June 30 said the coronavirus can infect heart cells in a lab dish.

Among the few autopsy series, a preprint on 12 patients with COVID-19 in the Seattle area showed coronavirus in the heart tissue of 1 patient.

“It was a low level, so there’s the possibility that it could be viremia, but the fact we do see actual cardiomyocyte injury associated with inflammation, that’s a myocarditis pattern. So it could be related to the SARS-CoV-2 virus,” said Desiree Marshall, MD, director of autopsy and after-death services, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle.

The “waters are a little bit muddy,” however, because the patient had a coinfection clinically with influenza and methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus, which raises the specter that influenza could also have contributed, she said.

Data pending publication from two additional patients show no coronavirus in the heart. Acute respiratory distress syndrome pathology was common in all patients, but there was no evidence of vascular inflammation, such as endotheliitis, Dr. Marshall said.

SARS-CoV-2 cell entry depends on the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor, which is widely expressed in the heart and on endothelial cells and is linked to inflammatory activation. Autopsy data from three COVID-19 patients showed endothelial cell infection in the heart and diffuse endothelial inflammation, but no sign of lymphocytic myocarditis.
 

Defining myocarditis

“There are some experts who believe we’re likely still dealing with myocarditis but with atypical features, while others suggest there is no myocarditis by strict classic criteria,” said Peter Liu, MD, chief scientific officer/vice president of research, University of Ottawa Heart Institute.

“I don’t think either extreme is accurate,” he said. “The truth is likely somewhere in between, with evidence of both cardiac injury and inflammation. But nothing in COVID-19, as we know today, is classic; it’s a new disease, so we need to be more open minded as new data emerge.”

Part of the divide may indeed stem from the way myocarditis is defined. “Based on traditional Dallas criteria, classic myocarditis requires evidence of myocyte necrosis, which we have, but also inflammatory cell infiltrate, which we don’t consistently have,” he said. “But on the other hand, there is evidence of inflammation-induced cardiac damage, often aggregated around blood vessels.”

The situation is evolving in recent days, and new data under review demonstrated inflammatory infiltrates, which fits the traditional myocarditis criteria, Dr. Liu noted. Yet the viral etiology for the inflammation is still elusive in definitive proof.

In traditional myocarditis, there is an abundance of lymphocytes and foci of inflammation in the myocardium, but COVID-19 is very unusual, in that these lymphocytes are not as exuberant, he said. Lymphopenia or low lymphocyte counts occur in up to 80% of patients. Also, older patients, who initially made up the bulk of the severe COVID-19 cases, are less T-lymphocyte responsive.

“So the lower your lymphocyte count, the worse your outcome is going to be and the more likely you’re going to get cytokine storm,” Dr. Liu said. “And that may be the reason the suspected myocarditis in COVID-19 is atypical because the lymphocytes, in fact, are being suppressed and there is instead more vasculitis.”

Recent data from myocardial gene expression analysis showed that the viral receptor ACE2 is present in the myocardium, and can be upregulated in conditions such as heart failure, he said. However, the highest ACE2 expression is found in pericytes around blood vessels, not myocytes. “This may explain the preferential vascular involvement often observed.”
 

Cardiac damage in the young

Evidence started evolving in early April that young COVID-19 patients without lung disease, generally in their 20s and 30s, can have very high troponin peaks and a form of cardiac damage that does not appear to be related to sepsis, systemic shock, or cytokine storm.

“That’s the group that I do think has some myocarditis, but it’s different. It’s not lymphocytic myocarditis, like enteroviral myocarditis,” Leslie T. Cooper Jr., MD, a myocarditis expert at Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, said in an interview.

“The data to date suggest that most SARS cardiac injury is related to stress or high circulating cytokine levels. However, myocarditis probably does affect some patients, he added. “The few published cases suggest a role for macrophages or endothelial cells, which could affect cardiac myocyte function. This type of injury could cause the ST-segment elevation MI-like patterns we have seen in young people with normal epicardial coronary arteries.”

Dr. Cooper, who coauthored a report on the management of COVID-19 cardiovascular syndrome, pointed out that it’s been hard for researchers to isolate genome from autopsy samples because of RNA degradation prior to autopsy and the use of formalin fixation for tissues prior to RNA extraction.

“Most labs are not doing next-generation sequencing, and even with that, RNA protection and fresh tissue may be required to detect viral genome,” he said.
 

No proven therapy

Although up to 50% of acute myocarditis cases undergo spontaneous healing, recognition and multidisciplinary management of clinically suspected myocarditis is important. The optimal treatment remains unclear.

An early case report suggested use of methylprednisolone and intravenous immunoglobulin helped spare the life of a 37-year-old with clinically suspected fulminant myocarditis with cardiogenic shock.

In a related commentary, Dr. Caforio and colleagues pointed out that the World Health Organization considers the use of IV corticosteroids controversial, even in pneumonia due to COVID-19, because it may reduce viral clearance and increase sepsis risk. Intravenous immunoglobulin is also questionable because there is no IgG response to COVID-19 in the plasma donors’ pool.

“Immunosuppression should be reserved for only virus-negative non-COVID myocarditis,” Dr. Caforio said in an interview. “There is no appropriate treatment nowadays for clinically suspected COVID-19 myocarditis. There is no proven therapy for COVID-19, even less for COVID-19 myocarditis.”

Although definitive publication of the RECOVERY trial is still pending, the benefits of dexamethasone – a steroid that works predominantly through its anti-inflammatory effects – appear to be in the sickest patients, such as those requiring ICU admission or respiratory support.

“Many of the same patients would have systemic inflammation and would have also shown elevated cardiac biomarkers,” Dr. Liu observed. “Therefore, it is conceivable that a subset who had cardiac inflammation also benefited from the treatment. Further data, possibly through subgroup analysis and eventually meta-analysis, may help us to understand if dexamethasone also benefited patients with dominant cardiac injury.”

Dr. Caforio, Dr. Marshall, Dr. Liu, and Dr. Cooper reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The COVID-19 literature has been peppered with reports about myocarditis accompanying the disease. If true, this could, in part, explain some of the observed cardiac injury and arrhythmias in seriously ill patients, but also have implications for prognosis.

But endomyocardial biopsies and autopsies, the gold-standard confirmation tests, have been few and far between. That has led some cardiologists to question the true rate of myocarditis with SARS-CoV-2, or even if there is definitive proof the virus causes myocarditis.

Predictors of death in COVID-19 are older age, cardiovascular comorbidities, and elevated troponin or NT-proBNP – none of which actually fit well with the epidemiology of myocarditis due to other causes, Alida L.P. Caforio, MD, of Padua (Italy) University said in an interview. Myocarditis is traditionally a disease of the young, and most cases are immune-mediated and do not release troponin.

Moreover, myocarditis is a diagnosis of exclusion. For it to be made with any certainty requires proof, by biopsy or autopsy, of inflammatory infiltrates within the myocardium with myocyte necrosis not typical of myocardial infarction, said Dr. Caforio, who chaired the European Society of Cardiology’s writing committee for its 2013 position statement on myocardial and pericardial diseases.

“We have one biopsy-proven case, and in this case there were no viruses in the myocardium, including COVID-19,” she said. “There’s no proof that we have COVID-19 causing myocarditis because it has not been found in the cardiomyocytes.”
 

Emerging evidence

The virus-negative case from Lombardy, Italy, followed an early case series suggesting fulminant myocarditis was involved in 7% of COVID-related deaths in Wuhan, China.

Other case reports include cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) findings typical of acute myocarditis in a man with no lung involvement or fever but a massive troponin spike, and myocarditis presenting as reverse takotsubo syndrome in a woman undergoing CMR and endomyocardial biopsy.

A CMR analysis in May said acute myocarditis, by 2018 Lake Louise Criteria, was present in eight of 10 patients with “myocarditis-like syndrome,” and a study just out June 30 said the coronavirus can infect heart cells in a lab dish.

Among the few autopsy series, a preprint on 12 patients with COVID-19 in the Seattle area showed coronavirus in the heart tissue of 1 patient.

“It was a low level, so there’s the possibility that it could be viremia, but the fact we do see actual cardiomyocyte injury associated with inflammation, that’s a myocarditis pattern. So it could be related to the SARS-CoV-2 virus,” said Desiree Marshall, MD, director of autopsy and after-death services, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle.

The “waters are a little bit muddy,” however, because the patient had a coinfection clinically with influenza and methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus, which raises the specter that influenza could also have contributed, she said.

Data pending publication from two additional patients show no coronavirus in the heart. Acute respiratory distress syndrome pathology was common in all patients, but there was no evidence of vascular inflammation, such as endotheliitis, Dr. Marshall said.

SARS-CoV-2 cell entry depends on the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor, which is widely expressed in the heart and on endothelial cells and is linked to inflammatory activation. Autopsy data from three COVID-19 patients showed endothelial cell infection in the heart and diffuse endothelial inflammation, but no sign of lymphocytic myocarditis.
 

Defining myocarditis

“There are some experts who believe we’re likely still dealing with myocarditis but with atypical features, while others suggest there is no myocarditis by strict classic criteria,” said Peter Liu, MD, chief scientific officer/vice president of research, University of Ottawa Heart Institute.

“I don’t think either extreme is accurate,” he said. “The truth is likely somewhere in between, with evidence of both cardiac injury and inflammation. But nothing in COVID-19, as we know today, is classic; it’s a new disease, so we need to be more open minded as new data emerge.”

Part of the divide may indeed stem from the way myocarditis is defined. “Based on traditional Dallas criteria, classic myocarditis requires evidence of myocyte necrosis, which we have, but also inflammatory cell infiltrate, which we don’t consistently have,” he said. “But on the other hand, there is evidence of inflammation-induced cardiac damage, often aggregated around blood vessels.”

The situation is evolving in recent days, and new data under review demonstrated inflammatory infiltrates, which fits the traditional myocarditis criteria, Dr. Liu noted. Yet the viral etiology for the inflammation is still elusive in definitive proof.

In traditional myocarditis, there is an abundance of lymphocytes and foci of inflammation in the myocardium, but COVID-19 is very unusual, in that these lymphocytes are not as exuberant, he said. Lymphopenia or low lymphocyte counts occur in up to 80% of patients. Also, older patients, who initially made up the bulk of the severe COVID-19 cases, are less T-lymphocyte responsive.

“So the lower your lymphocyte count, the worse your outcome is going to be and the more likely you’re going to get cytokine storm,” Dr. Liu said. “And that may be the reason the suspected myocarditis in COVID-19 is atypical because the lymphocytes, in fact, are being suppressed and there is instead more vasculitis.”

Recent data from myocardial gene expression analysis showed that the viral receptor ACE2 is present in the myocardium, and can be upregulated in conditions such as heart failure, he said. However, the highest ACE2 expression is found in pericytes around blood vessels, not myocytes. “This may explain the preferential vascular involvement often observed.”
 

Cardiac damage in the young

Evidence started evolving in early April that young COVID-19 patients without lung disease, generally in their 20s and 30s, can have very high troponin peaks and a form of cardiac damage that does not appear to be related to sepsis, systemic shock, or cytokine storm.

“That’s the group that I do think has some myocarditis, but it’s different. It’s not lymphocytic myocarditis, like enteroviral myocarditis,” Leslie T. Cooper Jr., MD, a myocarditis expert at Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, said in an interview.

“The data to date suggest that most SARS cardiac injury is related to stress or high circulating cytokine levels. However, myocarditis probably does affect some patients, he added. “The few published cases suggest a role for macrophages or endothelial cells, which could affect cardiac myocyte function. This type of injury could cause the ST-segment elevation MI-like patterns we have seen in young people with normal epicardial coronary arteries.”

Dr. Cooper, who coauthored a report on the management of COVID-19 cardiovascular syndrome, pointed out that it’s been hard for researchers to isolate genome from autopsy samples because of RNA degradation prior to autopsy and the use of formalin fixation for tissues prior to RNA extraction.

“Most labs are not doing next-generation sequencing, and even with that, RNA protection and fresh tissue may be required to detect viral genome,” he said.
 

No proven therapy

Although up to 50% of acute myocarditis cases undergo spontaneous healing, recognition and multidisciplinary management of clinically suspected myocarditis is important. The optimal treatment remains unclear.

An early case report suggested use of methylprednisolone and intravenous immunoglobulin helped spare the life of a 37-year-old with clinically suspected fulminant myocarditis with cardiogenic shock.

In a related commentary, Dr. Caforio and colleagues pointed out that the World Health Organization considers the use of IV corticosteroids controversial, even in pneumonia due to COVID-19, because it may reduce viral clearance and increase sepsis risk. Intravenous immunoglobulin is also questionable because there is no IgG response to COVID-19 in the plasma donors’ pool.

“Immunosuppression should be reserved for only virus-negative non-COVID myocarditis,” Dr. Caforio said in an interview. “There is no appropriate treatment nowadays for clinically suspected COVID-19 myocarditis. There is no proven therapy for COVID-19, even less for COVID-19 myocarditis.”

Although definitive publication of the RECOVERY trial is still pending, the benefits of dexamethasone – a steroid that works predominantly through its anti-inflammatory effects – appear to be in the sickest patients, such as those requiring ICU admission or respiratory support.

“Many of the same patients would have systemic inflammation and would have also shown elevated cardiac biomarkers,” Dr. Liu observed. “Therefore, it is conceivable that a subset who had cardiac inflammation also benefited from the treatment. Further data, possibly through subgroup analysis and eventually meta-analysis, may help us to understand if dexamethasone also benefited patients with dominant cardiac injury.”

Dr. Caforio, Dr. Marshall, Dr. Liu, and Dr. Cooper reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Background: NRT use after smoking cessation helps smokers transition to abstinence by reducing the intensity of craving and withdrawal symptoms. It is uncertain which forms of NRTs are more likely to result in long-term smoking cessation.

Combination NRT (for example, the patch & a fast-acting form such as gum or lozenge) increases long-term quit rates versus single-form NRT (risk ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.36). Researchers compared 4 mg to 2 mg nicotine gum and found a benefit of the higher dose (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.12-1.83), although possibly only among heavy users.

Bottom line: Prescribe combination patch and short-acting NRTs to smokers motivated to quit.

Citation: Lindson N et al. Different doses, durations, and modes of delivery of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Apr 18;4:CD013308. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013308.

Dr. Miller is a hospitalist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

Background: NRT use after smoking cessation helps smokers transition to abstinence by reducing the intensity of craving and withdrawal symptoms. It is uncertain which forms of NRTs are more likely to result in long-term smoking cessation.

Combination NRT (for example, the patch & a fast-acting form such as gum or lozenge) increases long-term quit rates versus single-form NRT (risk ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.36). Researchers compared 4 mg to 2 mg nicotine gum and found a benefit of the higher dose (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.12-1.83), although possibly only among heavy users.

Bottom line: Prescribe combination patch and short-acting NRTs to smokers motivated to quit.

Citation: Lindson N et al. Different doses, durations, and modes of delivery of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Apr 18;4:CD013308. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013308.

Dr. Miller is a hospitalist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

Background: NRT use after smoking cessation helps smokers transition to abstinence by reducing the intensity of craving and withdrawal symptoms. It is uncertain which forms of NRTs are more likely to result in long-term smoking cessation.

Combination NRT (for example, the patch & a fast-acting form such as gum or lozenge) increases long-term quit rates versus single-form NRT (risk ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.36). Researchers compared 4 mg to 2 mg nicotine gum and found a benefit of the higher dose (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.12-1.83), although possibly only among heavy users.

Bottom line: Prescribe combination patch and short-acting NRTs to smokers motivated to quit.

Citation: Lindson N et al. Different doses, durations, and modes of delivery of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Apr 18;4:CD013308. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013308.

Dr. Miller is a hospitalist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

As more jurisdictions mandate facial coverings in public, questions have arisen about whether it’s safe for everyone – including those with lung disease – to wear masks. Stories about people who claim to be unable to wear masks because of breathing problems are appearing in the news with increasing frequency, and patients are starting to call their doctors to request medical exemptions to public mask requirements.

David Fuentes Prieto/Shutterstock

To address these issues, Medscape spoke with the chief medical officer of the American Lung Association, Dr. Albert Rizzo.
 

The CDC recommendations on mask wearing say, “Cloth face coverings should not be placed on young children under age 2, anyone who has trouble breathing, or is unconscious, incapacitated, or otherwise unable to remove the mask without assistance.” Does this language suggest that there indeed is a subset of the adult population with lung disease who shouldn’t wear masks?

It makes sense to say that if it makes you uncomfortable to wear a mask because it affects your breathing, you should think twice about getting in a situation where you would have to wear a mask.

I’ve told many of my high-risk patients, “The best way to avoid getting COVID-19 is to stay home and stay away from sick people, especially if you feel that you are not going to be able to wear a mask or facial covering of some sort.”

The reason that some people have trouble with a mask is that they haven’t tried the right style of mask – by that I mean how tightly it fits and the material it’s made out of. Sometimes it really is just that people with lung disease don’t like to have anything covering their faces. Many of these patients feel better where there is air blowing across their faces – they will have a fan blowing even in the middle of winter because they feel more comfortable.

I won’t say it’s all in their heads, but sometimes it’s a matter of desensitizing themselves to wearing a mask. I liken it to people who have sleep apnea. We often have to desensitize them to wearing a mask for sleeping. We tell them to put it on while they are watching TV — don’t hook it up to anything yet, just get used to having something on your face.

I’ve told my patients the same thing about masks for COVID-19. Put on the mask, see how it feels. If you become uncomfortable breathing with it on, take it off, but maybe you can handle it for a half hour or 45 minutes. Find out how much time you have for a trip to the grocery store based on how comfortable you are wearing it at home.

It’s a matter of training the patient, giving them options of how to get comfortable with it, and then making them realize that they have to weigh the benefits and risks of wearing the mask and feeling out of breath versus going out in public and being potentially exposed to coronavirus. And the bottom line is, anybody who is wearing a mask and starts to feel uncomfortable, they can take the mask off.
 

You mentioned different types of masks. Is there a type of mask that is typically more breathable that clinicians can recommend to patients with lung disease?

First, I remind patients who think they will have trouble breathing with a mask on that they are choosing a mask not so much to protect themselves – that would take an N95 mask to filter out the virus. The mask is worn so that when they cough or drink or speak, they aren’t sending respiratory droplets out into the environment. Even when we speak, respiratory droplets can easily go out as far as 6 feet, or further with coughing or sneezing. With facial coverings, we try to keep those respiratory droplets from getting out and infecting others.

So when choosing a mask, you don’t have to worry as much about a tight-fitting mask. I recommend a loose-fitting mask that covers the nose and mouth and isn’t going to fall off but isn’t so tight around the ears and neck to make them feel uncomfortable. Even though it doesn’t really protect the wearer, it is cutting down on the ability to breathe in droplets – maybe not microscopic particles, but it’s better than nothing.
 

Is a face shield a reasonable alternative for someone who feels they can’t breathe with a mask on?

Yes. I’m surprised that face shields don’t get more attention. I’ve tried them out, and they are actually more comfortable than masks. They do impede the spilling out of droplets into the public, but they are not as close fitting to the face as a mask. If you want to protect others, the face shield should be adequate. It is not as good at preventing you from breathing in viral particles.

Some people have claimed that wearing a mask makes them hyperventilate and feel like they are going to pass out, or the mask causes them to become hypoxic. Are these valid concerns?

We get two questions about masks from patients who feel that they are short of breath or are worried about wearing a mask. One is whether their oxygen level is dropping. It’s usually not that. It’s usually because they feel that the mask is an impediment to getting air in. Their oxygen levels are stable.

The other question is whether the mask causes CO₂ retention. For the mask to trap enough exhaled CO₂ and for us to breathe enough of that CO₂ back in to raise our CO₂ level, it has to be a pretty tight-fitting mask. With the type of masks we are suggesting that people wear, that’s very unlikely to occur.
 

What can clinicians do to reassure patients with some type of lung disease that they can safely wear masks?

There are a few things they can do right in the office. Have them put the mask on for a few minutes and make sure they feel comfortable with it. With an oximeter, patients can see that their oxygen levels don’t change when they are breathing through the mask for a period of time.

You can’t really measure CO₂ retention that easily, but most patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or pulmonary fibrosis don’t have an elevated CO₂ at baseline. A little more education is helpful in those situations. In most cases, they aren’t going to retain enough CO₂ to have problems wearing a mask.

Only a small percentage of patients with lung disease are CO₂ retainers, and many of those patients are being seen by pulmonary specialists. Those are the patients you might want to be more cautious with, to make sure they aren’t wearing anything that is tight fitting or that makes them work harder to breathe. It’s not that the mask is causing CO₂ retention, but the increased work of breathing may make it harder to exhale the CO₂.
 

Does a mask interfere with supplemental oxygen in any way?

Supplemental oxygen is typically supplied through a nasal cannula, so 100% oxygen is still getting to the nasal passages and entrained down into the airway, so it shouldn’t be a problem.

Some of the resistance to wearing masks has come from people with asthma. Is it safe for patients with asthma to wear masks, or should these patients be exempt from wearing masks?

In general, the breathing of people with mild asthma, both young and old, should not be impeded by the wearing of facial coverings. The concerns about oxygen and carbon dioxide among patients with more severe lung disease should not play a role in asthma.

Since younger adults with COVID-19 seem to have fewer or no symptoms and may actually be carrying the virus unknowingly, this should be the main population who should wear masks to prevent transmission to others.

Exemptions for mask wearing for mild asthma should be discouraged and dealt with on a case-by-case basis if there is a particular concern for that individual.
 

How do you respond if a patient asks you for a formal medical exemption to wearing a mask?

We’ve been asked to do a lot of letter writing for patients around going back to work, as well as the issue of wearing masks. The discussion usually revolves around trying to avoid going somewhere where you would have to wear a mask if it makes you feel uncomfortable.

I do not recommend automatically exempting individuals from wearing masks, even many of my pulmonary patients. There needs to be an understanding by the patient regarding the purpose of the mask and the overall advice to stay out of situations where social distancing is not being practiced. If you can take the time to discuss options as mentioned above – mask styles, desensitization, etc – the patient usually understands and will try wearing a mask.

On a case-by-case basis, some individuals may need to be exempted, but I feel this is a small number. I prefer my high-risk (older, chronic disease, etc) patients do everything they can to avoid infection – handwashing, mask wearing, and socially distancing.

They should also realize that even with a note, it is not going to help if they are in the middle of the grocery store and someone confronts them about not wearing a mask. It may help as they enter a store that says “masks required” and they can show it to someone monitoring the door. But I’m not really sure in what situations having that note is going to be helpful if confrontations occur.

Patients are also asking how safe is it for them to go back to work and be out in public. I tell them, nothing is going to be 100% safe. Until we have an effective vaccine, we are all going to have to weigh the potential risks of going to an area where social distancing isn’t maintained, people aren’t wearing face masks, and you can’t wash your hands as much as you’d like to. That’s going to be a struggle for all of us to get back out into situations where people interact socially.

Albert A. Rizzo, MD, is chief medical officer for the American Lung Association, chief of the Section of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at the Christiana Care Health System in Newark, Delaware, and a member of Christiana Care Pulmonary Associates. He is board certified in internal medicine, pulmonary medicine, critical care medicine, and sleep medicine and is a clinical assistant professor of medicine at Thomas Jefferson University Medical School, Philadelphia.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As more jurisdictions mandate facial coverings in public, questions have arisen about whether it’s safe for everyone – including those with lung disease – to wear masks. Stories about people who claim to be unable to wear masks because of breathing problems are appearing in the news with increasing frequency, and patients are starting to call their doctors to request medical exemptions to public mask requirements.

David Fuentes Prieto/Shutterstock

To address these issues, Medscape spoke with the chief medical officer of the American Lung Association, Dr. Albert Rizzo.
 

The CDC recommendations on mask wearing say, “Cloth face coverings should not be placed on young children under age 2, anyone who has trouble breathing, or is unconscious, incapacitated, or otherwise unable to remove the mask without assistance.” Does this language suggest that there indeed is a subset of the adult population with lung disease who shouldn’t wear masks?

It makes sense to say that if it makes you uncomfortable to wear a mask because it affects your breathing, you should think twice about getting in a situation where you would have to wear a mask.

I’ve told many of my high-risk patients, “The best way to avoid getting COVID-19 is to stay home and stay away from sick people, especially if you feel that you are not going to be able to wear a mask or facial covering of some sort.”

The reason that some people have trouble with a mask is that they haven’t tried the right style of mask – by that I mean how tightly it fits and the material it’s made out of. Sometimes it really is just that people with lung disease don’t like to have anything covering their faces. Many of these patients feel better where there is air blowing across their faces – they will have a fan blowing even in the middle of winter because they feel more comfortable.

I won’t say it’s all in their heads, but sometimes it’s a matter of desensitizing themselves to wearing a mask. I liken it to people who have sleep apnea. We often have to desensitize them to wearing a mask for sleeping. We tell them to put it on while they are watching TV — don’t hook it up to anything yet, just get used to having something on your face.

I’ve told my patients the same thing about masks for COVID-19. Put on the mask, see how it feels. If you become uncomfortable breathing with it on, take it off, but maybe you can handle it for a half hour or 45 minutes. Find out how much time you have for a trip to the grocery store based on how comfortable you are wearing it at home.

It’s a matter of training the patient, giving them options of how to get comfortable with it, and then making them realize that they have to weigh the benefits and risks of wearing the mask and feeling out of breath versus going out in public and being potentially exposed to coronavirus. And the bottom line is, anybody who is wearing a mask and starts to feel uncomfortable, they can take the mask off.
 

You mentioned different types of masks. Is there a type of mask that is typically more breathable that clinicians can recommend to patients with lung disease?

First, I remind patients who think they will have trouble breathing with a mask on that they are choosing a mask not so much to protect themselves – that would take an N95 mask to filter out the virus. The mask is worn so that when they cough or drink or speak, they aren’t sending respiratory droplets out into the environment. Even when we speak, respiratory droplets can easily go out as far as 6 feet, or further with coughing or sneezing. With facial coverings, we try to keep those respiratory droplets from getting out and infecting others.

So when choosing a mask, you don’t have to worry as much about a tight-fitting mask. I recommend a loose-fitting mask that covers the nose and mouth and isn’t going to fall off but isn’t so tight around the ears and neck to make them feel uncomfortable. Even though it doesn’t really protect the wearer, it is cutting down on the ability to breathe in droplets – maybe not microscopic particles, but it’s better than nothing.
 

Is a face shield a reasonable alternative for someone who feels they can’t breathe with a mask on?

Yes. I’m surprised that face shields don’t get more attention. I’ve tried them out, and they are actually more comfortable than masks. They do impede the spilling out of droplets into the public, but they are not as close fitting to the face as a mask. If you want to protect others, the face shield should be adequate. It is not as good at preventing you from breathing in viral particles.

Some people have claimed that wearing a mask makes them hyperventilate and feel like they are going to pass out, or the mask causes them to become hypoxic. Are these valid concerns?

We get two questions about masks from patients who feel that they are short of breath or are worried about wearing a mask. One is whether their oxygen level is dropping. It’s usually not that. It’s usually because they feel that the mask is an impediment to getting air in. Their oxygen levels are stable.

The other question is whether the mask causes CO₂ retention. For the mask to trap enough exhaled CO₂ and for us to breathe enough of that CO₂ back in to raise our CO₂ level, it has to be a pretty tight-fitting mask. With the type of masks we are suggesting that people wear, that’s very unlikely to occur.
 

What can clinicians do to reassure patients with some type of lung disease that they can safely wear masks?

There are a few things they can do right in the office. Have them put the mask on for a few minutes and make sure they feel comfortable with it. With an oximeter, patients can see that their oxygen levels don’t change when they are breathing through the mask for a period of time.

You can’t really measure CO₂ retention that easily, but most patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or pulmonary fibrosis don’t have an elevated CO₂ at baseline. A little more education is helpful in those situations. In most cases, they aren’t going to retain enough CO₂ to have problems wearing a mask.

Only a small percentage of patients with lung disease are CO₂ retainers, and many of those patients are being seen by pulmonary specialists. Those are the patients you might want to be more cautious with, to make sure they aren’t wearing anything that is tight fitting or that makes them work harder to breathe. It’s not that the mask is causing CO₂ retention, but the increased work of breathing may make it harder to exhale the CO₂.
 

Does a mask interfere with supplemental oxygen in any way?

Supplemental oxygen is typically supplied through a nasal cannula, so 100% oxygen is still getting to the nasal passages and entrained down into the airway, so it shouldn’t be a problem.

Some of the resistance to wearing masks has come from people with asthma. Is it safe for patients with asthma to wear masks, or should these patients be exempt from wearing masks?

In general, the breathing of people with mild asthma, both young and old, should not be impeded by the wearing of facial coverings. The concerns about oxygen and carbon dioxide among patients with more severe lung disease should not play a role in asthma.

Since younger adults with COVID-19 seem to have fewer or no symptoms and may actually be carrying the virus unknowingly, this should be the main population who should wear masks to prevent transmission to others.

Exemptions for mask wearing for mild asthma should be discouraged and dealt with on a case-by-case basis if there is a particular concern for that individual.
 

How do you respond if a patient asks you for a formal medical exemption to wearing a mask?

We’ve been asked to do a lot of letter writing for patients around going back to work, as well as the issue of wearing masks. The discussion usually revolves around trying to avoid going somewhere where you would have to wear a mask if it makes you feel uncomfortable.

I do not recommend automatically exempting individuals from wearing masks, even many of my pulmonary patients. There needs to be an understanding by the patient regarding the purpose of the mask and the overall advice to stay out of situations where social distancing is not being practiced. If you can take the time to discuss options as mentioned above – mask styles, desensitization, etc – the patient usually understands and will try wearing a mask.

On a case-by-case basis, some individuals may need to be exempted, but I feel this is a small number. I prefer my high-risk (older, chronic disease, etc) patients do everything they can to avoid infection – handwashing, mask wearing, and socially distancing.

They should also realize that even with a note, it is not going to help if they are in the middle of the grocery store and someone confronts them about not wearing a mask. It may help as they enter a store that says “masks required” and they can show it to someone monitoring the door. But I’m not really sure in what situations having that note is going to be helpful if confrontations occur.

Patients are also asking how safe is it for them to go back to work and be out in public. I tell them, nothing is going to be 100% safe. Until we have an effective vaccine, we are all going to have to weigh the potential risks of going to an area where social distancing isn’t maintained, people aren’t wearing face masks, and you can’t wash your hands as much as you’d like to. That’s going to be a struggle for all of us to get back out into situations where people interact socially.

Albert A. Rizzo, MD, is chief medical officer for the American Lung Association, chief of the Section of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at the Christiana Care Health System in Newark, Delaware, and a member of Christiana Care Pulmonary Associates. He is board certified in internal medicine, pulmonary medicine, critical care medicine, and sleep medicine and is a clinical assistant professor of medicine at Thomas Jefferson University Medical School, Philadelphia.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As more jurisdictions mandate facial coverings in public, questions have arisen about whether it’s safe for everyone – including those with lung disease – to wear masks. Stories about people who claim to be unable to wear masks because of breathing problems are appearing in the news with increasing frequency, and patients are starting to call their doctors to request medical exemptions to public mask requirements.

David Fuentes Prieto/Shutterstock

To address these issues, Medscape spoke with the chief medical officer of the American Lung Association, Dr. Albert Rizzo.
 

The CDC recommendations on mask wearing say, “Cloth face coverings should not be placed on young children under age 2, anyone who has trouble breathing, or is unconscious, incapacitated, or otherwise unable to remove the mask without assistance.” Does this language suggest that there indeed is a subset of the adult population with lung disease who shouldn’t wear masks?

It makes sense to say that if it makes you uncomfortable to wear a mask because it affects your breathing, you should think twice about getting in a situation where you would have to wear a mask.

I’ve told many of my high-risk patients, “The best way to avoid getting COVID-19 is to stay home and stay away from sick people, especially if you feel that you are not going to be able to wear a mask or facial covering of some sort.”

The reason that some people have trouble with a mask is that they haven’t tried the right style of mask – by that I mean how tightly it fits and the material it’s made out of. Sometimes it really is just that people with lung disease don’t like to have anything covering their faces. Many of these patients feel better where there is air blowing across their faces – they will have a fan blowing even in the middle of winter because they feel more comfortable.

I won’t say it’s all in their heads, but sometimes it’s a matter of desensitizing themselves to wearing a mask. I liken it to people who have sleep apnea. We often have to desensitize them to wearing a mask for sleeping. We tell them to put it on while they are watching TV — don’t hook it up to anything yet, just get used to having something on your face.

I’ve told my patients the same thing about masks for COVID-19. Put on the mask, see how it feels. If you become uncomfortable breathing with it on, take it off, but maybe you can handle it for a half hour or 45 minutes. Find out how much time you have for a trip to the grocery store based on how comfortable you are wearing it at home.

It’s a matter of training the patient, giving them options of how to get comfortable with it, and then making them realize that they have to weigh the benefits and risks of wearing the mask and feeling out of breath versus going out in public and being potentially exposed to coronavirus. And the bottom line is, anybody who is wearing a mask and starts to feel uncomfortable, they can take the mask off.
 

You mentioned different types of masks. Is there a type of mask that is typically more breathable that clinicians can recommend to patients with lung disease?

First, I remind patients who think they will have trouble breathing with a mask on that they are choosing a mask not so much to protect themselves – that would take an N95 mask to filter out the virus. The mask is worn so that when they cough or drink or speak, they aren’t sending respiratory droplets out into the environment. Even when we speak, respiratory droplets can easily go out as far as 6 feet, or further with coughing or sneezing. With facial coverings, we try to keep those respiratory droplets from getting out and infecting others.

So when choosing a mask, you don’t have to worry as much about a tight-fitting mask. I recommend a loose-fitting mask that covers the nose and mouth and isn’t going to fall off but isn’t so tight around the ears and neck to make them feel uncomfortable. Even though it doesn’t really protect the wearer, it is cutting down on the ability to breathe in droplets – maybe not microscopic particles, but it’s better than nothing.
 

Is a face shield a reasonable alternative for someone who feels they can’t breathe with a mask on?

Yes. I’m surprised that face shields don’t get more attention. I’ve tried them out, and they are actually more comfortable than masks. They do impede the spilling out of droplets into the public, but they are not as close fitting to the face as a mask. If you want to protect others, the face shield should be adequate. It is not as good at preventing you from breathing in viral particles.

Some people have claimed that wearing a mask makes them hyperventilate and feel like they are going to pass out, or the mask causes them to become hypoxic. Are these valid concerns?

We get two questions about masks from patients who feel that they are short of breath or are worried about wearing a mask. One is whether their oxygen level is dropping. It’s usually not that. It’s usually because they feel that the mask is an impediment to getting air in. Their oxygen levels are stable.

The other question is whether the mask causes CO₂ retention. For the mask to trap enough exhaled CO₂ and for us to breathe enough of that CO₂ back in to raise our CO₂ level, it has to be a pretty tight-fitting mask. With the type of masks we are suggesting that people wear, that’s very unlikely to occur.
 

What can clinicians do to reassure patients with some type of lung disease that they can safely wear masks?

There are a few things they can do right in the office. Have them put the mask on for a few minutes and make sure they feel comfortable with it. With an oximeter, patients can see that their oxygen levels don’t change when they are breathing through the mask for a period of time.

You can’t really measure CO₂ retention that easily, but most patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or pulmonary fibrosis don’t have an elevated CO₂ at baseline. A little more education is helpful in those situations. In most cases, they aren’t going to retain enough CO₂ to have problems wearing a mask.

Only a small percentage of patients with lung disease are CO₂ retainers, and many of those patients are being seen by pulmonary specialists. Those are the patients you might want to be more cautious with, to make sure they aren’t wearing anything that is tight fitting or that makes them work harder to breathe. It’s not that the mask is causing CO₂ retention, but the increased work of breathing may make it harder to exhale the CO₂.
 

Does a mask interfere with supplemental oxygen in any way?

Supplemental oxygen is typically supplied through a nasal cannula, so 100% oxygen is still getting to the nasal passages and entrained down into the airway, so it shouldn’t be a problem.

Some of the resistance to wearing masks has come from people with asthma. Is it safe for patients with asthma to wear masks, or should these patients be exempt from wearing masks?

In general, the breathing of people with mild asthma, both young and old, should not be impeded by the wearing of facial coverings. The concerns about oxygen and carbon dioxide among patients with more severe lung disease should not play a role in asthma.

Since younger adults with COVID-19 seem to have fewer or no symptoms and may actually be carrying the virus unknowingly, this should be the main population who should wear masks to prevent transmission to others.

Exemptions for mask wearing for mild asthma should be discouraged and dealt with on a case-by-case basis if there is a particular concern for that individual.
 

How do you respond if a patient asks you for a formal medical exemption to wearing a mask?

We’ve been asked to do a lot of letter writing for patients around going back to work, as well as the issue of wearing masks. The discussion usually revolves around trying to avoid going somewhere where you would have to wear a mask if it makes you feel uncomfortable.

I do not recommend automatically exempting individuals from wearing masks, even many of my pulmonary patients. There needs to be an understanding by the patient regarding the purpose of the mask and the overall advice to stay out of situations where social distancing is not being practiced. If you can take the time to discuss options as mentioned above – mask styles, desensitization, etc – the patient usually understands and will try wearing a mask.

On a case-by-case basis, some individuals may need to be exempted, but I feel this is a small number. I prefer my high-risk (older, chronic disease, etc) patients do everything they can to avoid infection – handwashing, mask wearing, and socially distancing.

They should also realize that even with a note, it is not going to help if they are in the middle of the grocery store and someone confronts them about not wearing a mask. It may help as they enter a store that says “masks required” and they can show it to someone monitoring the door. But I’m not really sure in what situations having that note is going to be helpful if confrontations occur.

Patients are also asking how safe is it for them to go back to work and be out in public. I tell them, nothing is going to be 100% safe. Until we have an effective vaccine, we are all going to have to weigh the potential risks of going to an area where social distancing isn’t maintained, people aren’t wearing face masks, and you can’t wash your hands as much as you’d like to. That’s going to be a struggle for all of us to get back out into situations where people interact socially.

Albert A. Rizzo, MD, is chief medical officer for the American Lung Association, chief of the Section of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at the Christiana Care Health System in Newark, Delaware, and a member of Christiana Care Pulmonary Associates. He is board certified in internal medicine, pulmonary medicine, critical care medicine, and sleep medicine and is a clinical assistant professor of medicine at Thomas Jefferson University Medical School, Philadelphia.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hypnosis during catheter ablation for atrial flutter (AFlut) seemed to significantly improve perceived levels of pain and curb reliance on morphine, compared with standard relaxation techniques used as a control, in a small randomized trial.

Ablation is typically performed using conscious sedation and “requires sometimes very high dosages of morphine, and there are sometimes some complications, blood pressure drop, or oxygen desaturation,” Rodrigue Garcia, MD, Poitiers (France) University Hospital, said in an interview.

But patients in the study assigned to undergo hypnosis during the AFlut ablation, performed by practitioners hailing from the French Hypnosis Association, consistently perceived significantly less pain throughout the procedure than those in the active-control group.

They also used almost two-thirds less morphine, which was available to both groups on demand, reported Dr. Garcia, who presented the results of the PAINLESS study at the European Heart Rhythm Association 2020 Virtual Congress. The annual meeting was conducted online this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Hypnotism for pain control may not be widely available in hospitals, “but it’s becoming more and more frequent in the different centers, especially in France,” he said.

The technique is probably also suitable for catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia, Dr. Garcia said, and “we already use it for atrial fibrillation ablation, because it’s a very common procedure and because, in France, for example, there is a lack of anesthesiologists.” One limitation of hypnosis for such procedures, he said, is that it requires a practitioner with a lot of training and experience.

The current study, “I think, is one of the few, if not the first, randomized trial on this topic, at least for flutter,” Elena Arbelo, MD, PhD, MSc, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona and the University of Barcelona, said in an interview.

“I thought it was very interesting. Many centers have the issue of not having anesthesiology support for their procedures. We have the option of having anesthesiology with us only a few days a week,” said Dr. Arbelo, who was not an investigator with the study.

“If it’s validated in larger cohorts and in different cultures, it may be an interesting way of reducing the need for anesthesiology support, which is a main issue. I know for sure in Europe,” she said, that “some centers do struggle to have anesthesiology support for their EP procedures.”

The single-center trial randomized adults slated to undergo cavotricuspid isthmus ablation (n = 116) for AFlut to receive hypnosis or a control procedure, consisting of nonhypnotic relaxation suggestions and white noise delivered through earphones – 56 and 57 patients, respectively, after exclusion of several who ultimately did not undergo ablation. Any patient could receive 1 mg of morphine if self-reported pain was 5 or greater on a 10-point visual analog scale, or simply on demand.

The hypnosis and control groups were predominantly male and well matched for age (mean, about 69 years in both groups), prevalence of atrial fibrillation, and left ventricular ejection fraction (about 55% for both). Also, in both groups, the procedure duration was approximately 36 minutes.

Asked if all patients in the hypnosis group were actually hypnotized, Dr. Garcia said: “That’s a tricky question” because there was no prespecified definition for successful hypnosis. Between 70% and 80% achieved a hypnotized state, he estimated.

Hypnosis was superior to the control intervention for the primary outcome of pain self-assessment during the ablation procedure, as recorded 45 minutes after ablation. Also, using a 10-point visual analog scale, the hypnosis group rated the average pain intensity as 4.0, whereas the control group rated it as 5.5 (P < .001).

Similarly, instantaneous pain intensity, rated on a 10-point scale every 5 minutes, was lower throughout the procedure for the hypnosis patients than for the control patients (P < .05 at all assessments). Maximum pain intensities, which occurred at the 15- to 25-minute points, were no greater than 3 for hypnosis patients and peaked at approximately 5 for the control patients.

Two of three secondary end points favored the hypnosis group. Morphine consumption averaged 1.3 mg, compared with 3.6 mg for the control group (P < .001). Observer-assessed degrees of sedation were 8.3 and 5.4, respectively, on a 10-point scale (P < .001). And patient self-assessment of anxiety during the procedure was 1.5 in the hypnosis group and 2.5 in the control group on a similar scale.

Regarding morphine use in the two groups, Dr. Garcia said, “It was more than 2 mg of difference, and this can be very important, especially in certain types of patients,” such as those with compromised lung function.

All six complications (11%) observed during the study occurred in the control group. There were four severe hypotensive episodes, one case of oxygen desaturation, and one case of pericardial effusion (P = .03 vs the hypnosis group).

After pointing out the substantial risk for adverse events associated with deep analgesia, particularly from the use of opiates, Paulus Kirchhof, MD, PhD, said, “I think it’s a clinically relevant topic, in the context of reducing the risk of ablation procedures, to try to minimize the use of opiates or other strong anesthetics.”

A multicenter trial could be the next step, said Dr. Kirchhof, from the University Heart and Vascular Center UKE Hamburg (Germany). That would potentially provide “the first evidence for me that this is not sort of something that works in one specific setting, but that it is transferable to other centers, other countries, where practices and complication rates of analgosedation may be different.”

Dr. Kirchhof praised the study design for comparing hypnosis with an active standard-of-care control group. “That is one of the strengths of the study; they tried to design it in a way that didn’t disadvantage the control group.”

The study was funded by the University Hospital of Poitiers. Dr. Garcia and Dr. Arbelo reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Kirchhof reported support for basic, translational, and clinical research projects from the European Union, the British Heart Foundation, the Leducq Foundation, the Medical Research Council, and the German Centre for Cardiovascular Research, and from several drug and device companies active in atrial fibrillation, from which he received honoraria more than 3 years ago; he is listed as inventor on two patents held by the University of Birmingham (England).

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

Hypnosis during catheter ablation for atrial flutter (AFlut) seemed to significantly improve perceived levels of pain and curb reliance on morphine, compared with standard relaxation techniques used as a control, in a small randomized trial.

Ablation is typically performed using conscious sedation and “requires sometimes very high dosages of morphine, and there are sometimes some complications, blood pressure drop, or oxygen desaturation,” Rodrigue Garcia, MD, Poitiers (France) University Hospital, said in an interview.

But patients in the study assigned to undergo hypnosis during the AFlut ablation, performed by practitioners hailing from the French Hypnosis Association, consistently perceived significantly less pain throughout the procedure than those in the active-control group.

They also used almost two-thirds less morphine, which was available to both groups on demand, reported Dr. Garcia, who presented the results of the PAINLESS study at the European Heart Rhythm Association 2020 Virtual Congress. The annual meeting was conducted online this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Hypnotism for pain control may not be widely available in hospitals, “but it’s becoming more and more frequent in the different centers, especially in France,” he said.

The technique is probably also suitable for catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia, Dr. Garcia said, and “we already use it for atrial fibrillation ablation, because it’s a very common procedure and because, in France, for example, there is a lack of anesthesiologists.” One limitation of hypnosis for such procedures, he said, is that it requires a practitioner with a lot of training and experience.

The current study, “I think, is one of the few, if not the first, randomized trial on this topic, at least for flutter,” Elena Arbelo, MD, PhD, MSc, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona and the University of Barcelona, said in an interview.

“I thought it was very interesting. Many centers have the issue of not having anesthesiology support for their procedures. We have the option of having anesthesiology with us only a few days a week,” said Dr. Arbelo, who was not an investigator with the study.

“If it’s validated in larger cohorts and in different cultures, it may be an interesting way of reducing the need for anesthesiology support, which is a main issue. I know for sure in Europe,” she said, that “some centers do struggle to have anesthesiology support for their EP procedures.”

The single-center trial randomized adults slated to undergo cavotricuspid isthmus ablation (n = 116) for AFlut to receive hypnosis or a control procedure, consisting of nonhypnotic relaxation suggestions and white noise delivered through earphones – 56 and 57 patients, respectively, after exclusion of several who ultimately did not undergo ablation. Any patient could receive 1 mg of morphine if self-reported pain was 5 or greater on a 10-point visual analog scale, or simply on demand.

The hypnosis and control groups were predominantly male and well matched for age (mean, about 69 years in both groups), prevalence of atrial fibrillation, and left ventricular ejection fraction (about 55% for both). Also, in both groups, the procedure duration was approximately 36 minutes.

Asked if all patients in the hypnosis group were actually hypnotized, Dr. Garcia said: “That’s a tricky question” because there was no prespecified definition for successful hypnosis. Between 70% and 80% achieved a hypnotized state, he estimated.

Hypnosis was superior to the control intervention for the primary outcome of pain self-assessment during the ablation procedure, as recorded 45 minutes after ablation. Also, using a 10-point visual analog scale, the hypnosis group rated the average pain intensity as 4.0, whereas the control group rated it as 5.5 (P < .001).

Similarly, instantaneous pain intensity, rated on a 10-point scale every 5 minutes, was lower throughout the procedure for the hypnosis patients than for the control patients (P < .05 at all assessments). Maximum pain intensities, which occurred at the 15- to 25-minute points, were no greater than 3 for hypnosis patients and peaked at approximately 5 for the control patients.

Two of three secondary end points favored the hypnosis group. Morphine consumption averaged 1.3 mg, compared with 3.6 mg for the control group (P < .001). Observer-assessed degrees of sedation were 8.3 and 5.4, respectively, on a 10-point scale (P < .001). And patient self-assessment of anxiety during the procedure was 1.5 in the hypnosis group and 2.5 in the control group on a similar scale.

Regarding morphine use in the two groups, Dr. Garcia said, “It was more than 2 mg of difference, and this can be very important, especially in certain types of patients,” such as those with compromised lung function.

All six complications (11%) observed during the study occurred in the control group. There were four severe hypotensive episodes, one case of oxygen desaturation, and one case of pericardial effusion (P = .03 vs the hypnosis group).

After pointing out the substantial risk for adverse events associated with deep analgesia, particularly from the use of opiates, Paulus Kirchhof, MD, PhD, said, “I think it’s a clinically relevant topic, in the context of reducing the risk of ablation procedures, to try to minimize the use of opiates or other strong anesthetics.”

A multicenter trial could be the next step, said Dr. Kirchhof, from the University Heart and Vascular Center UKE Hamburg (Germany). That would potentially provide “the first evidence for me that this is not sort of something that works in one specific setting, but that it is transferable to other centers, other countries, where practices and complication rates of analgosedation may be different.”

Dr. Kirchhof praised the study design for comparing hypnosis with an active standard-of-care control group. “That is one of the strengths of the study; they tried to design it in a way that didn’t disadvantage the control group.”

The study was funded by the University Hospital of Poitiers. Dr. Garcia and Dr. Arbelo reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Kirchhof reported support for basic, translational, and clinical research projects from the European Union, the British Heart Foundation, the Leducq Foundation, the Medical Research Council, and the German Centre for Cardiovascular Research, and from several drug and device companies active in atrial fibrillation, from which he received honoraria more than 3 years ago; he is listed as inventor on two patents held by the University of Birmingham (England).

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

Hypnosis during catheter ablation for atrial flutter (AFlut) seemed to significantly improve perceived levels of pain and curb reliance on morphine, compared with standard relaxation techniques used as a control, in a small randomized trial.

Ablation is typically performed using conscious sedation and “requires sometimes very high dosages of morphine, and there are sometimes some complications, blood pressure drop, or oxygen desaturation,” Rodrigue Garcia, MD, Poitiers (France) University Hospital, said in an interview.

But patients in the study assigned to undergo hypnosis during the AFlut ablation, performed by practitioners hailing from the French Hypnosis Association, consistently perceived significantly less pain throughout the procedure than those in the active-control group.

They also used almost two-thirds less morphine, which was available to both groups on demand, reported Dr. Garcia, who presented the results of the PAINLESS study at the European Heart Rhythm Association 2020 Virtual Congress. The annual meeting was conducted online this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Hypnotism for pain control may not be widely available in hospitals, “but it’s becoming more and more frequent in the different centers, especially in France,” he said.

The technique is probably also suitable for catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia, Dr. Garcia said, and “we already use it for atrial fibrillation ablation, because it’s a very common procedure and because, in France, for example, there is a lack of anesthesiologists.” One limitation of hypnosis for such procedures, he said, is that it requires a practitioner with a lot of training and experience.

The current study, “I think, is one of the few, if not the first, randomized trial on this topic, at least for flutter,” Elena Arbelo, MD, PhD, MSc, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona and the University of Barcelona, said in an interview.

“I thought it was very interesting. Many centers have the issue of not having anesthesiology support for their procedures. We have the option of having anesthesiology with us only a few days a week,” said Dr. Arbelo, who was not an investigator with the study.

“If it’s validated in larger cohorts and in different cultures, it may be an interesting way of reducing the need for anesthesiology support, which is a main issue. I know for sure in Europe,” she said, that “some centers do struggle to have anesthesiology support for their EP procedures.”

The single-center trial randomized adults slated to undergo cavotricuspid isthmus ablation (n = 116) for AFlut to receive hypnosis or a control procedure, consisting of nonhypnotic relaxation suggestions and white noise delivered through earphones – 56 and 57 patients, respectively, after exclusion of several who ultimately did not undergo ablation. Any patient could receive 1 mg of morphine if self-reported pain was 5 or greater on a 10-point visual analog scale, or simply on demand.

The hypnosis and control groups were predominantly male and well matched for age (mean, about 69 years in both groups), prevalence of atrial fibrillation, and left ventricular ejection fraction (about 55% for both). Also, in both groups, the procedure duration was approximately 36 minutes.

Asked if all patients in the hypnosis group were actually hypnotized, Dr. Garcia said: “That’s a tricky question” because there was no prespecified definition for successful hypnosis. Between 70% and 80% achieved a hypnotized state, he estimated.

Hypnosis was superior to the control intervention for the primary outcome of pain self-assessment during the ablation procedure, as recorded 45 minutes after ablation. Also, using a 10-point visual analog scale, the hypnosis group rated the average pain intensity as 4.0, whereas the control group rated it as 5.5 (P < .001).

Similarly, instantaneous pain intensity, rated on a 10-point scale every 5 minutes, was lower throughout the procedure for the hypnosis patients than for the control patients (P < .05 at all assessments). Maximum pain intensities, which occurred at the 15- to 25-minute points, were no greater than 3 for hypnosis patients and peaked at approximately 5 for the control patients.

Two of three secondary end points favored the hypnosis group. Morphine consumption averaged 1.3 mg, compared with 3.6 mg for the control group (P < .001). Observer-assessed degrees of sedation were 8.3 and 5.4, respectively, on a 10-point scale (P < .001). And patient self-assessment of anxiety during the procedure was 1.5 in the hypnosis group and 2.5 in the control group on a similar scale.

Regarding morphine use in the two groups, Dr. Garcia said, “It was more than 2 mg of difference, and this can be very important, especially in certain types of patients,” such as those with compromised lung function.

All six complications (11%) observed during the study occurred in the control group. There were four severe hypotensive episodes, one case of oxygen desaturation, and one case of pericardial effusion (P = .03 vs the hypnosis group).

After pointing out the substantial risk for adverse events associated with deep analgesia, particularly from the use of opiates, Paulus Kirchhof, MD, PhD, said, “I think it’s a clinically relevant topic, in the context of reducing the risk of ablation procedures, to try to minimize the use of opiates or other strong anesthetics.”

A multicenter trial could be the next step, said Dr. Kirchhof, from the University Heart and Vascular Center UKE Hamburg (Germany). That would potentially provide “the first evidence for me that this is not sort of something that works in one specific setting, but that it is transferable to other centers, other countries, where practices and complication rates of analgosedation may be different.”

Dr. Kirchhof praised the study design for comparing hypnosis with an active standard-of-care control group. “That is one of the strengths of the study; they tried to design it in a way that didn’t disadvantage the control group.”

The study was funded by the University Hospital of Poitiers. Dr. Garcia and Dr. Arbelo reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Kirchhof reported support for basic, translational, and clinical research projects from the European Union, the British Heart Foundation, the Leducq Foundation, the Medical Research Council, and the German Centre for Cardiovascular Research, and from several drug and device companies active in atrial fibrillation, from which he received honoraria more than 3 years ago; he is listed as inventor on two patents held by the University of Birmingham (England).

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

Low to moderate alcohol consumption is associated with better cognitive function and slower cognitive decline in middle-aged and older adults, new research suggests. However, at least one expert urges caution in interpreting the findings.

Investigators found that consuming 10-14 alcoholic drinks per week had the strongest cognitive benefit. The findings “add more weight” to the growing body of research identifying beneficial cognitive effects of moderate alcohol consumption, said lead author, Ruiyuan Zhang, MD, of the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Georgia, Athens. However, Dr. Zhang emphasized that nondrinkers should not take up drinking to protect brain function, as alcohol can have negative effects.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Slower cognitive decline

The observational study was a secondary analysis of data from the Health and Retirement Study, a nationally representative U.S. survey of middle-aged and older adults. The survey, which began in 1992, is conducted every 2 years and collects health and economic data.

The current analysis used data from 1996 to 2008 and included information from individuals who participated in at least three surveys. The study included 19,887 participants, with a mean age 61.8 years. Most (60.1%) were women and white (85.2%). Mean follow-up was 9.1 years.

Researchers measured cognitive domains of mental status, word recall, and vocabulary. They also calculated a total cognition score, with higher scores indicating better cognitive abilities.

For each cognitive function measure, researchers categorized participants into a consistently low–trajectory group in which cognitive test scores from baseline through follow-up were consistently low or a consistently high–trajectory group, where cognitive test scores from baseline through follow-up were consistently high.

Based on self-reports, the investigators categorized participants as never drinkers (41.8%), former drinkers (39.5%), or current drinkers (18.7%). For current drinkers, researchers determined the number of drinking days per week and number of drinks per day. They further categorized these participants as low to moderate drinkers or heavy drinkers.

One drink was defined as a 12-ounce bottle of beer, a 5-ounce glass of wine, or a 1.5-ounce shot of spirits, said Dr. Zhang.

Women who consumed 8 or more drinks per week and men who drank 15 or more drinks per week were considered heavy drinkers. Other current drinkers were deemed low to moderate drinkers. Most current drinkers (85.2%) were low to moderate drinkers.

Other covariates included age, sex, race/ethnicity, years of education, marital status, tobacco smoking status, and body mass index.

Results showed moderate drinking was associated with relatively high cognitive test scores. After controlling for all covariates, compared with never drinkers, current low to moderate drinkers were significantly less likely to have consistently low trajectories for total cognitive score (odds ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.74), mental status (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.63-0.81), word recall (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.69-0.80), and vocabulary (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.56-0.74) (all P < .001).

Former drinkers also had better cognitive outcomes for all cognitive domains. Heavy drinkers had lower odds of being in the consistently low trajectory group only for the vocabulary test.
 

Heavy drinking ‘risky’

Because few participants were deemed to be heavy drinkers, the power to identify an association between heavy drinking and cognitive function was limited. Dr. Zhang acknowledged, though he noted that heavy drinking is “risky.”

“We found that, after the drinking dosage passes the moderate level, the risk of low cognitive function increases very fast, which indicates that heavy drinking may harm cognitive function.” Limiting alcohol consumption “is still very important,” he said.

The associations of alcohol and cognitive functions differed by race/ethnicity. Low to moderate drinking was significantly associated with a lower odds of having a consistently low trajectory for all four cognitive function measures only among white participants.

A possible reason for this is that the study had so few African Americans (who made up only 14.8% of the sample), which limited the ability to identify relationships between alcohol intake and cognitive function, said Dr. Zhang. “Another reason is that the sensitivity to alcohol may be different between white and African American subjects.”

There was a significant U-shaped association between weekly amounts of alcohol and the odds of being in the consistently low–trajectory group for all cognitive functions. Depending on the function tested, the optimal number of weekly drinks ranged from 10-14.

Dr. Zhang noted that, when women were examined separately, alcohol consumption had a significant U-shaped relationship only with word recall, with the optimal dosage being around eight drinks.
 

U-shaped relationship an ‘important finding’

The U-shaped relationship is “an important finding,” said Dr. Zhang. “It shows that the human body may act differently to low and high doses of alcohol. Knowing why and how this happens is very important as it would help us understand how alcohol affects the function of the human body.”

Sensitivity analyses among participants with no chronic diseases showed the U-shaped association was still significant for scores of total word recall and vocabulary, but not for mental status or total cognition score.

The authors noted that 77.2% of participants had at least one chronic disease. They maintained that the association between alcohol consumption and cognitive function may be applicable both to healthy people and to those with a chronic disease.

The study also found that low to moderate drinkers had slower rates of cognitive decline over time for all cognition domains.

Although the mechanisms underlying the cognitive benefits of alcohol consumption are unclear, the authors believe it may be via cerebrovascular and cardiovascular pathways.

Alcohol may increase levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor, a key regulator of neuronal plasticity and development in the dorsal striatum, they noted.
 

Balancing act

However, there’s also evidence that drinking, especially heavy drinking, increases the risk of hypertension, stroke, liver damage, and some cancers. “We think the role of alcohol drinking in cognitive function may be a balance of its beneficial and harmful effects on the cardiovascular system,” said Dr. Zhang.

“For the low to moderate drinker, the beneficial effects may outweigh the harmful effects on the small blood vessels in the brain. In this way, it could preserve cognition,” he added.

Dr. Zhang also noted that the study focused on middle-aged and older adults. “We can’t say whether or not moderate alcohol could benefit younger people” because they may have different characteristics, he said.

The findings of other studies examining the effects of alcohol on cognitive function are mixed. While studies have identified a beneficial effect, others have uncovered no, minimal, or adverse effects. This could be due to the use of different tests of cognitive function or different study populations, said Dr. Zhang.

A limitation of the current study was that assessment of alcohol consumption was based on self-report, which might have introduced recall bias. In addition, because individuals tend to underestimate their alcohol consumption, heavy drinkers could be misclassified as low to moderate drinkers, and low to moderate drinkers as former drinkers.

“This may make our study underestimate the association between low to moderate drinking and cognitive function,” said Dr. Zhang. In addition, alcohol consumption tended to change with time, and this change may be associated with other factors that led to changes in cognitive function, the authors noted.
 

Interpret with caution

Commenting on the study, Brent P. Forester, MD, chief of the Center of Excellence in Geriatric Psychiatry at McLean Hospital in Belmont, Mass., associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a member of the American Psychiatric Association Council on Geriatric Psychiatry, said he views the study with some trepidation.

“As a clinician taking care of older adults, I would be very cautious about overinterpreting the beneficial effects of alcohol before we understand the mechanism better,” he said.

He noted that all of the risk factors associated with heart attack and stroke are also risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease and cognitive decline more broadly. “One of the issues here is how in the world does alcohol reduce cardiovascular and cerebrovascular risks, if you know it increases the risk of hypertension and stroke, regardless of dose.”

With regard to the possible impact of alcohol on brain-derived neurotrophic factor, Dr. Forester said, “it’s an interesting idea” but the actual mechanism is still unclear.

Even with dietary studies, such as those on the Mediterranean diet that include red wine, showing cognitive benefit, Dr. Forester said he’s still concerned about the adverse effects of alcohol on older people. These can include falls and sleep disturbances in addition to cognitive issues, and these effects can increase with age.

He was somewhat surprised at the level of alcohol that the study determined was beneficial. “Essentially, what they’re saying here is that, for men, it’s two drinks a day.” This could be “problematic” as two drinks per day can quickly escalate as individuals build tolerance.

He also pointed out that the study does not determine cause and effect, noting that it’s only an association.

Dr. Forester said the study raises a number of questions, including the type of alcohol study participants consumed and whether this has any impact on cognitive benefit. He also questioned whether the mediating effects of alcohol were associated with something that wasn’t measured, such as socioeconomic status.

Another question, he said, is what factors in individuals’ medical or psychiatric history determine whether they are more or less likely to benefit from low to moderate alcohol intake.

Perhaps alcohol should be recommended only for “select subpopulations” – for example, those who are healthy and have a family history of cognitive decline –but not for those with a history of substance abuse, including alcohol abuse, said Dr. Forester.

“For this population, the last thing you want to do is recommend alcohol to reduce risk of cognitive decline,” he cautioned.

The study was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. The investigators and Dr. Forester have reported no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this story originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Low to moderate alcohol consumption is associated with better cognitive function and slower cognitive decline in middle-aged and older adults, new research suggests. However, at least one expert urges caution in interpreting the findings.

Investigators found that consuming 10-14 alcoholic drinks per week had the strongest cognitive benefit. The findings “add more weight” to the growing body of research identifying beneficial cognitive effects of moderate alcohol consumption, said lead author, Ruiyuan Zhang, MD, of the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Georgia, Athens. However, Dr. Zhang emphasized that nondrinkers should not take up drinking to protect brain function, as alcohol can have negative effects.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Slower cognitive decline

The observational study was a secondary analysis of data from the Health and Retirement Study, a nationally representative U.S. survey of middle-aged and older adults. The survey, which began in 1992, is conducted every 2 years and collects health and economic data.

The current analysis used data from 1996 to 2008 and included information from individuals who participated in at least three surveys. The study included 19,887 participants, with a mean age 61.8 years. Most (60.1%) were women and white (85.2%). Mean follow-up was 9.1 years.

Researchers measured cognitive domains of mental status, word recall, and vocabulary. They also calculated a total cognition score, with higher scores indicating better cognitive abilities.

For each cognitive function measure, researchers categorized participants into a consistently low–trajectory group in which cognitive test scores from baseline through follow-up were consistently low or a consistently high–trajectory group, where cognitive test scores from baseline through follow-up were consistently high.

Based on self-reports, the investigators categorized participants as never drinkers (41.8%), former drinkers (39.5%), or current drinkers (18.7%). For current drinkers, researchers determined the number of drinking days per week and number of drinks per day. They further categorized these participants as low to moderate drinkers or heavy drinkers.

One drink was defined as a 12-ounce bottle of beer, a 5-ounce glass of wine, or a 1.5-ounce shot of spirits, said Dr. Zhang.

Women who consumed 8 or more drinks per week and men who drank 15 or more drinks per week were considered heavy drinkers. Other current drinkers were deemed low to moderate drinkers. Most current drinkers (85.2%) were low to moderate drinkers.

Other covariates included age, sex, race/ethnicity, years of education, marital status, tobacco smoking status, and body mass index.

Results showed moderate drinking was associated with relatively high cognitive test scores. After controlling for all covariates, compared with never drinkers, current low to moderate drinkers were significantly less likely to have consistently low trajectories for total cognitive score (odds ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.74), mental status (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.63-0.81), word recall (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.69-0.80), and vocabulary (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.56-0.74) (all P < .001).

Former drinkers also had better cognitive outcomes for all cognitive domains. Heavy drinkers had lower odds of being in the consistently low trajectory group only for the vocabulary test.
 

Heavy drinking ‘risky’

Because few participants were deemed to be heavy drinkers, the power to identify an association between heavy drinking and cognitive function was limited. Dr. Zhang acknowledged, though he noted that heavy drinking is “risky.”

“We found that, after the drinking dosage passes the moderate level, the risk of low cognitive function increases very fast, which indicates that heavy drinking may harm cognitive function.” Limiting alcohol consumption “is still very important,” he said.

The associations of alcohol and cognitive functions differed by race/ethnicity. Low to moderate drinking was significantly associated with a lower odds of having a consistently low trajectory for all four cognitive function measures only among white participants.

A possible reason for this is that the study had so few African Americans (who made up only 14.8% of the sample), which limited the ability to identify relationships between alcohol intake and cognitive function, said Dr. Zhang. “Another reason is that the sensitivity to alcohol may be different between white and African American subjects.”

There was a significant U-shaped association between weekly amounts of alcohol and the odds of being in the consistently low–trajectory group for all cognitive functions. Depending on the function tested, the optimal number of weekly drinks ranged from 10-14.

Dr. Zhang noted that, when women were examined separately, alcohol consumption had a significant U-shaped relationship only with word recall, with the optimal dosage being around eight drinks.
 

U-shaped relationship an ‘important finding’

The U-shaped relationship is “an important finding,” said Dr. Zhang. “It shows that the human body may act differently to low and high doses of alcohol. Knowing why and how this happens is very important as it would help us understand how alcohol affects the function of the human body.”

Sensitivity analyses among participants with no chronic diseases showed the U-shaped association was still significant for scores of total word recall and vocabulary, but not for mental status or total cognition score.

The authors noted that 77.2% of participants had at least one chronic disease. They maintained that the association between alcohol consumption and cognitive function may be applicable both to healthy people and to those with a chronic disease.

The study also found that low to moderate drinkers had slower rates of cognitive decline over time for all cognition domains.

Although the mechanisms underlying the cognitive benefits of alcohol consumption are unclear, the authors believe it may be via cerebrovascular and cardiovascular pathways.

Alcohol may increase levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor, a key regulator of neuronal plasticity and development in the dorsal striatum, they noted.
 

Balancing act

However, there’s also evidence that drinking, especially heavy drinking, increases the risk of hypertension, stroke, liver damage, and some cancers. “We think the role of alcohol drinking in cognitive function may be a balance of its beneficial and harmful effects on the cardiovascular system,” said Dr. Zhang.

“For the low to moderate drinker, the beneficial effects may outweigh the harmful effects on the small blood vessels in the brain. In this way, it could preserve cognition,” he added.

Dr. Zhang also noted that the study focused on middle-aged and older adults. “We can’t say whether or not moderate alcohol could benefit younger people” because they may have different characteristics, he said.

The findings of other studies examining the effects of alcohol on cognitive function are mixed. While studies have identified a beneficial effect, others have uncovered no, minimal, or adverse effects. This could be due to the use of different tests of cognitive function or different study populations, said Dr. Zhang.

A limitation of the current study was that assessment of alcohol consumption was based on self-report, which might have introduced recall bias. In addition, because individuals tend to underestimate their alcohol consumption, heavy drinkers could be misclassified as low to moderate drinkers, and low to moderate drinkers as former drinkers.

“This may make our study underestimate the association between low to moderate drinking and cognitive function,” said Dr. Zhang. In addition, alcohol consumption tended to change with time, and this change may be associated with other factors that led to changes in cognitive function, the authors noted.
 

Interpret with caution

Commenting on the study, Brent P. Forester, MD, chief of the Center of Excellence in Geriatric Psychiatry at McLean Hospital in Belmont, Mass., associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a member of the American Psychiatric Association Council on Geriatric Psychiatry, said he views the study with some trepidation.

“As a clinician taking care of older adults, I would be very cautious about overinterpreting the beneficial effects of alcohol before we understand the mechanism better,” he said.

He noted that all of the risk factors associated with heart attack and stroke are also risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease and cognitive decline more broadly. “One of the issues here is how in the world does alcohol reduce cardiovascular and cerebrovascular risks, if you know it increases the risk of hypertension and stroke, regardless of dose.”

With regard to the possible impact of alcohol on brain-derived neurotrophic factor, Dr. Forester said, “it’s an interesting idea” but the actual mechanism is still unclear.

Even with dietary studies, such as those on the Mediterranean diet that include red wine, showing cognitive benefit, Dr. Forester said he’s still concerned about the adverse effects of alcohol on older people. These can include falls and sleep disturbances in addition to cognitive issues, and these effects can increase with age.

He was somewhat surprised at the level of alcohol that the study determined was beneficial. “Essentially, what they’re saying here is that, for men, it’s two drinks a day.” This could be “problematic” as two drinks per day can quickly escalate as individuals build tolerance.

He also pointed out that the study does not determine cause and effect, noting that it’s only an association.

Dr. Forester said the study raises a number of questions, including the type of alcohol study participants consumed and whether this has any impact on cognitive benefit. He also questioned whether the mediating effects of alcohol were associated with something that wasn’t measured, such as socioeconomic status.

Another question, he said, is what factors in individuals’ medical or psychiatric history determine whether they are more or less likely to benefit from low to moderate alcohol intake.

Perhaps alcohol should be recommended only for “select subpopulations” – for example, those who are healthy and have a family history of cognitive decline –but not for those with a history of substance abuse, including alcohol abuse, said Dr. Forester.

“For this population, the last thing you want to do is recommend alcohol to reduce risk of cognitive decline,” he cautioned.

The study was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. The investigators and Dr. Forester have reported no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this story originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Low to moderate alcohol consumption is associated with better cognitive function and slower cognitive decline in middle-aged and older adults, new research suggests. However, at least one expert urges caution in interpreting the findings.

Investigators found that consuming 10-14 alcoholic drinks per week had the strongest cognitive benefit. The findings “add more weight” to the growing body of research identifying beneficial cognitive effects of moderate alcohol consumption, said lead author, Ruiyuan Zhang, MD, of the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Georgia, Athens. However, Dr. Zhang emphasized that nondrinkers should not take up drinking to protect brain function, as alcohol can have negative effects.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Slower cognitive decline

The observational study was a secondary analysis of data from the Health and Retirement Study, a nationally representative U.S. survey of middle-aged and older adults. The survey, which began in 1992, is conducted every 2 years and collects health and economic data.

The current analysis used data from 1996 to 2008 and included information from individuals who participated in at least three surveys. The study included 19,887 participants, with a mean age 61.8 years. Most (60.1%) were women and white (85.2%). Mean follow-up was 9.1 years.

Researchers measured cognitive domains of mental status, word recall, and vocabulary. They also calculated a total cognition score, with higher scores indicating better cognitive abilities.

For each cognitive function measure, researchers categorized participants into a consistently low–trajectory group in which cognitive test scores from baseline through follow-up were consistently low or a consistently high–trajectory group, where cognitive test scores from baseline through follow-up were consistently high.

Based on self-reports, the investigators categorized participants as never drinkers (41.8%), former drinkers (39.5%), or current drinkers (18.7%). For current drinkers, researchers determined the number of drinking days per week and number of drinks per day. They further categorized these participants as low to moderate drinkers or heavy drinkers.

One drink was defined as a 12-ounce bottle of beer, a 5-ounce glass of wine, or a 1.5-ounce shot of spirits, said Dr. Zhang.

Women who consumed 8 or more drinks per week and men who drank 15 or more drinks per week were considered heavy drinkers. Other current drinkers were deemed low to moderate drinkers. Most current drinkers (85.2%) were low to moderate drinkers.

Other covariates included age, sex, race/ethnicity, years of education, marital status, tobacco smoking status, and body mass index.

Results showed moderate drinking was associated with relatively high cognitive test scores. After controlling for all covariates, compared with never drinkers, current low to moderate drinkers were significantly less likely to have consistently low trajectories for total cognitive score (odds ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.74), mental status (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.63-0.81), word recall (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.69-0.80), and vocabulary (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.56-0.74) (all P < .001).

Former drinkers also had better cognitive outcomes for all cognitive domains. Heavy drinkers had lower odds of being in the consistently low trajectory group only for the vocabulary test.
 

Heavy drinking ‘risky’

Because few participants were deemed to be heavy drinkers, the power to identify an association between heavy drinking and cognitive function was limited. Dr. Zhang acknowledged, though he noted that heavy drinking is “risky.”

“We found that, after the drinking dosage passes the moderate level, the risk of low cognitive function increases very fast, which indicates that heavy drinking may harm cognitive function.” Limiting alcohol consumption “is still very important,” he said.

The associations of alcohol and cognitive functions differed by race/ethnicity. Low to moderate drinking was significantly associated with a lower odds of having a consistently low trajectory for all four cognitive function measures only among white participants.

A possible reason for this is that the study had so few African Americans (who made up only 14.8% of the sample), which limited the ability to identify relationships between alcohol intake and cognitive function, said Dr. Zhang. “Another reason is that the sensitivity to alcohol may be different between white and African American subjects.”

There was a significant U-shaped association between weekly amounts of alcohol and the odds of being in the consistently low–trajectory group for all cognitive functions. Depending on the function tested, the optimal number of weekly drinks ranged from 10-14.

Dr. Zhang noted that, when women were examined separately, alcohol consumption had a significant U-shaped relationship only with word recall, with the optimal dosage being around eight drinks.
 

U-shaped relationship an ‘important finding’

The U-shaped relationship is “an important finding,” said Dr. Zhang. “It shows that the human body may act differently to low and high doses of alcohol. Knowing why and how this happens is very important as it would help us understand how alcohol affects the function of the human body.”

Sensitivity analyses among participants with no chronic diseases showed the U-shaped association was still significant for scores of total word recall and vocabulary, but not for mental status or total cognition score.

The authors noted that 77.2% of participants had at least one chronic disease. They maintained that the association between alcohol consumption and cognitive function may be applicable both to healthy people and to those with a chronic disease.

The study also found that low to moderate drinkers had slower rates of cognitive decline over time for all cognition domains.

Although the mechanisms underlying the cognitive benefits of alcohol consumption are unclear, the authors believe it may be via cerebrovascular and cardiovascular pathways.

Alcohol may increase levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor, a key regulator of neuronal plasticity and development in the dorsal striatum, they noted.
 

Balancing act

However, there’s also evidence that drinking, especially heavy drinking, increases the risk of hypertension, stroke, liver damage, and some cancers. “We think the role of alcohol drinking in cognitive function may be a balance of its beneficial and harmful effects on the cardiovascular system,” said Dr. Zhang.

“For the low to moderate drinker, the beneficial effects may outweigh the harmful effects on the small blood vessels in the brain. In this way, it could preserve cognition,” he added.

Dr. Zhang also noted that the study focused on middle-aged and older adults. “We can’t say whether or not moderate alcohol could benefit younger people” because they may have different characteristics, he said.

The findings of other studies examining the effects of alcohol on cognitive function are mixed. While studies have identified a beneficial effect, others have uncovered no, minimal, or adverse effects. This could be due to the use of different tests of cognitive function or different study populations, said Dr. Zhang.

A limitation of the current study was that assessment of alcohol consumption was based on self-report, which might have introduced recall bias. In addition, because individuals tend to underestimate their alcohol consumption, heavy drinkers could be misclassified as low to moderate drinkers, and low to moderate drinkers as former drinkers.

“This may make our study underestimate the association between low to moderate drinking and cognitive function,” said Dr. Zhang. In addition, alcohol consumption tended to change with time, and this change may be associated with other factors that led to changes in cognitive function, the authors noted.
 

Interpret with caution

Commenting on the study, Brent P. Forester, MD, chief of the Center of Excellence in Geriatric Psychiatry at McLean Hospital in Belmont, Mass., associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a member of the American Psychiatric Association Council on Geriatric Psychiatry, said he views the study with some trepidation.

“As a clinician taking care of older adults, I would be very cautious about overinterpreting the beneficial effects of alcohol before we understand the mechanism better,” he said.

He noted that all of the risk factors associated with heart attack and stroke are also risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease and cognitive decline more broadly. “One of the issues here is how in the world does alcohol reduce cardiovascular and cerebrovascular risks, if you know it increases the risk of hypertension and stroke, regardless of dose.”

With regard to the possible impact of alcohol on brain-derived neurotrophic factor, Dr. Forester said, “it’s an interesting idea” but the actual mechanism is still unclear.

Even with dietary studies, such as those on the Mediterranean diet that include red wine, showing cognitive benefit, Dr. Forester said he’s still concerned about the adverse effects of alcohol on older people. These can include falls and sleep disturbances in addition to cognitive issues, and these effects can increase with age.

He was somewhat surprised at the level of alcohol that the study determined was beneficial. “Essentially, what they’re saying here is that, for men, it’s two drinks a day.” This could be “problematic” as two drinks per day can quickly escalate as individuals build tolerance.

He also pointed out that the study does not determine cause and effect, noting that it’s only an association.

Dr. Forester said the study raises a number of questions, including the type of alcohol study participants consumed and whether this has any impact on cognitive benefit. He also questioned whether the mediating effects of alcohol were associated with something that wasn’t measured, such as socioeconomic status.

Another question, he said, is what factors in individuals’ medical or psychiatric history determine whether they are more or less likely to benefit from low to moderate alcohol intake.

Perhaps alcohol should be recommended only for “select subpopulations” – for example, those who are healthy and have a family history of cognitive decline –but not for those with a history of substance abuse, including alcohol abuse, said Dr. Forester.

“For this population, the last thing you want to do is recommend alcohol to reduce risk of cognitive decline,” he cautioned.

The study was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. The investigators and Dr. Forester have reported no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this story originally appeared on Medscape.com.

A small number of U.S. health systems, as well as some individual physicians, have begun dropping the African American–specific modifier when recording estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), a measure of renal function.

The move aims to correct a race-based health access inequity that’s been in place for more than 2 decades, say advocates, while others voice concern that the change threatens over-diagnosis of both chronic and end-stage kidney disease in some patients.

In late June, the Boston-based Massachusetts General Brigham health system stopped noting the race-based modifier when its laboratories reported eGFR, and the leadership sent its staff a message discouraging them from applying the modifier. A similar change in eGFR reporting started on June 1 at the University of Washington health system, UW Medicine, Seattle.

These steps followed what is widely regarded as the first institutional change away from race-based adjustment of eGFR, which began in March 2017 at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, and they have come amid a growing movement by some individual U.S. physicians to drop the modifier from their practice.

“Momentum is clearly building,” said Nwamaka D. Eneanya, MD, a nephrologist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and lead author of a commentary published a little more than a year ago that laid out the case for reconsidering how to calculate eGFR in African Americans.

“Many discussions are happening at other [US] academic medical centers,” Dr. Eneanya added, including the system where she works.
 

Why was the decision taken to modify eGFR in African Americans?

The concept is that the formula used to calculate eGFR systematically underestimates the value in African Americans. Hence, it requires a small but meaningful up-adjustment, which can be traced back to the introduction of the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) study equation in 1999.

The idea was perpetuated in an improved calculation formula, the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI), that came out a decade later.

These are the most widely used U.S. approaches to eGFR calculation, with the newer CKD-EPI formula predominating.

The rationale for including a modifier for Blacks in the 2009 formula was for improved accuracy relative to the standard reference measure based on iothalamate clearance.

The data used to develop the CKD-EPI formula showed that Black individuals in the dataset had, on average, GFR levels that were 16% higher than people of other races with the same age, sex, and serum creatinine level, according to a recent commentary. The first author, Andrew S. Levey, MD, was also lead author of the reports that introduced both the MDRD and CKD-EPI equations.

But the argument withers in the light of both its flimsy underpinning – race assessment – and the medical and social consequences of its application, say those who have sought change.
 

Reporting eGFR by race might do more harm than good

“Race is a social, not a biological, construct and the kidney-function race multiplier ignores the substantial genetic diversity within self-identified Black patients,” said Thomas D. Sequist, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston and chief patient experience and equity officer for Mass General Brigham, who spearheaded the policy change for that system.

“Do we really believe that the population breaks down into just ‘Black’ and ‘not Black,’ as the CKD-EPI equation asks us to believe?” he said in an interview. “The equation was developed from a few thousand patients, and we now apply it to millions of people using a very imprecise measure – race.”

“Reporting eGFR by race perpetuates a notion that race is a biologic construct when it’s not,” agreed Rajnish Mehrotra, MD, a professor and chief of nephrology at the University of Washington in Seattle and leader of the eGFR change within his medical system.

Equally compelling, said Dr. Mehrotra, Dr. Sequist, and others, are the health inequities that have resulted from routinely raising the eGFR in African Americans.

This has led to “withholding treatment from people longer than needed. We arrived at the conclusion that reporting eGFR by race does more harm than good,” Dr. Mehrotra said in an interview.

Dr. Sequist added: “Researchers across Mass General Brigham have demonstrated that use of these race multipliers can lead to important delays in care for Black patients, such as timely evaluation for kidney transplantation.”

“Our main concern is that race correction is creating harm.”

Dr. Eneanya concurs: “It was never designed to oppress patients, but that’s where we are. No one ever thought about the repercussions of using race.”

And while the movement to eliminate the race modifier is clearly gaining steam, it’s also receiving pushback from those who see benefit from the modification and have concern that its abolition could lead to overestimates of kidney disease severity.

Some clinicians “have a hard time letting the race modifier go,” Dr. Eneanya noted.
 

“In the nephrology community, it’s pretty controversial”

In their 2020 commentary, Levey and coauthors wrote: “We propose a more cautious approach that maintains and improves accuracy of GFR estimates and avoids disadvantaging any racial group.”

Their suggested remedies included full disclosure of use of race, accommodation of people who decline to self-identify themselves that way, shared decision-making, and “mindful” use of cystatin C, an alternative to serum creatinine for calculating eGFR.

The latter is regarded as more precise and accurate than serum creatinine across populations but is often not as readily available to many clinicians. Their article also supported looking for even better and more accessible ways to calculate eGFR.

“In the nephrology community, it’s pretty controversial,” said Mallika L. Mendu, MD, a nephrologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, who has studied the effects of using the modifier on patient assessment.

Her recent review of Mass General Brigham patients found that close to a third of African Americans would have been reclassified with a more severe form of kidney disease if their eGFR had remained unmodified.

“That raised concerns that, by using race adjustment we’re potentially leading to less equitable outcomes for African American patients,” she said. “I’d rather over diagnose than not diagnose in a timely way.”

The research that led to development of the MDRD and CKD-EPI equations “are gold-standard studies” that “saw a real difference,” Dr. Mendu acknowledged in an interview. “But the way those studies were run and the way they defined the patients was problematic.” Despite that, “many nephrologists” agree with the position taken by Dr. Levey and coauthors in their recent commentary, she said.

She added that she stopped using the modifier about a year ago in her own practice, well before the system where she works adopted the same approach.
 

Consensus takes time

In one sign of the controversy, a quartet of clinicians affiliated with San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH) recently posted an online petition in which they noted that the race modifier had been eliminated in eGFR reports from the hospital’s laboratory in October 2019, but more recently had been slated for reinstitution. “We were deeply distressed to recently discover the intended plan to revert back to race-based eGFR reporting at SFGH,” they noted.

The same four clinicians also wrote an opinion piece calling for elimination of the modifier in November 2019 in the San Francisco Examiner.

Controversy will likely linger as the movement to withdraw the race modifier spreads without clear agreement on what to do instead.

Dr. Mehrotra said he’s received inquiries about his system’s experience from clinicians at several U.S. medical centers and systems, and he remains comfortable applying the unadjusted CKD-EPI formula to all adults, an approach he called “sufficient.”

Other physicians, like nephrologist Vanessa Grubbs, MD, call for a rapid shift to a cystatin C–based, fully race-neutral method for calculating eGFR, a position she detailed in a recent editorial.

And at the University of Pennsylvania, where the health system continues to issue eGFR reports with the race modifier, Dr. Eneanya says that she stopped using the modifier “some time” ago.

“People have a hard time letting it go because it is so important in clinical care. Getting everyone to come to a consensus takes time,” she said.

Dr. Eneanya, Dr. Sequist, and Dr. Mendu have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Mehrotra has been a consultant for Baxter Healthcare.

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

A small number of U.S. health systems, as well as some individual physicians, have begun dropping the African American–specific modifier when recording estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), a measure of renal function.

The move aims to correct a race-based health access inequity that’s been in place for more than 2 decades, say advocates, while others voice concern that the change threatens over-diagnosis of both chronic and end-stage kidney disease in some patients.

In late June, the Boston-based Massachusetts General Brigham health system stopped noting the race-based modifier when its laboratories reported eGFR, and the leadership sent its staff a message discouraging them from applying the modifier. A similar change in eGFR reporting started on June 1 at the University of Washington health system, UW Medicine, Seattle.

These steps followed what is widely regarded as the first institutional change away from race-based adjustment of eGFR, which began in March 2017 at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, and they have come amid a growing movement by some individual U.S. physicians to drop the modifier from their practice.

“Momentum is clearly building,” said Nwamaka D. Eneanya, MD, a nephrologist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and lead author of a commentary published a little more than a year ago that laid out the case for reconsidering how to calculate eGFR in African Americans.

“Many discussions are happening at other [US] academic medical centers,” Dr. Eneanya added, including the system where she works.
 

Why was the decision taken to modify eGFR in African Americans?

The concept is that the formula used to calculate eGFR systematically underestimates the value in African Americans. Hence, it requires a small but meaningful up-adjustment, which can be traced back to the introduction of the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) study equation in 1999.

The idea was perpetuated in an improved calculation formula, the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI), that came out a decade later.

These are the most widely used U.S. approaches to eGFR calculation, with the newer CKD-EPI formula predominating.

The rationale for including a modifier for Blacks in the 2009 formula was for improved accuracy relative to the standard reference measure based on iothalamate clearance.

The data used to develop the CKD-EPI formula showed that Black individuals in the dataset had, on average, GFR levels that were 16% higher than people of other races with the same age, sex, and serum creatinine level, according to a recent commentary. The first author, Andrew S. Levey, MD, was also lead author of the reports that introduced both the MDRD and CKD-EPI equations.

But the argument withers in the light of both its flimsy underpinning – race assessment – and the medical and social consequences of its application, say those who have sought change.
 

Reporting eGFR by race might do more harm than good

“Race is a social, not a biological, construct and the kidney-function race multiplier ignores the substantial genetic diversity within self-identified Black patients,” said Thomas D. Sequist, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston and chief patient experience and equity officer for Mass General Brigham, who spearheaded the policy change for that system.

“Do we really believe that the population breaks down into just ‘Black’ and ‘not Black,’ as the CKD-EPI equation asks us to believe?” he said in an interview. “The equation was developed from a few thousand patients, and we now apply it to millions of people using a very imprecise measure – race.”

“Reporting eGFR by race perpetuates a notion that race is a biologic construct when it’s not,” agreed Rajnish Mehrotra, MD, a professor and chief of nephrology at the University of Washington in Seattle and leader of the eGFR change within his medical system.

Equally compelling, said Dr. Mehrotra, Dr. Sequist, and others, are the health inequities that have resulted from routinely raising the eGFR in African Americans.

This has led to “withholding treatment from people longer than needed. We arrived at the conclusion that reporting eGFR by race does more harm than good,” Dr. Mehrotra said in an interview.

Dr. Sequist added: “Researchers across Mass General Brigham have demonstrated that use of these race multipliers can lead to important delays in care for Black patients, such as timely evaluation for kidney transplantation.”

“Our main concern is that race correction is creating harm.”

Dr. Eneanya concurs: “It was never designed to oppress patients, but that’s where we are. No one ever thought about the repercussions of using race.”

And while the movement to eliminate the race modifier is clearly gaining steam, it’s also receiving pushback from those who see benefit from the modification and have concern that its abolition could lead to overestimates of kidney disease severity.

Some clinicians “have a hard time letting the race modifier go,” Dr. Eneanya noted.
 

“In the nephrology community, it’s pretty controversial”

In their 2020 commentary, Levey and coauthors wrote: “We propose a more cautious approach that maintains and improves accuracy of GFR estimates and avoids disadvantaging any racial group.”

Their suggested remedies included full disclosure of use of race, accommodation of people who decline to self-identify themselves that way, shared decision-making, and “mindful” use of cystatin C, an alternative to serum creatinine for calculating eGFR.

The latter is regarded as more precise and accurate than serum creatinine across populations but is often not as readily available to many clinicians. Their article also supported looking for even better and more accessible ways to calculate eGFR.

“In the nephrology community, it’s pretty controversial,” said Mallika L. Mendu, MD, a nephrologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, who has studied the effects of using the modifier on patient assessment.

Her recent review of Mass General Brigham patients found that close to a third of African Americans would have been reclassified with a more severe form of kidney disease if their eGFR had remained unmodified.

“That raised concerns that, by using race adjustment we’re potentially leading to less equitable outcomes for African American patients,” she said. “I’d rather over diagnose than not diagnose in a timely way.”

The research that led to development of the MDRD and CKD-EPI equations “are gold-standard studies” that “saw a real difference,” Dr. Mendu acknowledged in an interview. “But the way those studies were run and the way they defined the patients was problematic.” Despite that, “many nephrologists” agree with the position taken by Dr. Levey and coauthors in their recent commentary, she said.

She added that she stopped using the modifier about a year ago in her own practice, well before the system where she works adopted the same approach.
 

Consensus takes time

In one sign of the controversy, a quartet of clinicians affiliated with San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH) recently posted an online petition in which they noted that the race modifier had been eliminated in eGFR reports from the hospital’s laboratory in October 2019, but more recently had been slated for reinstitution. “We were deeply distressed to recently discover the intended plan to revert back to race-based eGFR reporting at SFGH,” they noted.

The same four clinicians also wrote an opinion piece calling for elimination of the modifier in November 2019 in the San Francisco Examiner.

Controversy will likely linger as the movement to withdraw the race modifier spreads without clear agreement on what to do instead.

Dr. Mehrotra said he’s received inquiries about his system’s experience from clinicians at several U.S. medical centers and systems, and he remains comfortable applying the unadjusted CKD-EPI formula to all adults, an approach he called “sufficient.”

Other physicians, like nephrologist Vanessa Grubbs, MD, call for a rapid shift to a cystatin C–based, fully race-neutral method for calculating eGFR, a position she detailed in a recent editorial.

And at the University of Pennsylvania, where the health system continues to issue eGFR reports with the race modifier, Dr. Eneanya says that she stopped using the modifier “some time” ago.

“People have a hard time letting it go because it is so important in clinical care. Getting everyone to come to a consensus takes time,” she said.

Dr. Eneanya, Dr. Sequist, and Dr. Mendu have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Mehrotra has been a consultant for Baxter Healthcare.

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

A small number of U.S. health systems, as well as some individual physicians, have begun dropping the African American–specific modifier when recording estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), a measure of renal function.

The move aims to correct a race-based health access inequity that’s been in place for more than 2 decades, say advocates, while others voice concern that the change threatens over-diagnosis of both chronic and end-stage kidney disease in some patients.

In late June, the Boston-based Massachusetts General Brigham health system stopped noting the race-based modifier when its laboratories reported eGFR, and the leadership sent its staff a message discouraging them from applying the modifier. A similar change in eGFR reporting started on June 1 at the University of Washington health system, UW Medicine, Seattle.

These steps followed what is widely regarded as the first institutional change away from race-based adjustment of eGFR, which began in March 2017 at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, and they have come amid a growing movement by some individual U.S. physicians to drop the modifier from their practice.

“Momentum is clearly building,” said Nwamaka D. Eneanya, MD, a nephrologist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and lead author of a commentary published a little more than a year ago that laid out the case for reconsidering how to calculate eGFR in African Americans.

“Many discussions are happening at other [US] academic medical centers,” Dr. Eneanya added, including the system where she works.
 

Why was the decision taken to modify eGFR in African Americans?

The concept is that the formula used to calculate eGFR systematically underestimates the value in African Americans. Hence, it requires a small but meaningful up-adjustment, which can be traced back to the introduction of the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) study equation in 1999.

The idea was perpetuated in an improved calculation formula, the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI), that came out a decade later.

These are the most widely used U.S. approaches to eGFR calculation, with the newer CKD-EPI formula predominating.

The rationale for including a modifier for Blacks in the 2009 formula was for improved accuracy relative to the standard reference measure based on iothalamate clearance.

The data used to develop the CKD-EPI formula showed that Black individuals in the dataset had, on average, GFR levels that were 16% higher than people of other races with the same age, sex, and serum creatinine level, according to a recent commentary. The first author, Andrew S. Levey, MD, was also lead author of the reports that introduced both the MDRD and CKD-EPI equations.

But the argument withers in the light of both its flimsy underpinning – race assessment – and the medical and social consequences of its application, say those who have sought change.
 

Reporting eGFR by race might do more harm than good

“Race is a social, not a biological, construct and the kidney-function race multiplier ignores the substantial genetic diversity within self-identified Black patients,” said Thomas D. Sequist, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston and chief patient experience and equity officer for Mass General Brigham, who spearheaded the policy change for that system.

“Do we really believe that the population breaks down into just ‘Black’ and ‘not Black,’ as the CKD-EPI equation asks us to believe?” he said in an interview. “The equation was developed from a few thousand patients, and we now apply it to millions of people using a very imprecise measure – race.”

“Reporting eGFR by race perpetuates a notion that race is a biologic construct when it’s not,” agreed Rajnish Mehrotra, MD, a professor and chief of nephrology at the University of Washington in Seattle and leader of the eGFR change within his medical system.

Equally compelling, said Dr. Mehrotra, Dr. Sequist, and others, are the health inequities that have resulted from routinely raising the eGFR in African Americans.

This has led to “withholding treatment from people longer than needed. We arrived at the conclusion that reporting eGFR by race does more harm than good,” Dr. Mehrotra said in an interview.

Dr. Sequist added: “Researchers across Mass General Brigham have demonstrated that use of these race multipliers can lead to important delays in care for Black patients, such as timely evaluation for kidney transplantation.”

“Our main concern is that race correction is creating harm.”

Dr. Eneanya concurs: “It was never designed to oppress patients, but that’s where we are. No one ever thought about the repercussions of using race.”

And while the movement to eliminate the race modifier is clearly gaining steam, it’s also receiving pushback from those who see benefit from the modification and have concern that its abolition could lead to overestimates of kidney disease severity.

Some clinicians “have a hard time letting the race modifier go,” Dr. Eneanya noted.
 

“In the nephrology community, it’s pretty controversial”

In their 2020 commentary, Levey and coauthors wrote: “We propose a more cautious approach that maintains and improves accuracy of GFR estimates and avoids disadvantaging any racial group.”

Their suggested remedies included full disclosure of use of race, accommodation of people who decline to self-identify themselves that way, shared decision-making, and “mindful” use of cystatin C, an alternative to serum creatinine for calculating eGFR.

The latter is regarded as more precise and accurate than serum creatinine across populations but is often not as readily available to many clinicians. Their article also supported looking for even better and more accessible ways to calculate eGFR.

“In the nephrology community, it’s pretty controversial,” said Mallika L. Mendu, MD, a nephrologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, who has studied the effects of using the modifier on patient assessment.

Her recent review of Mass General Brigham patients found that close to a third of African Americans would have been reclassified with a more severe form of kidney disease if their eGFR had remained unmodified.

“That raised concerns that, by using race adjustment we’re potentially leading to less equitable outcomes for African American patients,” she said. “I’d rather over diagnose than not diagnose in a timely way.”

The research that led to development of the MDRD and CKD-EPI equations “are gold-standard studies” that “saw a real difference,” Dr. Mendu acknowledged in an interview. “But the way those studies were run and the way they defined the patients was problematic.” Despite that, “many nephrologists” agree with the position taken by Dr. Levey and coauthors in their recent commentary, she said.

She added that she stopped using the modifier about a year ago in her own practice, well before the system where she works adopted the same approach.
 

Consensus takes time

In one sign of the controversy, a quartet of clinicians affiliated with San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH) recently posted an online petition in which they noted that the race modifier had been eliminated in eGFR reports from the hospital’s laboratory in October 2019, but more recently had been slated for reinstitution. “We were deeply distressed to recently discover the intended plan to revert back to race-based eGFR reporting at SFGH,” they noted.

The same four clinicians also wrote an opinion piece calling for elimination of the modifier in November 2019 in the San Francisco Examiner.

Controversy will likely linger as the movement to withdraw the race modifier spreads without clear agreement on what to do instead.

Dr. Mehrotra said he’s received inquiries about his system’s experience from clinicians at several U.S. medical centers and systems, and he remains comfortable applying the unadjusted CKD-EPI formula to all adults, an approach he called “sufficient.”

Other physicians, like nephrologist Vanessa Grubbs, MD, call for a rapid shift to a cystatin C–based, fully race-neutral method for calculating eGFR, a position she detailed in a recent editorial.

And at the University of Pennsylvania, where the health system continues to issue eGFR reports with the race modifier, Dr. Eneanya says that she stopped using the modifier “some time” ago.

“People have a hard time letting it go because it is so important in clinical care. Getting everyone to come to a consensus takes time,” she said.

Dr. Eneanya, Dr. Sequist, and Dr. Mendu have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Mehrotra has been a consultant for Baxter Healthcare.

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

Data suggest that in patients with early Parkinson’s disease, deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the subthalamic nucleus (STN) reduces the need for polypharmacy and decreases the risk of disease progression, compared with standard medical therapy, over 5 years of treatment. According to the investigators, a larger trial is needed to confirm these findings, which were published online ahead of print June 29 in Neurology.

Vanderbilt University Medical Center

Adverse events were similar between patients who underwent DBS and drug therapy and those who underwent drug therapy alone. This result is a preliminary indication of the safety of long-term DBS therapy, according to the researchers. Furthermore, patients who received DBS required a significantly lower levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD) and were less likely to need polypharmacy than were patients who received medical treatment alone.

“While we can be really excited about these findings, we can’t change our practice, what we recommend to patients, based on this [study],” said David Charles, MD, professor and vice chair of neurology at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. “We have to do the next trial to get that class of evidence.”
 

An extension of a pilot trial

Previous research has indicated that treatment with DBS and optimal medical therapy provides benefits beyond those of medical therapy alone in patients with mid-stage or advanced Parkinson’s disease. Dr. Charles and colleagues conducted a randomized, single-blind pilot study to examine the safety and tolerability of STN DBS in 30 patients with early Parkinson’s disease. Eligible participants had Hoehn and Yahr stage II off medication, were between 50 and 75 years of age, had taken medication for 6 months to 4 years, and had no dyskinesia or other motor fluctuations.

Patients were randomly assigned in equal groups to optimal drug therapy plus STN DBS or to drug therapy alone. Investigators evaluated patients every 6 months for 2 years. The results suggested that STN DBS was safe and slowed the progression of rest tremor in this population.

Apart from research that included patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease, data relating to long-term follow-up of patients undergoing DBS for Parkinson’s disease have been limited. Prospective studies have found that DBS provides motor benefits in patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease after 5-10 years, but they have not included control groups of patients randomly assigned to medication alone. Understanding the durability of effect of DBS is particularly important in patients with early Parkinson’s disease, because they could be exposed to stimulation for a longer time than other patients.
 

DBS may slow progression of rest tremor

Dr. Charles and colleagues invited patients who completed their pilot study to participate in an observational follow-up study. All 29 patients who completed the pilot study consented to participate in the follow-up. The investigators conducted annual outpatient examinations at 3, 4, and 5 years after baseline. These examinations were similar to those conducted at baseline in the pilot trial. Patients’ scores on the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) Part III were obtained through blinded video assessment. Rigidity was not assessed. The investigators calculated patients’ levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD) and total electrical energy delivered (TEED). Adverse events were classified as mild, moderate, or severe.

Because of a problem with study funding, the investigators examined only eight patients in the optimal therapy group and nine patients in the DBS group at 3 years. The final analysis included 28 patients, because one patient was found not to have met inclusion criteria after the trial was completed.

At 5 years, participants’ mean age was 66.1 years. Participants had been taking medications for Parkinson’s disease for a mean duration of 7.2 years. No deaths occurred during the study. Four participants who had been assigned randomly to optimal drug therapy chose to receive STN DBS during the study. The investigators evaluated these participants in the treatment group to which they had been assigned at randomization using an intention-to-treat analysis that compared early STN DBS plus drug therapy with drug therapy alone.

Among patients with early DBS, the odds ratio (OR) of worse UPDRS III scores during 5 years was 0.42, compared with the medical therapy group. The difference in mean UPDRS III score between groups due to randomization was 3.70, which was a clinically important difference, according to the investigators.

In the early DBS group, the OR of worse rest tremor was 0.21, compared with the drug therapy group. The between-group difference in mean rest tremor score favored the DBS group. Excluding rest tremor from participants’ UPDRS III scores eliminated between-group differences in the odds of having worse motor symptoms and in the magnitude of difference of motor symptom score.

In the early DBS group, the OR of requiring a greater LEDD was 0.26, compared with the drug therapy group. The between group difference in mean LEDD significantly favored the DBS group. In addition, at 5 years, the proportion of patients requiring polypharmacy was 93% in the drug therapy group and 43% in the DBS group.

The investigators found no difference between groups in the prevalence of dyskinesia at baseline. At 5 years, the prevalence of dyskinesia was 50% in the drug therapy group and 21% in the DBS group. The difference was not statistically significant, however.

The study groups had similar adverse event profiles. Five adverse events during follow-up were related to surgery or the DBS device. The most common of the 13 study-related adverse events was nausea.

The study’s most significant finding is that “DBS implanted in early Parkinson’s disease decreases the risk of disease progression,” said Dr. Charles. No therapy, including DBS, has been proven to decrease this risk. “This is class II evidence. We have to get class I evidence before we change practice.”

Dr. Charles and colleagues have received Food and Drug Administration approval for a multicenter phase 3 trial to obtain this evidence. The new trial may extend findings regarding DBS in mid-stage and advanced Parkinson’s disease to early-stage Parkinson’s disease. That is, it may show that DBS plus drug therapy in early stage Parkinson’s disease is safe, efficacious, and superior to standard medical therapy alone. “But the reason to do the trial is to determine if it changes or slows the progression of the disease,” said Dr. Charles.
 

Effect on dyskinesia is unclear

“If a patient does go on to develop problems that need DBS management, and only a small fraction of patients with Parkinson’s disease evolve to this need, then this procedure can be performed at that time,” said Peter A. LeWitt, MD, Sastry Foundation Endowed Chair in Neurology at Wayne State University in Detroit.

“One confound of the study is that DBS provides symptomatic relief of dyskinesias if a patient has developed this problem after a few years of levodopa treatment,” Dr. LeWitt added. “To demonstrate that early use of DBS prevented the development of dyskinesias, the study design should have included a period of turning off the stimulators to determine whether the generation of dyskinesias was prevented, rather than merely suppressed by DBS, as any patient would experience.

“Finally, the goal of reducing use of levodopa dose medications or polypharmacy doesn’t justify subjecting a patient to a brain operation that is not without risks and great expense,” Dr. LeWitt continued. “The results of this underpowered study add to my opinion that the ‘premature’ use of DBS is not a good idea for the management of Parkinson’s disease.”

Medtronic, which manufactures the DBS device that the investigators used, provided part of the study’s funding. Vanderbilt University receives income for research or educational programs that Dr. Charles leads. Dr. LeWitt had no pertinent disclosures.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Hacker ML et al. Neurology. 2020 Jun 29. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000009946.

Data suggest that in patients with early Parkinson’s disease, deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the subthalamic nucleus (STN) reduces the need for polypharmacy and decreases the risk of disease progression, compared with standard medical therapy, over 5 years of treatment. According to the investigators, a larger trial is needed to confirm these findings, which were published online ahead of print June 29 in Neurology.

Vanderbilt University Medical Center

Adverse events were similar between patients who underwent DBS and drug therapy and those who underwent drug therapy alone. This result is a preliminary indication of the safety of long-term DBS therapy, according to the researchers. Furthermore, patients who received DBS required a significantly lower levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD) and were less likely to need polypharmacy than were patients who received medical treatment alone.

“While we can be really excited about these findings, we can’t change our practice, what we recommend to patients, based on this [study],” said David Charles, MD, professor and vice chair of neurology at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. “We have to do the next trial to get that class of evidence.”
 

An extension of a pilot trial

Previous research has indicated that treatment with DBS and optimal medical therapy provides benefits beyond those of medical therapy alone in patients with mid-stage or advanced Parkinson’s disease. Dr. Charles and colleagues conducted a randomized, single-blind pilot study to examine the safety and tolerability of STN DBS in 30 patients with early Parkinson’s disease. Eligible participants had Hoehn and Yahr stage II off medication, were between 50 and 75 years of age, had taken medication for 6 months to 4 years, and had no dyskinesia or other motor fluctuations.

Patients were randomly assigned in equal groups to optimal drug therapy plus STN DBS or to drug therapy alone. Investigators evaluated patients every 6 months for 2 years. The results suggested that STN DBS was safe and slowed the progression of rest tremor in this population.

Apart from research that included patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease, data relating to long-term follow-up of patients undergoing DBS for Parkinson’s disease have been limited. Prospective studies have found that DBS provides motor benefits in patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease after 5-10 years, but they have not included control groups of patients randomly assigned to medication alone. Understanding the durability of effect of DBS is particularly important in patients with early Parkinson’s disease, because they could be exposed to stimulation for a longer time than other patients.
 

DBS may slow progression of rest tremor

Dr. Charles and colleagues invited patients who completed their pilot study to participate in an observational follow-up study. All 29 patients who completed the pilot study consented to participate in the follow-up. The investigators conducted annual outpatient examinations at 3, 4, and 5 years after baseline. These examinations were similar to those conducted at baseline in the pilot trial. Patients’ scores on the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) Part III were obtained through blinded video assessment. Rigidity was not assessed. The investigators calculated patients’ levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD) and total electrical energy delivered (TEED). Adverse events were classified as mild, moderate, or severe.

Because of a problem with study funding, the investigators examined only eight patients in the optimal therapy group and nine patients in the DBS group at 3 years. The final analysis included 28 patients, because one patient was found not to have met inclusion criteria after the trial was completed.

At 5 years, participants’ mean age was 66.1 years. Participants had been taking medications for Parkinson’s disease for a mean duration of 7.2 years. No deaths occurred during the study. Four participants who had been assigned randomly to optimal drug therapy chose to receive STN DBS during the study. The investigators evaluated these participants in the treatment group to which they had been assigned at randomization using an intention-to-treat analysis that compared early STN DBS plus drug therapy with drug therapy alone.

Among patients with early DBS, the odds ratio (OR) of worse UPDRS III scores during 5 years was 0.42, compared with the medical therapy group. The difference in mean UPDRS III score between groups due to randomization was 3.70, which was a clinically important difference, according to the investigators.

In the early DBS group, the OR of worse rest tremor was 0.21, compared with the drug therapy group. The between-group difference in mean rest tremor score favored the DBS group. Excluding rest tremor from participants’ UPDRS III scores eliminated between-group differences in the odds of having worse motor symptoms and in the magnitude of difference of motor symptom score.

In the early DBS group, the OR of requiring a greater LEDD was 0.26, compared with the drug therapy group. The between group difference in mean LEDD significantly favored the DBS group. In addition, at 5 years, the proportion of patients requiring polypharmacy was 93% in the drug therapy group and 43% in the DBS group.

The investigators found no difference between groups in the prevalence of dyskinesia at baseline. At 5 years, the prevalence of dyskinesia was 50% in the drug therapy group and 21% in the DBS group. The difference was not statistically significant, however.

The study groups had similar adverse event profiles. Five adverse events during follow-up were related to surgery or the DBS device. The most common of the 13 study-related adverse events was nausea.

The study’s most significant finding is that “DBS implanted in early Parkinson’s disease decreases the risk of disease progression,” said Dr. Charles. No therapy, including DBS, has been proven to decrease this risk. “This is class II evidence. We have to get class I evidence before we change practice.”

Dr. Charles and colleagues have received Food and Drug Administration approval for a multicenter phase 3 trial to obtain this evidence. The new trial may extend findings regarding DBS in mid-stage and advanced Parkinson’s disease to early-stage Parkinson’s disease. That is, it may show that DBS plus drug therapy in early stage Parkinson’s disease is safe, efficacious, and superior to standard medical therapy alone. “But the reason to do the trial is to determine if it changes or slows the progression of the disease,” said Dr. Charles.
 

Effect on dyskinesia is unclear

“If a patient does go on to develop problems that need DBS management, and only a small fraction of patients with Parkinson’s disease evolve to this need, then this procedure can be performed at that time,” said Peter A. LeWitt, MD, Sastry Foundation Endowed Chair in Neurology at Wayne State University in Detroit.

“One confound of the study is that DBS provides symptomatic relief of dyskinesias if a patient has developed this problem after a few years of levodopa treatment,” Dr. LeWitt added. “To demonstrate that early use of DBS prevented the development of dyskinesias, the study design should have included a period of turning off the stimulators to determine whether the generation of dyskinesias was prevented, rather than merely suppressed by DBS, as any patient would experience.

“Finally, the goal of reducing use of levodopa dose medications or polypharmacy doesn’t justify subjecting a patient to a brain operation that is not without risks and great expense,” Dr. LeWitt continued. “The results of this underpowered study add to my opinion that the ‘premature’ use of DBS is not a good idea for the management of Parkinson’s disease.”

Medtronic, which manufactures the DBS device that the investigators used, provided part of the study’s funding. Vanderbilt University receives income for research or educational programs that Dr. Charles leads. Dr. LeWitt had no pertinent disclosures.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Hacker ML et al. Neurology. 2020 Jun 29. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000009946.

Data suggest that in patients with early Parkinson’s disease, deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the subthalamic nucleus (STN) reduces the need for polypharmacy and decreases the risk of disease progression, compared with standard medical therapy, over 5 years of treatment. According to the investigators, a larger trial is needed to confirm these findings, which were published online ahead of print June 29 in Neurology.

Vanderbilt University Medical Center

Adverse events were similar between patients who underwent DBS and drug therapy and those who underwent drug therapy alone. This result is a preliminary indication of the safety of long-term DBS therapy, according to the researchers. Furthermore, patients who received DBS required a significantly lower levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD) and were less likely to need polypharmacy than were patients who received medical treatment alone.

“While we can be really excited about these findings, we can’t change our practice, what we recommend to patients, based on this [study],” said David Charles, MD, professor and vice chair of neurology at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. “We have to do the next trial to get that class of evidence.”
 

An extension of a pilot trial

Previous research has indicated that treatment with DBS and optimal medical therapy provides benefits beyond those of medical therapy alone in patients with mid-stage or advanced Parkinson’s disease. Dr. Charles and colleagues conducted a randomized, single-blind pilot study to examine the safety and tolerability of STN DBS in 30 patients with early Parkinson’s disease. Eligible participants had Hoehn and Yahr stage II off medication, were between 50 and 75 years of age, had taken medication for 6 months to 4 years, and had no dyskinesia or other motor fluctuations.

Patients were randomly assigned in equal groups to optimal drug therapy plus STN DBS or to drug therapy alone. Investigators evaluated patients every 6 months for 2 years. The results suggested that STN DBS was safe and slowed the progression of rest tremor in this population.

Apart from research that included patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease, data relating to long-term follow-up of patients undergoing DBS for Parkinson’s disease have been limited. Prospective studies have found that DBS provides motor benefits in patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease after 5-10 years, but they have not included control groups of patients randomly assigned to medication alone. Understanding the durability of effect of DBS is particularly important in patients with early Parkinson’s disease, because they could be exposed to stimulation for a longer time than other patients.
 

DBS may slow progression of rest tremor

Dr. Charles and colleagues invited patients who completed their pilot study to participate in an observational follow-up study. All 29 patients who completed the pilot study consented to participate in the follow-up. The investigators conducted annual outpatient examinations at 3, 4, and 5 years after baseline. These examinations were similar to those conducted at baseline in the pilot trial. Patients’ scores on the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) Part III were obtained through blinded video assessment. Rigidity was not assessed. The investigators calculated patients’ levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD) and total electrical energy delivered (TEED). Adverse events were classified as mild, moderate, or severe.

Because of a problem with study funding, the investigators examined only eight patients in the optimal therapy group and nine patients in the DBS group at 3 years. The final analysis included 28 patients, because one patient was found not to have met inclusion criteria after the trial was completed.

At 5 years, participants’ mean age was 66.1 years. Participants had been taking medications for Parkinson’s disease for a mean duration of 7.2 years. No deaths occurred during the study. Four participants who had been assigned randomly to optimal drug therapy chose to receive STN DBS during the study. The investigators evaluated these participants in the treatment group to which they had been assigned at randomization using an intention-to-treat analysis that compared early STN DBS plus drug therapy with drug therapy alone.

Among patients with early DBS, the odds ratio (OR) of worse UPDRS III scores during 5 years was 0.42, compared with the medical therapy group. The difference in mean UPDRS III score between groups due to randomization was 3.70, which was a clinically important difference, according to the investigators.

In the early DBS group, the OR of worse rest tremor was 0.21, compared with the drug therapy group. The between-group difference in mean rest tremor score favored the DBS group. Excluding rest tremor from participants’ UPDRS III scores eliminated between-group differences in the odds of having worse motor symptoms and in the magnitude of difference of motor symptom score.

In the early DBS group, the OR of requiring a greater LEDD was 0.26, compared with the drug therapy group. The between group difference in mean LEDD significantly favored the DBS group. In addition, at 5 years, the proportion of patients requiring polypharmacy was 93% in the drug therapy group and 43% in the DBS group.

The investigators found no difference between groups in the prevalence of dyskinesia at baseline. At 5 years, the prevalence of dyskinesia was 50% in the drug therapy group and 21% in the DBS group. The difference was not statistically significant, however.

The study groups had similar adverse event profiles. Five adverse events during follow-up were related to surgery or the DBS device. The most common of the 13 study-related adverse events was nausea.

The study’s most significant finding is that “DBS implanted in early Parkinson’s disease decreases the risk of disease progression,” said Dr. Charles. No therapy, including DBS, has been proven to decrease this risk. “This is class II evidence. We have to get class I evidence before we change practice.”

Dr. Charles and colleagues have received Food and Drug Administration approval for a multicenter phase 3 trial to obtain this evidence. The new trial may extend findings regarding DBS in mid-stage and advanced Parkinson’s disease to early-stage Parkinson’s disease. That is, it may show that DBS plus drug therapy in early stage Parkinson’s disease is safe, efficacious, and superior to standard medical therapy alone. “But the reason to do the trial is to determine if it changes or slows the progression of the disease,” said Dr. Charles.
 

Effect on dyskinesia is unclear

“If a patient does go on to develop problems that need DBS management, and only a small fraction of patients with Parkinson’s disease evolve to this need, then this procedure can be performed at that time,” said Peter A. LeWitt, MD, Sastry Foundation Endowed Chair in Neurology at Wayne State University in Detroit.

“One confound of the study is that DBS provides symptomatic relief of dyskinesias if a patient has developed this problem after a few years of levodopa treatment,” Dr. LeWitt added. “To demonstrate that early use of DBS prevented the development of dyskinesias, the study design should have included a period of turning off the stimulators to determine whether the generation of dyskinesias was prevented, rather than merely suppressed by DBS, as any patient would experience.

“Finally, the goal of reducing use of levodopa dose medications or polypharmacy doesn’t justify subjecting a patient to a brain operation that is not without risks and great expense,” Dr. LeWitt continued. “The results of this underpowered study add to my opinion that the ‘premature’ use of DBS is not a good idea for the management of Parkinson’s disease.”

Medtronic, which manufactures the DBS device that the investigators used, provided part of the study’s funding. Vanderbilt University receives income for research or educational programs that Dr. Charles leads. Dr. LeWitt had no pertinent disclosures.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Hacker ML et al. Neurology. 2020 Jun 29. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000009946.

To the Editor:

A 46-year-old overweight woman presented with a rash in the axillae of 2 months’ duration. She did not report any additional symptoms such as pruritus or pain. She reported changing her deodorant recently from Secret Original to Secret Clinical Strength (both Procter & Gamble). Her medical history was remarkable for asthma and gastroesophageal reflux disease. Clinical examination revealed erythematous-brown, stuccolike, hyperkeratotic papules coalescing into plaques in recently shaved axillae, affecting the left axilla more than the right axilla (Figure 1). The clinical differential diagnosis included granular parakeratosis, intertrigo, Hailey-Hailey disease, Darier disease, pemphigus vegetans, confluent and reticulated papillomatosis, acanthosis nigricans, seborrheic keratoses, and irritant or allergic contact dermatitis. A punch biopsy revealed a marked compact parakeratotic horn with retention of keratohyalin granules (Figure 2). The subjacent epidermis showed some acanthosis and spongiosis with mild chronic inflammation of the dermal rim. Based on histopathology, granular parakeratosis was diagnosed.

At a subsequent visit 2 weeks later, we prescribed glycolic acid lotion 10% applied to the axillae twice daily, plus tretinoin gel 0.05% applied to the axillae each evening. She reported clearing after 1 week of therapy. She also had changed her deodorant from Secret Clinical Strength back to the usual Secret Original. The patient discontinued topical treatment after clearing of the lesions. Three weeks later, clinical examination revealed postinflammatory hyperpigmentation in the axillae, and the prior lesions had resolved (Figure 3).

The cause is unknown but possibly related to irritation from rubbing, occlusion, sweating, or deodorants.^5,7 Cases indicate a link to obesity. Hypotheses as to the etiology include the disruption of cornification. Normally, filaggrin maintains the keratohyaline granules in the stratum corneum during cornification. Therefore, the retention of keratohyaline granules in granular parakeratosis may be due to a defect in processing profilaggrin to filaggrin, which has been proposed based on ultrastructural and immunohistochemical studies.⁸

The differential diagnosis includes granular parakeratosis, intertrigo (caused by seborrheic dermatitis, candidiasis, inverse psoriasis, or erythrasma), Hailey-Hailey disease, Darier disease, pemphigus vegetans, confluent and reticulated papillomatosis, and irritant or allergic contact dermatitis. The papules may resemble seborrheic keratoses, while the plaques can be mistaken for acanthosis nigricans.

Therapeutic success has been reported with topical corticosteroids, vitamin D analogues, topical or oral retinoids, ammonium lactate, calcineurin inhibitors, topical or oral antifungals, cryotherapy, and botulinum toxin injections.^3,9-11 In addition, parakeratosis has decreased in biopsies from psoriatic patients after acitretin, methotrexate, and phototherapy, which may be alternative treatments for unusually difficult or recalcitrant cases of granular parakeratosis. To minimize side effects and resolve the papules quickly, we combined 2 synergistic agents—glycolic acid and tretinoin—each with different mechanisms of action, and we observed excellent clinical response.

Granular parakeratosis is possibly related to a combination of topical products that potentiate irritation, rubbing, and occlusion of sweat. Multiple treatment modalities likely contribute to clearing, the most important being removal of any triggering topical products. Our patient’s change in deodorant may have been the inciting factor for the disease. Withdrawal of the Secret Clinical Strength deodorant prompted clearing, though topical retinoid and glycolic acid acted as facilitating therapies for timely results. A thorough history, as highlighted by this case, may help pinpoint etiologic factors. By identifying a seemingly innocuous change in hygienic routine, we were able to minimize the need for ongoing therapy.

To the Editor:

A 46-year-old overweight woman presented with a rash in the axillae of 2 months’ duration. She did not report any additional symptoms such as pruritus or pain. She reported changing her deodorant recently from Secret Original to Secret Clinical Strength (both Procter & Gamble). Her medical history was remarkable for asthma and gastroesophageal reflux disease. Clinical examination revealed erythematous-brown, stuccolike, hyperkeratotic papules coalescing into plaques in recently shaved axillae, affecting the left axilla more than the right axilla (Figure 1). The clinical differential diagnosis included granular parakeratosis, intertrigo, Hailey-Hailey disease, Darier disease, pemphigus vegetans, confluent and reticulated papillomatosis, acanthosis nigricans, seborrheic keratoses, and irritant or allergic contact dermatitis. A punch biopsy revealed a marked compact parakeratotic horn with retention of keratohyalin granules (Figure 2). The subjacent epidermis showed some acanthosis and spongiosis with mild chronic inflammation of the dermal rim. Based on histopathology, granular parakeratosis was diagnosed.

At a subsequent visit 2 weeks later, we prescribed glycolic acid lotion 10% applied to the axillae twice daily, plus tretinoin gel 0.05% applied to the axillae each evening. She reported clearing after 1 week of therapy. She also had changed her deodorant from Secret Clinical Strength back to the usual Secret Original. The patient discontinued topical treatment after clearing of the lesions. Three weeks later, clinical examination revealed postinflammatory hyperpigmentation in the axillae, and the prior lesions had resolved (Figure 3).

The cause is unknown but possibly related to irritation from rubbing, occlusion, sweating, or deodorants.^5,7 Cases indicate a link to obesity. Hypotheses as to the etiology include the disruption of cornification. Normally, filaggrin maintains the keratohyaline granules in the stratum corneum during cornification. Therefore, the retention of keratohyaline granules in granular parakeratosis may be due to a defect in processing profilaggrin to filaggrin, which has been proposed based on ultrastructural and immunohistochemical studies.⁸

The differential diagnosis includes granular parakeratosis, intertrigo (caused by seborrheic dermatitis, candidiasis, inverse psoriasis, or erythrasma), Hailey-Hailey disease, Darier disease, pemphigus vegetans, confluent and reticulated papillomatosis, and irritant or allergic contact dermatitis. The papules may resemble seborrheic keratoses, while the plaques can be mistaken for acanthosis nigricans.

Therapeutic success has been reported with topical corticosteroids, vitamin D analogues, topical or oral retinoids, ammonium lactate, calcineurin inhibitors, topical or oral antifungals, cryotherapy, and botulinum toxin injections.^3,9-11 In addition, parakeratosis has decreased in biopsies from psoriatic patients after acitretin, methotrexate, and phototherapy, which may be alternative treatments for unusually difficult or recalcitrant cases of granular parakeratosis. To minimize side effects and resolve the papules quickly, we combined 2 synergistic agents—glycolic acid and tretinoin—each with different mechanisms of action, and we observed excellent clinical response.

Granular parakeratosis is possibly related to a combination of topical products that potentiate irritation, rubbing, and occlusion of sweat. Multiple treatment modalities likely contribute to clearing, the most important being removal of any triggering topical products. Our patient’s change in deodorant may have been the inciting factor for the disease. Withdrawal of the Secret Clinical Strength deodorant prompted clearing, though topical retinoid and glycolic acid acted as facilitating therapies for timely results. A thorough history, as highlighted by this case, may help pinpoint etiologic factors. By identifying a seemingly innocuous change in hygienic routine, we were able to minimize the need for ongoing therapy.

To the Editor:

A 46-year-old overweight woman presented with a rash in the axillae of 2 months’ duration. She did not report any additional symptoms such as pruritus or pain. She reported changing her deodorant recently from Secret Original to Secret Clinical Strength (both Procter & Gamble). Her medical history was remarkable for asthma and gastroesophageal reflux disease. Clinical examination revealed erythematous-brown, stuccolike, hyperkeratotic papules coalescing into plaques in recently shaved axillae, affecting the left axilla more than the right axilla (Figure 1). The clinical differential diagnosis included granular parakeratosis, intertrigo, Hailey-Hailey disease, Darier disease, pemphigus vegetans, confluent and reticulated papillomatosis, acanthosis nigricans, seborrheic keratoses, and irritant or allergic contact dermatitis. A punch biopsy revealed a marked compact parakeratotic horn with retention of keratohyalin granules (Figure 2). The subjacent epidermis showed some acanthosis and spongiosis with mild chronic inflammation of the dermal rim. Based on histopathology, granular parakeratosis was diagnosed.

At a subsequent visit 2 weeks later, we prescribed glycolic acid lotion 10% applied to the axillae twice daily, plus tretinoin gel 0.05% applied to the axillae each evening. She reported clearing after 1 week of therapy. She also had changed her deodorant from Secret Clinical Strength back to the usual Secret Original. The patient discontinued topical treatment after clearing of the lesions. Three weeks later, clinical examination revealed postinflammatory hyperpigmentation in the axillae, and the prior lesions had resolved (Figure 3).

The cause is unknown but possibly related to irritation from rubbing, occlusion, sweating, or deodorants.^5,7 Cases indicate a link to obesity. Hypotheses as to the etiology include the disruption of cornification. Normally, filaggrin maintains the keratohyaline granules in the stratum corneum during cornification. Therefore, the retention of keratohyaline granules in granular parakeratosis may be due to a defect in processing profilaggrin to filaggrin, which has been proposed based on ultrastructural and immunohistochemical studies.⁸

The differential diagnosis includes granular parakeratosis, intertrigo (caused by seborrheic dermatitis, candidiasis, inverse psoriasis, or erythrasma), Hailey-Hailey disease, Darier disease, pemphigus vegetans, confluent and reticulated papillomatosis, and irritant or allergic contact dermatitis. The papules may resemble seborrheic keratoses, while the plaques can be mistaken for acanthosis nigricans.

Therapeutic success has been reported with topical corticosteroids, vitamin D analogues, topical or oral retinoids, ammonium lactate, calcineurin inhibitors, topical or oral antifungals, cryotherapy, and botulinum toxin injections.^3,9-11 In addition, parakeratosis has decreased in biopsies from psoriatic patients after acitretin, methotrexate, and phototherapy, which may be alternative treatments for unusually difficult or recalcitrant cases of granular parakeratosis. To minimize side effects and resolve the papules quickly, we combined 2 synergistic agents—glycolic acid and tretinoin—each with different mechanisms of action, and we observed excellent clinical response.

Granular parakeratosis is possibly related to a combination of topical products that potentiate irritation, rubbing, and occlusion of sweat. Multiple treatment modalities likely contribute to clearing, the most important being removal of any triggering topical products. Our patient’s change in deodorant may have been the inciting factor for the disease. Withdrawal of the Secret Clinical Strength deodorant prompted clearing, though topical retinoid and glycolic acid acted as facilitating therapies for timely results. A thorough history, as highlighted by this case, may help pinpoint etiologic factors. By identifying a seemingly innocuous change in hygienic routine, we were able to minimize the need for ongoing therapy.

To the Editor:

Hailey-Hailey disease (HHD), also known as benign familial pemphigus, is an uncommon autosomal-dominant skin disease.¹ Defects in the ATPase type 2C member 1 gene, ATP2C1, result in abnormal intracellular epidermal adherence, and patients experience recurring blisters in skin folds. Longitudinal white streaks of the fingernails also may be present.¹ The illness does not appear until puberty and is heightened by the second or third decade of life. Family history often suggests the presence of disease.² Misdiagnosis of HHD occurs because of a wide spectrum of presentations. The presence of superimposed infections and carcinomas may both obscure and exacerbate this disease.²

Herpes simplex viruse types 1 and 2 (HSV-1 and HSV-2) are DNA viruses that cause common recurrent diseases. Usually, HSV-1 is associated with infection of the mouth and HSV-2 is associated with infection of the genitalia.³ Longitudinal cutaneous lesions manifest as grouped vesicles on an erythematous base. Tzanck smear of herpetic vesicles will reveal the presence of multinucleated giant cells. A direct fluorescent antibody technique also may be used to confirm the diagnosis.³

Erythrodermic HHD disease is a rare condition; moreover, there are only a few reported cases with coexistence of HHD and HSV in the literature.^3-6 We report a rare presentation of erythrodermic HHD and coexistent psoriasis with HSV superinfection.

A 69-year-old man presented to an outpatient dermatology clinic for evaluation and treatment of a rash on the scalp, face, back, and lower legs. The patient confirmed a dandruff diagnosis on the scalp and face as well as psoriasis on the trunk and extremities for the last 45 years. He described a history of successful treatment with topical agents and UV light therapy. A family history revealed that the patient’s father and 1 of 2 siblings had a similar rash and “skin problems.” The patient had a medical history of thyroid cancer treated with radiation treatment and a partial thyroidectomy 35 years prior to the current presentation as well as incompletely treated chronic hepatitis C.

A search of medical records revealed a punch biopsy from the posterior neck that demonstrated an acantholytic dyskeratosis with suprabasal acantholysis. Clinicians were unable to differentiate if it was Darier disease (DAR) or HHD. Treatment of the patient’s seborrheic dermatitis and acantholytic disorder was successful at that time with ketoconazole shampoo, ketoconazole cream, desonide cream, and triamcinolone cream. The patient remained stable for 5 years before presenting again to the dermatology clinic for worsening rash despite topical therapies.

At the current presentation, physical examination at the outpatient dermatology clinic revealed few scaly, erythematous, eroded papules distributed on the mid-back; erythematous greasy scaling on the scalp, face, and chest; and pink scaly plaques with white-silvery scale on the anterior lower legs. Histopathology of a specimen from the right mid-back demonstrated acantholysis with suprabasal clefting, hyperkeratosis, and parakeratosis with no dyskeratotic cells identified. The pathologic differential diagnosis included primary acantholytic processes including Grover disease, DAR, HHD, and pemphigus. Pathology from the right shin demonstrated acanthosis, confluent parakeratosis with associated decreased granular cell layer and collections of neutrophils within the stratum corneum, spongiosis, and superficial dermal perivascular chronic inflammation with focal exocytosis and dilated blood vessels in the papillary dermis. The clinical and pathological diagnosis on the lower legs was consistent with psoriasis. Diagnoses of seborrheic dermatitis, psoriasis on the lower legs, and HHD vs DAR on the back and chest were made. The patient was instructed to continue ketoconazole shampoo, ketoconazole cream, and desonide for seborrheic dermatitis; fluocinonide ointment 0.05% to the lower legs for psoriasis; and triamcinolone cream and a bland moisturizer to the back and chest for HHD.

Over the ensuing months, the rash worsened with erythema and scaling affecting more than half of the body surface area. Topical corticosteroids and bland emollients resulted in minimal success. Biologics and acitretin were considered for the psoriasiform dermatitis but avoided due to the patient’s medical history of thyroid cancer and chronic hepatitis C infection. Because the patient described prior success with UV light therapy for psoriasis, he requested light therapy. A subsequent trial of narrowband UVB light therapy initially improved some of the psoriasiform dermatitis on the trunk and extremities; however, after 4 weeks of treatment, the patient described pain in some of the skin and felt he was burned by minimal exposure to light therapy on one particular visit, which caused him to stop light therapy.

Approximately 2 weeks later, the patient presented to the emergency department stating his psoriasis was infected; he was diagnosed with psoriasis with secondary cellulitis and received intravenous vancomycin and piperacillin-tazobactam, with bacterial cultures demonstrating Corynebacterium and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Some improvement was noted in the patient’s skin after antibiotics were initiated, but he continued to describe worsening “burning and pain” throughout the psoriasis lesions. The patient’s care was transferred to the Veterans Affairs hospital where a dermatology inpatient consultation was placed.

Our initial dermatologic examination revealed generalized scaly erythroderma on the neck, trunk, and extremities, sparing the face, palms, and soles (Figure 1). Multiple crusted and intact vesicles also were present overlying the erythematous plaques on the chest, back, and proximal extremities, most grouped in clusters. The patient endorsed new symptoms of pain and burning. Tzanck smear from the abdomen along with shave biopsies from the left flank and right abdomen were performed, and intravenous acyclovir was initiated immediately after these procedures.

Hailey-Hailey disease is characterized by recurrent episodes of erythema, blisters, and plaques localized to intertriginous and perianal areas.^1,2 Patients display a spectrum of lesions that vary in severity.⁸ Typical histologic examination reveals a dilapidated brick wall appearance. Pathology of well-developed lesions will show suprabasal acantholysis with minimal dyskeratosis.²

The generalized form of HHD is an extremely rare variant of the disease.¹⁰ Generalized HHD may resemble acute hypersensitivity reaction, erythema multiforme, and toxic epidermal necrolysis.¹ Chronic diseases, such as psoriasis (as in this patient), also may contribute to a clinically confusing picture.⁸ Hailey-Hailey disease and psoriasis are thought to occasionally koebnerize (isomorphic response) to areas of trauma.¹⁶ Our patient experienced widespread erythematous papules and plaques not restricted to skin folds. His skin lesions continued to worsen over several months progressing to erythroderma. The presence of suprabasal acantholysis in a dilapidated brick wall pattern, along with the patient’s history, prior pathology reports, clinical picture, and negative direct immunofluorescence and indirect immunofluorescence studies helped to confirm the diagnosis of erythrodermic HHD.

Hailey-Hailey disease is caused by heterozygous mutations in the ATP2C1 gene on chromosome 3q21-24 coding for a Golgi ATPase called SPCA1 (secretory pathway calcium/manganese-ATPase).⁹ Subsequent disturbances in cytosolic-Golgi calcium concentrations interfere with epidermal keratinocyte adherence resulting in acantholytic disease. Studies of interfamilial and intrafamilial mutations fail to pinpoint a common mutation pattern among patients with generalized phenotypes,⁹ which further supports theories that intrinsic or extrinsic factors such as friction, heat, radiation, contact allergens, and infection affect the severity of HHD disease and not the type of mutation.^3,9

Generalization of HHD is likely caused by nonspecific triggers in an already genetically disturbed epidermis.¹⁰ Interrupted epithelial function exposes skin to infections that exacerbate the underlying disease. Superimposing bacterial infections are commonly reported in HHD. Staphylococcus, Streptococcus, and Candida species colonize the skin and aggravate the disease.¹¹ Much less commonly, HSV superinfection can complicate HHD.^3-7 No data are currently available about the frequency or incidence of Herpesviridae in HHD.⁷ Some studies suggest that UVB light therapy can be an exacerbating factor in DAR and some but not all HHD patients,^12,13 while other case reports^14,15 document clinically improved responses using phototherapy for patients with HHD. Clinicians should remain suspicious and evaluate for HSV infection in refractory or sudden exacerbation of HHD.⁷ Furthermore, coexistent psoriasis and HHD also is a rare entity but has been described,⁸ which illustrates the importance of not attributing all skin manifestations to a previously diagnosed disorder but instead keeping an open mind in case new dermatologic conditions present themselves at a later time.

We present a rare case of erythrodermic HHD and coexistent psoriasis with HSV superinfection. We hope to draw awareness to this association of generalized HHD with both HSV and psoriasis to help clinicians make the correct diagnosis promptly in similar cases in the future.

To the Editor:

Hailey-Hailey disease (HHD), also known as benign familial pemphigus, is an uncommon autosomal-dominant skin disease.¹ Defects in the ATPase type 2C member 1 gene, ATP2C1, result in abnormal intracellular epidermal adherence, and patients experience recurring blisters in skin folds. Longitudinal white streaks of the fingernails also may be present.¹ The illness does not appear until puberty and is heightened by the second or third decade of life. Family history often suggests the presence of disease.² Misdiagnosis of HHD occurs because of a wide spectrum of presentations. The presence of superimposed infections and carcinomas may both obscure and exacerbate this disease.²

Herpes simplex viruse types 1 and 2 (HSV-1 and HSV-2) are DNA viruses that cause common recurrent diseases. Usually, HSV-1 is associated with infection of the mouth and HSV-2 is associated with infection of the genitalia.³ Longitudinal cutaneous lesions manifest as grouped vesicles on an erythematous base. Tzanck smear of herpetic vesicles will reveal the presence of multinucleated giant cells. A direct fluorescent antibody technique also may be used to confirm the diagnosis.³

Erythrodermic HHD disease is a rare condition; moreover, there are only a few reported cases with coexistence of HHD and HSV in the literature.^3-6 We report a rare presentation of erythrodermic HHD and coexistent psoriasis with HSV superinfection.

A 69-year-old man presented to an outpatient dermatology clinic for evaluation and treatment of a rash on the scalp, face, back, and lower legs. The patient confirmed a dandruff diagnosis on the scalp and face as well as psoriasis on the trunk and extremities for the last 45 years. He described a history of successful treatment with topical agents and UV light therapy. A family history revealed that the patient’s father and 1 of 2 siblings had a similar rash and “skin problems.” The patient had a medical history of thyroid cancer treated with radiation treatment and a partial thyroidectomy 35 years prior to the current presentation as well as incompletely treated chronic hepatitis C.

A search of medical records revealed a punch biopsy from the posterior neck that demonstrated an acantholytic dyskeratosis with suprabasal acantholysis. Clinicians were unable to differentiate if it was Darier disease (DAR) or HHD. Treatment of the patient’s seborrheic dermatitis and acantholytic disorder was successful at that time with ketoconazole shampoo, ketoconazole cream, desonide cream, and triamcinolone cream. The patient remained stable for 5 years before presenting again to the dermatology clinic for worsening rash despite topical therapies.

At the current presentation, physical examination at the outpatient dermatology clinic revealed few scaly, erythematous, eroded papules distributed on the mid-back; erythematous greasy scaling on the scalp, face, and chest; and pink scaly plaques with white-silvery scale on the anterior lower legs. Histopathology of a specimen from the right mid-back demonstrated acantholysis with suprabasal clefting, hyperkeratosis, and parakeratosis with no dyskeratotic cells identified. The pathologic differential diagnosis included primary acantholytic processes including Grover disease, DAR, HHD, and pemphigus. Pathology from the right shin demonstrated acanthosis, confluent parakeratosis with associated decreased granular cell layer and collections of neutrophils within the stratum corneum, spongiosis, and superficial dermal perivascular chronic inflammation with focal exocytosis and dilated blood vessels in the papillary dermis. The clinical and pathological diagnosis on the lower legs was consistent with psoriasis. Diagnoses of seborrheic dermatitis, psoriasis on the lower legs, and HHD vs DAR on the back and chest were made. The patient was instructed to continue ketoconazole shampoo, ketoconazole cream, and desonide for seborrheic dermatitis; fluocinonide ointment 0.05% to the lower legs for psoriasis; and triamcinolone cream and a bland moisturizer to the back and chest for HHD.

Over the ensuing months, the rash worsened with erythema and scaling affecting more than half of the body surface area. Topical corticosteroids and bland emollients resulted in minimal success. Biologics and acitretin were considered for the psoriasiform dermatitis but avoided due to the patient’s medical history of thyroid cancer and chronic hepatitis C infection. Because the patient described prior success with UV light therapy for psoriasis, he requested light therapy. A subsequent trial of narrowband UVB light therapy initially improved some of the psoriasiform dermatitis on the trunk and extremities; however, after 4 weeks of treatment, the patient described pain in some of the skin and felt he was burned by minimal exposure to light therapy on one particular visit, which caused him to stop light therapy.

Approximately 2 weeks later, the patient presented to the emergency department stating his psoriasis was infected; he was diagnosed with psoriasis with secondary cellulitis and received intravenous vancomycin and piperacillin-tazobactam, with bacterial cultures demonstrating Corynebacterium and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Some improvement was noted in the patient’s skin after antibiotics were initiated, but he continued to describe worsening “burning and pain” throughout the psoriasis lesions. The patient’s care was transferred to the Veterans Affairs hospital where a dermatology inpatient consultation was placed.

Our initial dermatologic examination revealed generalized scaly erythroderma on the neck, trunk, and extremities, sparing the face, palms, and soles (Figure 1). Multiple crusted and intact vesicles also were present overlying the erythematous plaques on the chest, back, and proximal extremities, most grouped in clusters. The patient endorsed new symptoms of pain and burning. Tzanck smear from the abdomen along with shave biopsies from the left flank and right abdomen were performed, and intravenous acyclovir was initiated immediately after these procedures.

Hailey-Hailey disease is characterized by recurrent episodes of erythema, blisters, and plaques localized to intertriginous and perianal areas.^1,2 Patients display a spectrum of lesions that vary in severity.⁸ Typical histologic examination reveals a dilapidated brick wall appearance. Pathology of well-developed lesions will show suprabasal acantholysis with minimal dyskeratosis.²

The generalized form of HHD is an extremely rare variant of the disease.¹⁰ Generalized HHD may resemble acute hypersensitivity reaction, erythema multiforme, and toxic epidermal necrolysis.¹ Chronic diseases, such as psoriasis (as in this patient), also may contribute to a clinically confusing picture.⁸ Hailey-Hailey disease and psoriasis are thought to occasionally koebnerize (isomorphic response) to areas of trauma.¹⁶ Our patient experienced widespread erythematous papules and plaques not restricted to skin folds. His skin lesions continued to worsen over several months progressing to erythroderma. The presence of suprabasal acantholysis in a dilapidated brick wall pattern, along with the patient’s history, prior pathology reports, clinical picture, and negative direct immunofluorescence and indirect immunofluorescence studies helped to confirm the diagnosis of erythrodermic HHD.

Hailey-Hailey disease is caused by heterozygous mutations in the ATP2C1 gene on chromosome 3q21-24 coding for a Golgi ATPase called SPCA1 (secretory pathway calcium/manganese-ATPase).⁹ Subsequent disturbances in cytosolic-Golgi calcium concentrations interfere with epidermal keratinocyte adherence resulting in acantholytic disease. Studies of interfamilial and intrafamilial mutations fail to pinpoint a common mutation pattern among patients with generalized phenotypes,⁹ which further supports theories that intrinsic or extrinsic factors such as friction, heat, radiation, contact allergens, and infection affect the severity of HHD disease and not the type of mutation.^3,9

Generalization of HHD is likely caused by nonspecific triggers in an already genetically disturbed epidermis.¹⁰ Interrupted epithelial function exposes skin to infections that exacerbate the underlying disease. Superimposing bacterial infections are commonly reported in HHD. Staphylococcus, Streptococcus, and Candida species colonize the skin and aggravate the disease.¹¹ Much less commonly, HSV superinfection can complicate HHD.^3-7 No data are currently available about the frequency or incidence of Herpesviridae in HHD.⁷ Some studies suggest that UVB light therapy can be an exacerbating factor in DAR and some but not all HHD patients,^12,13 while other case reports^14,15 document clinically improved responses using phototherapy for patients with HHD. Clinicians should remain suspicious and evaluate for HSV infection in refractory or sudden exacerbation of HHD.⁷ Furthermore, coexistent psoriasis and HHD also is a rare entity but has been described,⁸ which illustrates the importance of not attributing all skin manifestations to a previously diagnosed disorder but instead keeping an open mind in case new dermatologic conditions present themselves at a later time.

We present a rare case of erythrodermic HHD and coexistent psoriasis with HSV superinfection. We hope to draw awareness to this association of generalized HHD with both HSV and psoriasis to help clinicians make the correct diagnosis promptly in similar cases in the future.

To the Editor:

Hailey-Hailey disease (HHD), also known as benign familial pemphigus, is an uncommon autosomal-dominant skin disease.¹ Defects in the ATPase type 2C member 1 gene, ATP2C1, result in abnormal intracellular epidermal adherence, and patients experience recurring blisters in skin folds. Longitudinal white streaks of the fingernails also may be present.¹ The illness does not appear until puberty and is heightened by the second or third decade of life. Family history often suggests the presence of disease.² Misdiagnosis of HHD occurs because of a wide spectrum of presentations. The presence of superimposed infections and carcinomas may both obscure and exacerbate this disease.²

Herpes simplex viruse types 1 and 2 (HSV-1 and HSV-2) are DNA viruses that cause common recurrent diseases. Usually, HSV-1 is associated with infection of the mouth and HSV-2 is associated with infection of the genitalia.³ Longitudinal cutaneous lesions manifest as grouped vesicles on an erythematous base. Tzanck smear of herpetic vesicles will reveal the presence of multinucleated giant cells. A direct fluorescent antibody technique also may be used to confirm the diagnosis.³

Erythrodermic HHD disease is a rare condition; moreover, there are only a few reported cases with coexistence of HHD and HSV in the literature.^3-6 We report a rare presentation of erythrodermic HHD and coexistent psoriasis with HSV superinfection.

A 69-year-old man presented to an outpatient dermatology clinic for evaluation and treatment of a rash on the scalp, face, back, and lower legs. The patient confirmed a dandruff diagnosis on the scalp and face as well as psoriasis on the trunk and extremities for the last 45 years. He described a history of successful treatment with topical agents and UV light therapy. A family history revealed that the patient’s father and 1 of 2 siblings had a similar rash and “skin problems.” The patient had a medical history of thyroid cancer treated with radiation treatment and a partial thyroidectomy 35 years prior to the current presentation as well as incompletely treated chronic hepatitis C.

A search of medical records revealed a punch biopsy from the posterior neck that demonstrated an acantholytic dyskeratosis with suprabasal acantholysis. Clinicians were unable to differentiate if it was Darier disease (DAR) or HHD. Treatment of the patient’s seborrheic dermatitis and acantholytic disorder was successful at that time with ketoconazole shampoo, ketoconazole cream, desonide cream, and triamcinolone cream. The patient remained stable for 5 years before presenting again to the dermatology clinic for worsening rash despite topical therapies.

At the current presentation, physical examination at the outpatient dermatology clinic revealed few scaly, erythematous, eroded papules distributed on the mid-back; erythematous greasy scaling on the scalp, face, and chest; and pink scaly plaques with white-silvery scale on the anterior lower legs. Histopathology of a specimen from the right mid-back demonstrated acantholysis with suprabasal clefting, hyperkeratosis, and parakeratosis with no dyskeratotic cells identified. The pathologic differential diagnosis included primary acantholytic processes including Grover disease, DAR, HHD, and pemphigus. Pathology from the right shin demonstrated acanthosis, confluent parakeratosis with associated decreased granular cell layer and collections of neutrophils within the stratum corneum, spongiosis, and superficial dermal perivascular chronic inflammation with focal exocytosis and dilated blood vessels in the papillary dermis. The clinical and pathological diagnosis on the lower legs was consistent with psoriasis. Diagnoses of seborrheic dermatitis, psoriasis on the lower legs, and HHD vs DAR on the back and chest were made. The patient was instructed to continue ketoconazole shampoo, ketoconazole cream, and desonide for seborrheic dermatitis; fluocinonide ointment 0.05% to the lower legs for psoriasis; and triamcinolone cream and a bland moisturizer to the back and chest for HHD.

Over the ensuing months, the rash worsened with erythema and scaling affecting more than half of the body surface area. Topical corticosteroids and bland emollients resulted in minimal success. Biologics and acitretin were considered for the psoriasiform dermatitis but avoided due to the patient’s medical history of thyroid cancer and chronic hepatitis C infection. Because the patient described prior success with UV light therapy for psoriasis, he requested light therapy. A subsequent trial of narrowband UVB light therapy initially improved some of the psoriasiform dermatitis on the trunk and extremities; however, after 4 weeks of treatment, the patient described pain in some of the skin and felt he was burned by minimal exposure to light therapy on one particular visit, which caused him to stop light therapy.

Approximately 2 weeks later, the patient presented to the emergency department stating his psoriasis was infected; he was diagnosed with psoriasis with secondary cellulitis and received intravenous vancomycin and piperacillin-tazobactam, with bacterial cultures demonstrating Corynebacterium and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Some improvement was noted in the patient’s skin after antibiotics were initiated, but he continued to describe worsening “burning and pain” throughout the psoriasis lesions. The patient’s care was transferred to the Veterans Affairs hospital where a dermatology inpatient consultation was placed.

Our initial dermatologic examination revealed generalized scaly erythroderma on the neck, trunk, and extremities, sparing the face, palms, and soles (Figure 1). Multiple crusted and intact vesicles also were present overlying the erythematous plaques on the chest, back, and proximal extremities, most grouped in clusters. The patient endorsed new symptoms of pain and burning. Tzanck smear from the abdomen along with shave biopsies from the left flank and right abdomen were performed, and intravenous acyclovir was initiated immediately after these procedures.

Hailey-Hailey disease is characterized by recurrent episodes of erythema, blisters, and plaques localized to intertriginous and perianal areas.^1,2 Patients display a spectrum of lesions that vary in severity.⁸ Typical histologic examination reveals a dilapidated brick wall appearance. Pathology of well-developed lesions will show suprabasal acantholysis with minimal dyskeratosis.²

The generalized form of HHD is an extremely rare variant of the disease.¹⁰ Generalized HHD may resemble acute hypersensitivity reaction, erythema multiforme, and toxic epidermal necrolysis.¹ Chronic diseases, such as psoriasis (as in this patient), also may contribute to a clinically confusing picture.⁸ Hailey-Hailey disease and psoriasis are thought to occasionally koebnerize (isomorphic response) to areas of trauma.¹⁶ Our patient experienced widespread erythematous papules and plaques not restricted to skin folds. His skin lesions continued to worsen over several months progressing to erythroderma. The presence of suprabasal acantholysis in a dilapidated brick wall pattern, along with the patient’s history, prior pathology reports, clinical picture, and negative direct immunofluorescence and indirect immunofluorescence studies helped to confirm the diagnosis of erythrodermic HHD.

Hailey-Hailey disease is caused by heterozygous mutations in the ATP2C1 gene on chromosome 3q21-24 coding for a Golgi ATPase called SPCA1 (secretory pathway calcium/manganese-ATPase).⁹ Subsequent disturbances in cytosolic-Golgi calcium concentrations interfere with epidermal keratinocyte adherence resulting in acantholytic disease. Studies of interfamilial and intrafamilial mutations fail to pinpoint a common mutation pattern among patients with generalized phenotypes,⁹ which further supports theories that intrinsic or extrinsic factors such as friction, heat, radiation, contact allergens, and infection affect the severity of HHD disease and not the type of mutation.^3,9

Generalization of HHD is likely caused by nonspecific triggers in an already genetically disturbed epidermis.¹⁰ Interrupted epithelial function exposes skin to infections that exacerbate the underlying disease. Superimposing bacterial infections are commonly reported in HHD. Staphylococcus, Streptococcus, and Candida species colonize the skin and aggravate the disease.¹¹ Much less commonly, HSV superinfection can complicate HHD.^3-7 No data are currently available about the frequency or incidence of Herpesviridae in HHD.⁷ Some studies suggest that UVB light therapy can be an exacerbating factor in DAR and some but not all HHD patients,^12,13 while other case reports^14,15 document clinically improved responses using phototherapy for patients with HHD. Clinicians should remain suspicious and evaluate for HSV infection in refractory or sudden exacerbation of HHD.⁷ Furthermore, coexistent psoriasis and HHD also is a rare entity but has been described,⁸ which illustrates the importance of not attributing all skin manifestations to a previously diagnosed disorder but instead keeping an open mind in case new dermatologic conditions present themselves at a later time.

We present a rare case of erythrodermic HHD and coexistent psoriasis with HSV superinfection. We hope to draw awareness to this association of generalized HHD with both HSV and psoriasis to help clinicians make the correct diagnosis promptly in similar cases in the future.

Topical medication is a mainstay in the treatment of dermatologic conditions. Adherence to medication regimens can be challenging in patients requiring long-term topical treatment, and nonadherence is multifactorial. A major modifiable contributing factor is patient dissatisfaction with the vehicle used. Medications often have options for different topical preparations. Therefore, it is important to consider patient preference when prescribing topical treatments to maximize adherence, ensure patient satisfaction, and optimize outcomes.

We hypothesized that notable differences exist among demographic groups regarding preference for topical vehicles. Little research has been conducted to delineate trends. This study aimed to identify variations in preference for creams, lotions, and ointments by age, gender, and ethnicity.

Methods

Data were collected through surveys distributed to all patients seen at the Truman Medical Center University Health Dermatology Clinic in Kansas City, Missouri, between September 2018 and June 2019. The study was approved by the University of Missouri Kansas City institutional review board. An estimated response rate of 95% was achieved. Each patient was informed that the survey was voluntary and anonymous, and declining to complete the survey had no effect on the care provided. Each patient completed only 1 survey and returned it to a collection box before departing from clinic.

In the survey, patients provided demographic information, including age, gender, and ethnicity. Age groups included patients younger than 40 years, 40 to 60 years, and older than 60 years. Gender groups included male and female. Ethnicity included white, black, Hispanic/Latino, and Asian/Pacific Islander or other. Patients then chose 1 of 3 options for topical vehicle preference: cream, lotion, or ointment. Each of these options was accompanied by a brief description of the vehicle, a photograph, and examples of common commercial products to aid in decision-making. The expected values were calculated based on a probability distribution under the assumption that variables have no association. Therefore, the discrepancy between the expected value and the observed value was used to describe the significance of the association between variables. 

Data were analyzed using χ² tests with the aid of a statistician. P<.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

A total of 404 surveys were collected and recorded. Data showed statistically significant trends in each demographic parameter.

Age
First, we analyzed differences in preference based on age (Table 1). Of 404 patients, 163 were younger than 40 years, 171 were aged 40 to 60 years, and 70 were older than 60 years. Patients younger than 40 years preferred lotion (68 vs 46.0 expected). Patients aged 40 to 60 years showed preference for cream (83 vs 76.6 expected) and ointment (56 vs 46.1 expected). Patients older than 60 years preferred cream (41 vs 31.4 expected). These findings were statistically significant (P<.0001).

Comment

Topical medication is a mainstay of dermatologic therapy. Many topical preparations (or vehicles) exist, including ointments, creams, lotions, gels, solutions, and foams. Vehicle type not only influences bioavailability of the prepared medication but also has a notable impact on adherence and subsequent efficacy of the topical therapy.

Medication adherence is especially challenging in dermatology, as topical medications play a central role in treatment. Compliance with the medication regimen is paramount in treatment efficacy.¹ In dermatology, adherence with oral medications is higher than it is for topical medications²; various factors contribute to this difference. Compliance may decline with topical treatment due to time-consuming application, misunderstanding about the disease or the treatment regimen, frequency of administration, dissatisfaction with efficacy or appearance, and other variables.³

Other factors have been found to be important to topical medication adherence; younger age, female gender, marriage, employment, nonsmoking, nondrinking, and higher cognitive ability were associated with higher topical medication adherence.⁴ Our study focused on one factor: identification of demographic-specific preferences that might have implications on adherence within the studied demographic groups.

It is known that individual preferences exist when patients are choosing a topical preparation. However, a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms topical, vehicle, preparation, adherence, and preference revealed few studies that examined the preference for topical vehicle by age, gender, or ethnicity.

Existing studies have examined preferences for topical preparations based on specific disease states; this literature, albeit limited, demonstrates that preferences for topical product formulations vary among acne, atopic dermatitis, and plaque psoriasis patients.⁵ Other studies focus on specific patient populations or medications. For example, one study found that preference for corticosteroid vehicles among psoriasis patients was highly variable and choice of vehicle was critical to adherence.⁶ Another study highlighted differences in vehicle choice between younger and older age groups with psoriasis.⁷

Given the limited data overall, it was our goal to determine if any patterns of preference existed by age, gender, or ethnicity, regardless of disease state or indication for topical product. Importantly, over-the-counter products—cosmetic or otherwise—were not differentiated from prescribed topical medications. Our survey elucidated significant differences in preference by age, gender, and ethnicity.

Notable Findings
Regarding age, patients younger than 40 years preferred lotion, patients aged 40 to 60 years preferred cream, and patients older than 60 years preferred cream. Analysis based on gender showed that females preferred cream, and males preferred lotion and ointment. Analysis based on ethnicity most notably demonstrated a strong preference for ointment in black patients while showing preference for cream in white patients.

Potential Biases and Pitfalls
Limitations of this study included the small Hispanic/Latino and Asian/Pacific Islander populations surveyed, possible misunderstanding of the survey by respondents, and the potential for surveys being filled out twice by the same patient. Future surveys could be conducted over a longer period to increase the total sample size and to better characterize less-represented populations, such as Hispanic and Asian patients. To avoid repeat participation, the first question of the survey asked patients to indicate if they had previously completed the survey and instructed patients who had to return the repeat survey to the front desk.

To limit other errors, our survey included concise accessible descriptions of each preparation along with clear representative photographs and examples of common brands. Still, it is possible that some mistakes could have been made while patients filled out the survey based on comprehension deficits, oversight, or other reasons. It also is possible that preference might vary individually depending on the indication of the topical product—cosmetic or therapeutic—or even by anatomic site of application. Neither of these considerations was assessed specifically in our survey.

Conclusion

Our hope is that this study helps practitioners better anticipate topical preferences among patients with the ultimate goal of increasing medication adherence and patient outcomes. Nevertheless, although these general trends can provide helpful guidance, we acknowledge that individual preferences vary, and care should always be patient centered.

Acknowledgment
We thank An-Lin Cheng, PhD (Kansas City, Missouri), for assistance with the statistical analysis.

Topical medication is a mainstay in the treatment of dermatologic conditions. Adherence to medication regimens can be challenging in patients requiring long-term topical treatment, and nonadherence is multifactorial. A major modifiable contributing factor is patient dissatisfaction with the vehicle used. Medications often have options for different topical preparations. Therefore, it is important to consider patient preference when prescribing topical treatments to maximize adherence, ensure patient satisfaction, and optimize outcomes.

We hypothesized that notable differences exist among demographic groups regarding preference for topical vehicles. Little research has been conducted to delineate trends. This study aimed to identify variations in preference for creams, lotions, and ointments by age, gender, and ethnicity.

Methods

Data were collected through surveys distributed to all patients seen at the Truman Medical Center University Health Dermatology Clinic in Kansas City, Missouri, between September 2018 and June 2019. The study was approved by the University of Missouri Kansas City institutional review board. An estimated response rate of 95% was achieved. Each patient was informed that the survey was voluntary and anonymous, and declining to complete the survey had no effect on the care provided. Each patient completed only 1 survey and returned it to a collection box before departing from clinic.

In the survey, patients provided demographic information, including age, gender, and ethnicity. Age groups included patients younger than 40 years, 40 to 60 years, and older than 60 years. Gender groups included male and female. Ethnicity included white, black, Hispanic/Latino, and Asian/Pacific Islander or other. Patients then chose 1 of 3 options for topical vehicle preference: cream, lotion, or ointment. Each of these options was accompanied by a brief description of the vehicle, a photograph, and examples of common commercial products to aid in decision-making. The expected values were calculated based on a probability distribution under the assumption that variables have no association. Therefore, the discrepancy between the expected value and the observed value was used to describe the significance of the association between variables. 

Data were analyzed using χ² tests with the aid of a statistician. P<.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

A total of 404 surveys were collected and recorded. Data showed statistically significant trends in each demographic parameter.

Age
First, we analyzed differences in preference based on age (Table 1). Of 404 patients, 163 were younger than 40 years, 171 were aged 40 to 60 years, and 70 were older than 60 years. Patients younger than 40 years preferred lotion (68 vs 46.0 expected). Patients aged 40 to 60 years showed preference for cream (83 vs 76.6 expected) and ointment (56 vs 46.1 expected). Patients older than 60 years preferred cream (41 vs 31.4 expected). These findings were statistically significant (P<.0001).

Comment

Topical medication is a mainstay of dermatologic therapy. Many topical preparations (or vehicles) exist, including ointments, creams, lotions, gels, solutions, and foams. Vehicle type not only influences bioavailability of the prepared medication but also has a notable impact on adherence and subsequent efficacy of the topical therapy.

Medication adherence is especially challenging in dermatology, as topical medications play a central role in treatment. Compliance with the medication regimen is paramount in treatment efficacy.¹ In dermatology, adherence with oral medications is higher than it is for topical medications²; various factors contribute to this difference. Compliance may decline with topical treatment due to time-consuming application, misunderstanding about the disease or the treatment regimen, frequency of administration, dissatisfaction with efficacy or appearance, and other variables.³

Other factors have been found to be important to topical medication adherence; younger age, female gender, marriage, employment, nonsmoking, nondrinking, and higher cognitive ability were associated with higher topical medication adherence.⁴ Our study focused on one factor: identification of demographic-specific preferences that might have implications on adherence within the studied demographic groups.

It is known that individual preferences exist when patients are choosing a topical preparation. However, a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms topical, vehicle, preparation, adherence, and preference revealed few studies that examined the preference for topical vehicle by age, gender, or ethnicity.

Existing studies have examined preferences for topical preparations based on specific disease states; this literature, albeit limited, demonstrates that preferences for topical product formulations vary among acne, atopic dermatitis, and plaque psoriasis patients.⁵ Other studies focus on specific patient populations or medications. For example, one study found that preference for corticosteroid vehicles among psoriasis patients was highly variable and choice of vehicle was critical to adherence.⁶ Another study highlighted differences in vehicle choice between younger and older age groups with psoriasis.⁷

Given the limited data overall, it was our goal to determine if any patterns of preference existed by age, gender, or ethnicity, regardless of disease state or indication for topical product. Importantly, over-the-counter products—cosmetic or otherwise—were not differentiated from prescribed topical medications. Our survey elucidated significant differences in preference by age, gender, and ethnicity.

Notable Findings
Regarding age, patients younger than 40 years preferred lotion, patients aged 40 to 60 years preferred cream, and patients older than 60 years preferred cream. Analysis based on gender showed that females preferred cream, and males preferred lotion and ointment. Analysis based on ethnicity most notably demonstrated a strong preference for ointment in black patients while showing preference for cream in white patients.

Potential Biases and Pitfalls
Limitations of this study included the small Hispanic/Latino and Asian/Pacific Islander populations surveyed, possible misunderstanding of the survey by respondents, and the potential for surveys being filled out twice by the same patient. Future surveys could be conducted over a longer period to increase the total sample size and to better characterize less-represented populations, such as Hispanic and Asian patients. To avoid repeat participation, the first question of the survey asked patients to indicate if they had previously completed the survey and instructed patients who had to return the repeat survey to the front desk.

To limit other errors, our survey included concise accessible descriptions of each preparation along with clear representative photographs and examples of common brands. Still, it is possible that some mistakes could have been made while patients filled out the survey based on comprehension deficits, oversight, or other reasons. It also is possible that preference might vary individually depending on the indication of the topical product—cosmetic or therapeutic—or even by anatomic site of application. Neither of these considerations was assessed specifically in our survey.

Conclusion

Our hope is that this study helps practitioners better anticipate topical preferences among patients with the ultimate goal of increasing medication adherence and patient outcomes. Nevertheless, although these general trends can provide helpful guidance, we acknowledge that individual preferences vary, and care should always be patient centered.

Acknowledgment
We thank An-Lin Cheng, PhD (Kansas City, Missouri), for assistance with the statistical analysis.

Topical medication is a mainstay in the treatment of dermatologic conditions. Adherence to medication regimens can be challenging in patients requiring long-term topical treatment, and nonadherence is multifactorial. A major modifiable contributing factor is patient dissatisfaction with the vehicle used. Medications often have options for different topical preparations. Therefore, it is important to consider patient preference when prescribing topical treatments to maximize adherence, ensure patient satisfaction, and optimize outcomes.

We hypothesized that notable differences exist among demographic groups regarding preference for topical vehicles. Little research has been conducted to delineate trends. This study aimed to identify variations in preference for creams, lotions, and ointments by age, gender, and ethnicity.

Methods

Data were collected through surveys distributed to all patients seen at the Truman Medical Center University Health Dermatology Clinic in Kansas City, Missouri, between September 2018 and June 2019. The study was approved by the University of Missouri Kansas City institutional review board. An estimated response rate of 95% was achieved. Each patient was informed that the survey was voluntary and anonymous, and declining to complete the survey had no effect on the care provided. Each patient completed only 1 survey and returned it to a collection box before departing from clinic.

In the survey, patients provided demographic information, including age, gender, and ethnicity. Age groups included patients younger than 40 years, 40 to 60 years, and older than 60 years. Gender groups included male and female. Ethnicity included white, black, Hispanic/Latino, and Asian/Pacific Islander or other. Patients then chose 1 of 3 options for topical vehicle preference: cream, lotion, or ointment. Each of these options was accompanied by a brief description of the vehicle, a photograph, and examples of common commercial products to aid in decision-making. The expected values were calculated based on a probability distribution under the assumption that variables have no association. Therefore, the discrepancy between the expected value and the observed value was used to describe the significance of the association between variables. 

Data were analyzed using χ² tests with the aid of a statistician. P<.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

A total of 404 surveys were collected and recorded. Data showed statistically significant trends in each demographic parameter.

Age
First, we analyzed differences in preference based on age (Table 1). Of 404 patients, 163 were younger than 40 years, 171 were aged 40 to 60 years, and 70 were older than 60 years. Patients younger than 40 years preferred lotion (68 vs 46.0 expected). Patients aged 40 to 60 years showed preference for cream (83 vs 76.6 expected) and ointment (56 vs 46.1 expected). Patients older than 60 years preferred cream (41 vs 31.4 expected). These findings were statistically significant (P<.0001).

Comment

Topical medication is a mainstay of dermatologic therapy. Many topical preparations (or vehicles) exist, including ointments, creams, lotions, gels, solutions, and foams. Vehicle type not only influences bioavailability of the prepared medication but also has a notable impact on adherence and subsequent efficacy of the topical therapy.

Medication adherence is especially challenging in dermatology, as topical medications play a central role in treatment. Compliance with the medication regimen is paramount in treatment efficacy.¹ In dermatology, adherence with oral medications is higher than it is for topical medications²; various factors contribute to this difference. Compliance may decline with topical treatment due to time-consuming application, misunderstanding about the disease or the treatment regimen, frequency of administration, dissatisfaction with efficacy or appearance, and other variables.³

Other factors have been found to be important to topical medication adherence; younger age, female gender, marriage, employment, nonsmoking, nondrinking, and higher cognitive ability were associated with higher topical medication adherence.⁴ Our study focused on one factor: identification of demographic-specific preferences that might have implications on adherence within the studied demographic groups.

It is known that individual preferences exist when patients are choosing a topical preparation. However, a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms topical, vehicle, preparation, adherence, and preference revealed few studies that examined the preference for topical vehicle by age, gender, or ethnicity.

Existing studies have examined preferences for topical preparations based on specific disease states; this literature, albeit limited, demonstrates that preferences for topical product formulations vary among acne, atopic dermatitis, and plaque psoriasis patients.⁵ Other studies focus on specific patient populations or medications. For example, one study found that preference for corticosteroid vehicles among psoriasis patients was highly variable and choice of vehicle was critical to adherence.⁶ Another study highlighted differences in vehicle choice between younger and older age groups with psoriasis.⁷

Given the limited data overall, it was our goal to determine if any patterns of preference existed by age, gender, or ethnicity, regardless of disease state or indication for topical product. Importantly, over-the-counter products—cosmetic or otherwise—were not differentiated from prescribed topical medications. Our survey elucidated significant differences in preference by age, gender, and ethnicity.

Notable Findings
Regarding age, patients younger than 40 years preferred lotion, patients aged 40 to 60 years preferred cream, and patients older than 60 years preferred cream. Analysis based on gender showed that females preferred cream, and males preferred lotion and ointment. Analysis based on ethnicity most notably demonstrated a strong preference for ointment in black patients while showing preference for cream in white patients.

Potential Biases and Pitfalls
Limitations of this study included the small Hispanic/Latino and Asian/Pacific Islander populations surveyed, possible misunderstanding of the survey by respondents, and the potential for surveys being filled out twice by the same patient. Future surveys could be conducted over a longer period to increase the total sample size and to better characterize less-represented populations, such as Hispanic and Asian patients. To avoid repeat participation, the first question of the survey asked patients to indicate if they had previously completed the survey and instructed patients who had to return the repeat survey to the front desk.

To limit other errors, our survey included concise accessible descriptions of each preparation along with clear representative photographs and examples of common brands. Still, it is possible that some mistakes could have been made while patients filled out the survey based on comprehension deficits, oversight, or other reasons. It also is possible that preference might vary individually depending on the indication of the topical product—cosmetic or therapeutic—or even by anatomic site of application. Neither of these considerations was assessed specifically in our survey.

Conclusion

Our hope is that this study helps practitioners better anticipate topical preferences among patients with the ultimate goal of increasing medication adherence and patient outcomes. Nevertheless, although these general trends can provide helpful guidance, we acknowledge that individual preferences vary, and care should always be patient centered.

Acknowledgment
We thank An-Lin Cheng, PhD (Kansas City, Missouri), for assistance with the statistical analysis.